Planning Commission on 2025-08-06 9:00 AM

25-4, the PRWC receiving facility cases. So just for the audience, if you're here for those two cases highlighting yellow on the bottom of your screens, those will not be heard today, although they were published. So just to give you fair warning. That said, any other items to discuss? Yes, sir. I will declare that for item five, I will have a conflict of interest and will be filing the appropriate forms. With that, any other items discussed? If not, we'll go ahead and close the workshop and we'll re-adjourn at 9 a.m. for our Planning Commission meeting. I do have it. All right, we're going to go ahead and call the meeting to order. Roll call, please. Robert Beltram. Present. David Dalton. Present. Earl Bishop, I'm here. Brooke Agnini. Here. Mike Hickman. Here. Penny Heath. Here. Mike Schmidt. Here. And alternate Linda Schultz. Here. And alternate Kevin Updike. Here. Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum. Thank you. All right, with that, let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The States and America, which is the Republic, which stands for one nation under God. Okay, the meeting minutes were distributed to the board. Are there any questions or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval of the meeting minutes from June 9th and July 9th. Do we need two separate motions? June 4th. I'm sorry, June 4th and July 9th. They can both be approved in one motion. So is your motion for both? Absolutely. Just for clarity, thank you. All right, all in favor? Aye. All right. Now we'll talk a little bit about some of the changes with the agenda. Go ahead, Mr. Nance. Two cases have been advertised but have been continued indefinitely. These are LDC-PAS 2025-19 and LDC-D 2025-4, the PRWC receiving facility cases. They will need to be re-advertised. Okay. So if you're here for either of those two cases highlighted in yellow at the bottom of your screens there, those will not be heard today, so you won't have to sit around or wait. With that said, I'm going to ask everyone to please silence your cell phones, and I'll turn the floor over to our attorney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I'll now go over the general procedures for today's meeting. The Land Development Case Planner will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which were not already provided to the Planning Commission in their packets. The Case Planner will then present their staff report and recommendation. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in. The applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak. The applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony. The Planning Commission will then discuss the case and vote on the matter. However, expedited hearing procedures may be used by the Planning Commission under the following circumstances. One, there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing. Two, the recommendation of the Office of Land Development is for approval. And three, all of the Commission members present wish to use this procedure. With regard to Level 3 reviews, pursuant to Section 906 of the Polk County Land Development Code, the Planning Commission may approve the applicant's request, deny the applicant's request, or approve the request with additional conditions. Pursuant to Section 921 of the Land Development Code, the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners by filing a formal application with the Land Development Division and paying the application fee. The appeal must be filed with the Land Development Division within seven calendar days of the Planning Commission hearing. The Board of County Commissioners shall set a date and time for a de novo hearing. If a party decides to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to any Level 3 review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. The record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing. Each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise their right of appeal in order to preserve that right. A party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter. Please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the Board of County Commissioners prior to that de novo hearing. If one party withdraws their appeal and another party failed to file an appeal, there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the Board of County Commissioners. The application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal. Please further be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the Board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application, and they must waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Regarding level four reviews, pursuant to section 907 of the Land Development Code, the Planning Commission's decision is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date. Regarding ex parte communication, the Planning Commission receives numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the commission regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized oppositions, and the public may request the commission to disclose any ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communications or site visits. Unless a commission member recuses themself, he or she has determined that they are able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial, competent evidence in the record. Mr. Chair, would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases? Please. Thank you. If you intend to address the Planning Commission on any case today, please stand up, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. This applies to all cases, so if you believe you may speak today, please be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide to the Planning Commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. I'll now go over some final housekeeping items before we get started. First, we need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses. They have all been accepted as experts in the past. However, if you would like to voir dire any of them as to their background or expertise, then you may do so at this time. Seeing none, without any opposition to their admission, can we please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Secondly, if we have any experts of applicants, then you may tender them at this time, or you may wait until your case is called. Okay? And finally, the Planning Commission must review quasi-judicial land use cases. Quasi-judicial means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner. The Commission's review is limited to two areas, consistency and compatibility. Regarding consistency, the Commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land development code. The staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria, as well as a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria. Regarding compatibility, the Commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. The Commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing, both written and oral. By law, the only evidence the Commission may consider is competent substantial evidence, which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The following items are competent substantial evidence, evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria, staff reports, and staff presentations. Citizen testimony may be competent substantial evidence, so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise, such as aesthetic and compatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear, or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development criteria are not competent substantial evidence. For example, fear that the project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic, engineering, drainage, wetland impacts, school, and utility capacity, light and noise pollution, or the application's impact on property values, citizen testimony is not competent substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. That concludes my comments. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Go ahead, staff, first case, please. And I guess before we get started, are we covered with the PGTV thing? Is that all set? I see this TV's not on. That's the only reason I'm asking. I think we're good. Okay. Well, let's go ahead and proceed. All right. First on the agenda is LDSP 2025-21, the Cottonwood Sign Plan, and Andrew Grahowski is your planner. Good morning. Andrew Grahowski with Land Development, presenting LDSP 2025-1, the Cottonwood Plaza Sign Plan. The applicant is requesting a signage plan for a potential retail and commercial plaza known as Cottonwood Corner. The plan consists of one 30-foot tall, 260-square-foot plaza sign, one 10-foot tall, 45-square-foot multi-tenant monument sign, and six out-parcel monument signs, which are 10 feet tall. On July 22nd, 30 mailers were sent to area property owners. Five boards were posted on July 22nd. An illegal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on July 23rd with no responses from the public. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Chair, move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. Do we have a second? Second. Before we take our vote, is anyone here to speak for or against this case? Please raise your hand. Then the applicant. Okay. With that, we have a motion and a second expedite. All in favor from the commission? Aye. Aye. Please expedite. So the applicant plans to have six out-parcels fronting U.S. Highway 27, each with their own monument signage. This plan allows the flexibility to have these out-parcels advertised on the multi-tenant monument sign to the south in green. And then just here are a few sign plan designs that the applicant has provided. So the plan is compatible with surrounding uses and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. And with that, I will stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Are there six ingress, egress for those? Are there six points of ingress, egress off of 27 for those six signs? No, sir. Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. Seeing none, we are under expedited procedures. Does the applicant have anything he'd like to add to the testimony? I see you shaking your head no. With that, I'll take the item back to the board for discussion and or motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, Mr. Bishop, please. Robert Beltram. For the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Earl Bishop, I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Randy Heath. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, the motion passes. Thank you very much. Item number two, Mr. Nance. All right. Number two is LDCT 2025-12. This is an applicant initiated LDCT text amendment for mobile home sales. This is a level four review with board dates scheduled for September 2nd and September 16th. And Kyle Rogus is your planner. Good morning. Kyle Rogus with Land Development presenting LDCT 2025-12 mobile home sales, LDCT text amendment. This is an applicant initiated LDC text amendment to Chapter 4, Section 401.08, Table 401-0801, Use Table for the Southeast Polk Selected Area Plan, Retail Home Sales Offsite as a Permitted Use in the Industrial Land Use District. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winterhaven Sun News on June 25th. We have received no response from the public. Staff finds this request compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. The purpose of the Industrial Land Use District is to provide areas for general manufacturing, processing, and distribution of goods. General commercial uses necessary to support the industrial area are also permitted. Retail home sales offsite is the display and sale of site-built homes, mobile homes, manufactured, or modular homes. Therefore, it falls in line with the distribution and manufacturing of such homes in the industrial district. Retail home sales offsite is already allowed in other districts throughout the county and is permitted as a permitted use in Table 2.1 of the Land Development Code in the Industrial Land Use District. This is what we will be changing. Retail home sales offsite will be allowed in the following land use districts in the Southeast Polk Selected Area Plan. This request also falls in line with the demand for mobile homes as affordable housing within the county based on the increased demand. The county approved ordinance number 2025-025 on May 6, 2025 to allow mobile homes by right and subdivision plans recorded prior to May 20, 1971. Again, this is an applicant-initiated LDC text amendment to amend Chapter 4, Section 40108, Table 4010801, Use Table for the Southeast Polk Selected Area Plan, to add retail home sales offsite as a permitted use in the Industrial Land Use District. Again, this is already permitted use in the Industrial Land Use District outside the Southeast Polk Selected Area Plan. Staff finds this request compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. And with that, I will stand for questions. Any questions for staff from the board? Seeing none, we'll invite the applicant to come forward. Either one. Good morning. Annie Barnes, Stearns-Weaver-Miller. I'm an associate planner, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Staff did a wonderful job presenting this application. We are available for any questions you might have. Thank you very much. All right. With that, we'll open the floor for any public comment. Anyone here to speak for or against this case, please step forward. All right. Seeing none, we're going to go ahead and close the public portion of the meeting, and we're back to the applicant for any final comments. You're good. With that, we'll bring the item back to the board for discussion and or motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve LDCT 2025-12. I go. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltram. I'm for the motion. David Dalton. I'm for the motion. I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. I'm for the motion. Mike Hickman. I'm for the motion. Brittany Heath. I'm for the motion. Mike Schmidt. I'm for the motion. Mr. Chairman, the motion passes. Thank you very much. Mr. Niggins, item number three, please. All right. Next up is LDCT 2025-16. This is an applicant-initiated LDCT tax amendment for heavy machinery, equipment, sales, and services in the Juanita neighborhood plan. And Kyle Rogus is your planner. Good morning. Kyle Rogus with Land Development again, presenting LDCT 2025-16, the heavy machinery, equipment, sales, and services, LDC text amendment. This is an applicant-initiated LDC text amendment to Chapter 4, Section 403.01.C, Table 4, the Juanita Neighborhood Plan Use Table, to add heavy machinery, equipment, sales, and services as a conditional use in the Industrial Land Use District. The legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winderhaven Sun News on June 23rd. We have received no response from the public. Staff finds this request compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Chairman, move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. Anyone here to speak for or against this case? Do we have a second to expedite? All right, go ahead. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Please expedite. So again, this is an applicant-initiated LDC text amendment. This is already a permitted use in the Industrial District within three other selected area plans and is a conditional use in the Southeast Polk Selected Area Plan. Staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. And with that, I will stand for questions. Any further questions for staff? Seeing none, as the applicant, we are under expedite procedures. Name and address for the record, please. Yes, sir. Good morning. For the record, Shelton Rice. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Peterson & Myers, address 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. We agree with staff. We appreciate their work on this project. We believe it's consistent with your comprehensive plan and land development code. So we respectfully request a favorable vote. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We are under expedite procedures. No one is here to speak for or against this case. Seeing none, I'll take the item back to the board for a motion or discussion. Mr. Chair, I'm going to approve LDCT 2025-16. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltram. For the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Earl Bishop. I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Higman. Brent Heath. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, the motion passes. Thank you. And I want to commend staff for doing a great job on expediting and giving the details. Thank you. All right. Number four on the agenda is LDCU 2025-9, the C-4 towers, conditional use. And Andrew Grohowski is your planner. Good morning. Good morning again. Andrew Grohowski with Land Development presenting LDCU 2025-9. This is a conditional use request on behalf of the applicant to construct a 160-foot monopole communication tower capable of supplying four carriers within a residential suburban land use district. On July 22nd, 14 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on July 22nd. And a legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winterhaven Sun on July 23rd with no response from the public. Staff recommends approval. So the subject site is located at 6869 Black Road, east of Lake Mabel Loop Road, north of Canal Road and Lake Pierce, west of Watkins Road, south of Huggins Road, east of the city of Dundee, and section 31, township 28, range 28. The subject property is located in the residential suburban land use district on approximately 9.79 acres. Lake Pierce is directly to the south with Dundee's city limits to the west. Surrounding land consists of large single-family tracts and vacant property with subdivisions dotting the Lake Pierce shoreline. The proposed tower will be located to the west of an existing single-family residence, which was constructed in 2005. The closest airports in the vicinity are the Cherry Pockets Fish Camp Seaplane Base, which is approximately 0.43 miles south. The southerly airport to the north is approximately 0.92 miles from the subject site. Discussions with Polk TPO determined that no airport obstruction permit is required to be filed with the county's joint airport zoning board. The applicant has filed a notice with the FAA, and future correspondence with the FAA will be necessary for construction of the tower. Monopole towers create no burdens on public services and provide critical cellular coverage to the surrounding residences, workers, and first responders. Search ring analysis determined there were no existing 120-foot or higher structures within a one-mile service radius. The proposed monopole communications tower should not cause any disruptive interference with any transmitter or receiver near the communication structure. And here's the applicant's boundary survey in relation to the subject property. The tower will access Black Road through a recorded easement on the southern portion of the property. So the greatest incompatibility with communication towers is predominantly visual, especially around the base of the tower. And the tower must be set back at least one times the distance of the height from any off-site residential property line. The tower meets these setback requirements outlined in Section 303 of the LDC, with the nearest residential property line 160 feet to the south, and the closest residential structure is approximately 277 feet to the north. The land development code also requires landscaping around the base of the tower to offset any visual concerns, which the applicant has provided and is shown here. Here's a photo looking west at the front of the property. The tower will be located behind the residence. And then there's another photo looking at the subject site's rear yard with the approximate tower location. So staff recommends approval. Telecommunication towers create no burdens on public infrastructure. County residents are more reliant now than ever on technologies that require cellular coverage. It is imperative that these towers are in residential areas to provide essential connections to critical government services, including fire and EMS, as well as for daily life and commercial businesses. The tower meets the relevant criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Staff finds no incompatibility with this request. And with that, I thank you and stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? All right. Seeing none, we'll invite the applicant to please come forward. Name an address, please, for the record. Certainly. Good morning. Mary Solick, 121 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, Florida. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, C4 Towers. Your staff has done a very thorough job of analyzing the application and giving you all of the relevant details. May I answer any questions for you? We would ask for your approval. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. All right. We are now opening up the public portion of this meeting. Is anyone here to speak for or against this case? Please step forward. Seeing none, we're going to go ahead and close the public portion. I'm assuming the applicant is good with everything. Good. With that, we'll bring the item back to the board for discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chair, I'm going to approve LDCU 2025-9. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. For Beltram. For the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. For Bishop. I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. Against the motion. Mike Hickman. Benny Heath. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, the motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Nance. Next item, please. Thank you. Ian Nance with Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDCU 2025-11, a conditional use request by Polk County Utilities to allow a water treatment plant with a .75 million gallon ground storage tank and supporting facilities on property located south and west of Masterpiece Road, south of Timberland Road, north of Skipper Trail, south of Dundee, and north of Lake Wales, and section 17, township 29, range 28. For the record, three signs were posted July 21st, 12 mailers were sent to area property owners on July 22nd, and a legal ad was published on July 23rd. Staff has logged no response. Mr. Chairman, move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. Is anyone here in the audience to speak for or against this case? You're here to speak against it? Okay. Thank you. So we cannot go with expedited procedures. Thank you, sir. Continue, Mr. Nance. As shown here is the property on the future land use map southwest of Lake Pierce. It is in a residential suburban land use district, which requires plan and commission approval for Class III utilities, such as what is being proposed with this application. This is an arrow image showing some of the surrounding developments in existing potable water lines, which are in blue. This is kind of a classic residential suburban area with centralized wastewater, but no wastewater services amid sparse older residential developments. This receiving facility will blend alternative water supply water being provided by the Polk Regional Water Cooperative with raw water from a new Upper Floridian aquifer well to provide treated potable water across the eastern portion of this service area. Once constructed, this facility will be operated via a PCU supervisory control and data acquisition system from offsite, requiring only occasional visits for system cleaning and maintenance, but otherwise requires very little on-site manpower. The primary compatibility consideration here is the ground storage tank. It will be approximately 37 feet to the top of the aerators, well below the 50-foot height minimum in R.S. All structures will be at least 50 feet from the western and southern property lines in accordance with LDC compatibility standards. This facility will include multiple on-site structures, including an electrical building, treatment building, high-service pump station, and an emergency backup generator, as well as a subject tank. These mechanical components are specifically designed by the manufacturers to be placed in a residential setting to mitigate any noise pollution. Here's an overlay of the site plan on the property. It is taking up a little over two acres of the subject parcel. Type C landscaping will be provided where abutting residential properties and will incorporate existing vegetation where possible. Again, staff recommends approval, finding a proposed site plan compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. This facility will be rated for 1.63 million gallons per day of potable water, meeting projected future demands to 2045. PCU has also found that through system modeling that nearby Timberlake plant will be decommissioned once this new facility is operational, which will enable greater efficiency in the overall system. In short, this facility is critical for supplying potable water to the eastern regional utility service area. Thank you. I'll stand for questions. Any questions for staff? To be clear, this is a mixed plant. I'm sorry, second. This is a mixed plant. They're going to bring in the alternative water and blend it with the new raw water from the upper Floridian. And I heard right, the tank is 37 feet high? Yes, sir. What's the gallons of that? Any idea? 1,000 gallons? It's 0.75. I'm sorry? 70 feet diameter? Yes, sir. I tried to do the math last night and I didn't have the one critical. It's 7 feet in diameter. Any other questions for staff? With that, I see representatives from behind. I see no secondary containment on this. This is a very sparse site plan. I know this is only water, but what's the contingency for overflow or- I will let the gentleman from PCU here to explain that. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Tully, a name and address for the record when you get up here, please, sir. My name is Jim Tully, CIP manager for Polk County Utilities, 1011 Jim Keen Boulevard, Winnery in Florida. As you noted, this is a potable water facility, so we wouldn't necessarily design secondary containment like we would for hazardous materials, but typically these ground storage tanks are designed to drain to a stormwater pond you can see on the northern part of the parcel. So overflows or drainage issues in the tank itself would be directed to that facility and percolate back into the ground. But I don't see the topography draining that direction per se. East toward the lake? So there will be, you know, grading activities to accommodate stormwater runoff, so that grading that will happen as part of construction should- Isn't that something that will be addressed at level two? Yes, I still have the question. How far from the lake is it? You have that overall area? It's like about two or three hundred feet, but I'm just guessing them by the scale. Further than that? We are about 200 to 300 feet south of Masterpiece, so that driveway is a couple hundred feet. So just eyeballing it, it looks over a thousand feet. Any other questions from the board for staff? All right, this is a county project, so we've had the applicant speak as well. With that, I'll open the floor for public comment. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this case? Please step forward, name an address for the record, and you'll be provided three minutes for your public comment. John here. 3130 Masterpiece Road. My property is next door to this property that's being addressed here. I have questions about it. First thing is I disagree with that it agrees with the surrounding zoning, the land uses around it because everything around this thing is all R1 residents. So this is out of line, I think. Um, so I know it's going to be potable water. So the question is, um, where's the water going to come from and where is it going to go to? The applicant will have a chance to respond to any comments at the end after your testimony. Okay. Um, and I'm concerned about what, um, what impact is going to have on my property values since I'm very close since where the proposed site of this thing is going to be on the very south edge of the property, which makes it very close to my home. So I have a question about, uh, the noise involved here, how much noise is it going to be? So will it be, will it be an invasion of privacy of my home? So another question that I have is the, the letter that I was sent, um, it sent me a map here and the, it says the site location on my, my letter is nowhere near this location. The site location that it sent to me was up north of Lake Pierce. Do you have a copy of that on your screen? I imagine staff has a copy of the. Okay. You should have a copy of it. Yes, sir. So I would say that, uh, actually this letter that was sent out was actually false and misleading information. So it would have an impact on anyone receiving this. It could affect whether or not they come and participate in this. So. May we see the letter, sir, mind? Thank you, sir. Any questions? We'll get it back to you. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. They'll, they'll return that letter. Thank you, sir. So at this point, we'll let the applicant provide any further information. And I'll, I'll pass this around here. We need to have a, uh, Ms. Howard, take a look at this. The, uh, actual description of the, uh, site is correct. The map that's on here is to the north as a gentleman stands. I'll pass around. Is it, is it correct? The description of the property is correct here, but the map that we add on here, it's, is incorrect. Is it incorrect? Yes, sir. So how does that affect this case? Without seeing the nature of the incorrect, I mean, the conservative approach would be to re-advertise with the correct map. Um, I don't know if it's a star. I mean, I know, I know a lot of times in our staff reports we put a, a general description. But if it's clearly misleading, yeah. It looks like the map for the prior case. Okay, yep. Then I would say we should re-advertise to ensure, like, um, the gentleman said, that everyone has proper notice. Okay, so it sounds like we're going to have to hear something. I tend to agree because who, how many people know how to read a legal description? Do you, Merrill? Yeah, I do, but. I do, but. With, with that, the gentleman has shown up today and he did have some questions. I'm going to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to anything you'd like to. Sure. Uh, so, addressing some of the, the technical questions about this facility, uh, the source of the water, uh, as we described previously, there will be two sources of water that'll meet at this facility. Uh, one will be the alternative water supply coming from the Polk Regional Water Cooperative Southeast Wellfield. That'll involve a new pipeline that'll be constructed, uh, along Masterpiece Road. That'll tie into this facility. Uh, we also will be blending raw groundwater from a recently drilled well, uh, on this property. Um, and then where it will go is it will tie into existing, uh, potable water distribution system for our, our East Regional Service Area. Uh, there are existing water mains on, uh, Masterpiece Road, um, that go north and south on, uh, Timber Lane. Uh, so, as a part of this project, we'll be tying into those existing distribution systems. Uh, in regards to, you know, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and, uh, noise concerns, uh, you know, we have, uh, we, we are still in design. Uh, but we have, uh, pretty substantial experience designing facilities that, that coexist with, uh, you know, residential communities. So, we take into account, uh, landscape buffers as part of that design, uh, noise mitigation. Uh, you know, really the only things that would make any noise on this facility would be, uh, pumps, you know, electric vertical turbine pumps. They do have a, you know, a low hum to them when they, when they kick on. Um, um, there will be generators for backup power. Uh, those generators will kick on during emergency situations. Uh, they will be housed in sound attenuation devices to, to mitigate that, that noise. Um, that's, that's all I'm thinking. I'm certainly available to answer questions. Any questions from the... Chair, so why did you place it immediately next to that property line there, which this gentleman is next to? I mean, all the space that you have there could have been centrally located. So, Polk County purchased this property with the idea that there could be, uh, more than one use of it for county services. Um, the, this water production facility being one of them. Uh, so with that in mind, uh, we wanted to locate it such that it would be available for the county for other uses in the future. If... And what's the decibel level of the hum of your equipment? That I would have to get back to you on. Yeah, that, I would find that interesting because I would think that would be disturbing if I had a home and, you know, that was a constant hum near my house. Mr. Dalton. Mr. Chair, uh, on that note for staff, there's actually a decibel cap, correct? And that's, I believe, 65? That is correct. That's part of our conditional use criteria. Okay. Thank you. Property line 65. Okay. Thank you. 65 is pretty loud. I mean, if that was a constant noise adjacent to the hum. It's also pretty old code. The technology's approved quite a bit to, to all that hum, but Mr. Tulley can come up then. So, just... Is there any additional landscaping being provided along that southern property boundary? Yes, sir. The plan is to add type C landscaping. And I think I had a graphic here. And also try to keep as much of the natural vegetation as possible. And this is our most intense landscaping buffers. I sort of share Mr. Hickman's concern. I mean, it's like, you got enough property there, you could have maybe gotten it a little bit further away, at least from the property, not be as close to the residential neighbor. So, that raises some concern about, I guess, the plan used for the portion of the property that's going, that you, that there is a condition that, that it be maintained in the existing vegetation. But if there's future plans to do something there, that's going to further impact this. So, I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I think more could be done to accommodate or buffer from the joining residential property. If I may, too, part of this property, they're donating a large portion along Masterpiece Road for improvements here on Timber Lane. So, that's part of the use here. And another reason why it's kind of to the back, you know, it is a taller structure than would be around there. But this is still more benign than any other really government facility you put on there. I don't know if they, when they put a fire station or something there, it's going to be, which they're not planning to. But I'm just saying, as far as these uses are concerned for class three utilities, this is relatively benign. And just to add, and I was going to recuse myself from this, our firm is working on the design and layout of this facility. I will share with you that those tanks are partially buried, so you don't have a full 37 feet, per se, up top that you'll see. And then the idea is to use the infrastructure and maximize the property value for the county itself or any other facilities, including roadway expansions and other improvements to the area. So, that was kind of the thought of how it was laid out. And then as far as stormwater and all that is definitely acquired and taken care of when it comes to draining tanks and things like that. There are standards to be met. It's a 37-foot tank, but how, I mean, that's three and a half stories. Yeah, typically it's four to five feet in the ground. It's four to five feet? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I've got a question for staff. In all residential land use, and this is basically residential suburban is what this is going to be, you're allowed up to 65 decibels. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And that's a standard for all Class III utilities, which can cover a lot of ground. But any residential? Yes, sir. Okay. So? And these things exist all over the county next to residential from a noise perspective. Absolutely. Yeah, I'm just saying it. I don't think it'll be 65 decibels by any stretch of the imagination. But they could do that anywhere. Does that include? Yeah, but that runs constantly, though. No, correct. It turns out it's not for you. Does that include the emergency generator? Okay, so it's a per-use thing. I don't know. We just find, you know, we just see more and more noise pollution everywhere we go. So, I mean, I think some consideration needs to be given to that. Question. Does that include the emergency generator? I don't believe I've ever heard an emergency generator that was that quiet. It is in a soundproof enclosure. So, a sound-intenuated enclosure. So, it does meet all the requirements. Yes, sir. And that is noted in the staff report. That was part of the application by PCU. Again, if board members are interested, I'm sure staff would be happy to show you another one of these facilities in any of the residential locations. All right. With that, we did have a notification issue on this, or? If we need to continue, and that's up to legal counsel. I will say for the record, though, that this has been, these mailers were distributed to property owners within 500 feet of the property line, too. The map's wrong. So, what do we got to do from a legal standpoint? Yeah, I mean, if there's concern that, despite the notice being mailed to the correct parties, that the map was misleading in any way, we could entertain a motion to continue to allow staff to re-advertise with the correct location of the site. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second to continue this case. Which case? Till when? Till, do we have a date? September. You want to do the next? Is it September 10th? September 10th. September 10th. All right. So, we'll be back to do this one more time, September 10th, assuming we hit this motion passes. Can I have a roll call, please? Robert Viltram. For the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Robert Viltram. For the motion. Brooke Hignini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. For the motion. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, the motion passes. All right. So, the case will continue. All right. Number six on the agenda is LDCPAS 2024-7, the Goldenrod Lane CPA, and J.P. Sims is your planner. Good morning. During LDCPAS 2024-7, Goldenrod Lane CPA is a future land use request to change it from development of regional impact to residential low on a 17.1-acre parcel in the utility enclave area of the Point Siena master plan. Subject site is located south of Hemlock, west of Dogwood Road, east of Marigold Avenue, north of Bayberry Street, and east of the Haines City city limits. 162 mailers were sent out to property area owners on July 22nd, 2025. Even though it does say on there no response from public, I did actually speak with one person in opposition to the case, so I did want to make that noted. And there was one sign posted on July 18th, 2025. A legal ad was published in Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on July 23rd, 2025. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. That person that you spoke with that's opposed to it, are they here today? I believe so, yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, like I said, location-wise, we're going out to Point Siena, so we're going to be east of Marigold Avenue. You can see Lake Hatchinahaw over here to the east of the site, Lake Marion to the west. To give context, the site is completely surrounded by low-density residential. Upon closer inspection, so you can see that there is goldenrod that runs through the site, but it does dead end at a drainage swell on the east side of the site. It does not connect directly to Pansy Lane. And then up here in the northwest corner, you can see that there is a small wetland that's up here, but it is not part of the site, so this part will not be included in the future land use change. So, right now, it is development of regional impact, which at Point Siena Mash Plan was created in 1971 with vested rights that became available in 1983. So, what we're doing is changing from what was formerly a school site into low-density residential. So, for compatibility's sake, you can see, like I said, it's all low-density residential surrounding the site. When I did some base calculations for density, it was somewhere around between four to five dwelling units per acre in this area, and I believe the applicant is looking in the future to develop around 70 or so units, which would put them around four to five units per acre. So, density would be pretty equivalent to what's already there. So, we change it to residential low one. Like I said, that would allow for a density that is pretty consistent with what is already there. This is from the Point Siena Master Plan. So, this white-blue site up here is where the original school was designated to be, changing that to residential low one. As I said, everything around it is currently low-density residential, so it would be compatible. Upon performing a site visit, so as you saw, the road does run through the parcel, so it is to the north and south of the road. So, I want to make sure I pointed that out. So, it is undeveloped. There's nothing currently there. This is looking south at the south part of the parcel. I did want to indicate, I put it in the staff report, that upon site visit, I did see one gopher tortoise walking around, but I just want to make sure I pointed that out in the presentation. He ran away from a something quake. Well, there's none on the site now. Then, looking west back down Goldenrod towards where the residential development is, so my back is to where the dirt is typically located at the end of Goldenrod, because a lot of people apparently like to fill the road with dirt to cross over into Pansy Lane, which obviously is not an official use, but you'll see it in my next slide. So, like I said, you can see that there is dirt that is filled in right here that crosses from Goldenrod Lane over into Pansy Lane, and the site is still to the north and the south, and we're looking east on Goldenrod. So, I mean, I guess people just use that as an illegal cut through. Is that a citizen speed bump? Might as well be. So, the infrastructure, as far as what is being asked for, is actually less intense than the school use would have been. So, using institutional calculations, water and sewer is actually going to be less intense than it would have been before, same with traffic. Now, as far as the schools are concerned, two of the three schools that are zoned for this site are over capacity. However, this is the future land use change, so nothing is being constructed right now. That mitigation will have to take place when development plans are received. Do you know if the site was ever evaluated for a school? I'm just curious. To our knowledge, I don't believe that site was ever evaluated for actual development. Even based off today's, the district's current prototype models, that site would be very limiting and what prototypes could even fit on there. Furthermore, the road that bifurcates that property alone would also be in violation of some state requirements as well. And I did want to provide, so the applicant did give us a letter from Toho Water Authority showing that there is available connection capacity for water, sewer, and reuse. So, I know that on prior, I put Toho Water Authority for water and sewer. So, I want to make sure that you are aware that there is a letter that's showing that they do claim that this parcel is within their service area. So, justification for approval, like I said before, the development of regional impact was created a long time ago with a school site originally designated for the parcel. Changing it to residential low one is a compatible use as the site is already surrounded by low density residential. Golden Rod is a local road, but it does dead end at a drainage swell on the east side of the property. Local roads, as we know, are acceptable for residential developments and it is going to be serviced by Toho for water and sewer. Change of future land use would allow for the construction of residential uses, which, like I said before, I believe the applicant is looking to get somewhere around 70 units for that total site. And the change is compatible, or is consistent with our compatibility standards of the conference plan and land development code. And with that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions for staff? The original, I think it's the Poinciana PUD, designated this as a school site. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. And that was in, what, 1971? Yes, sir. I think that's what I'm putting two to two together. But now we're wanting to turn that into more development, where it was going to be a service to the community. Now it's more of a, I use the term, a burden to the community on traffic and everything else. But I just, I have a problem with us just allowing developers to propose one thing and then coming back later on and asking to do something else with the same property. And whether it be a green belt or whatever else, we seem to be seeing more of that all the time. And I just have a problem with that. What precipitates that, I guess, is, I don't really have a question, but I just. Well, as was said already, the current models for what we use for schools wouldn't necessarily fit on that site anymore. So if it's no longer a viable school site, then it makes sense to change it into a use that would be usable for the site. And it's not an environmentally sensitive area. There is a wetlands, like I said, to the Northwest, but it's not part of the parcel. So that part would not be changed. And it also would make it compatible with the area. Yes, sir. Can't be just green area. I mean. Like it is now. I mean, if they wanted to turn it into preservation, I assume that they could pursue that. But I mean, no money in that. All right. Any other questions? Seeing no other questions for the staff, appreciate that. We'll turn the floor over to the applicant. The applicant here. Name and address for the record as you come up, sir. Morning. Morning. Robert Walker with Burkett Engineering, 105 East Robinson Street, Orlando. We represent the client. Moonstone Realty. I have the president here, if there's anything else that needs to be asked of him. I do want to thank staff for all their help. Appreciate it. One thing I'd like to point out is that we've, I think it was last year, the HOA for Point Siena had unanimous approval of the project. This has been around for a year or so. So, but now the owners who've developed homes in Point Siena for a number of years, purchased a property and are wanting to develop it, their product that they typically have. We've read the staff report. We're in agreement with its findings. And we're just here to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for the applicant from the board? I'm just curious. Staff mentioned that he saw a gopher tortoise. I'm just wondering, was there any, has there been any environmental evaluation done? That'll be done at the time of the level two. Any other questions from the board? All right. Seeing none, we're going to open the floor up to the public. Anybody here to speak for or against this case, please step forward. You'll be provided three minutes. Please put your name and address for the record. I'm Nancy Miles. I live at 235 Goldenrod Lane. I had, I'm not a civil engineer, but I was married to one for 25 years. So I'm aware. You are one. Curbs and guns. Yes. In fact, he was one of the top, he was one of the top ones in the country. He was asked to build Epcot for all their water problems. And he turned them down because he'd have to shave his mustache. Where I'm from, developers have to put in proper drainage plans, infrastructures like curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and road development. If the area is not ready for it, they have to put money into a fund to do these things, an equity fund, and keep the burden off the county for putting in all these things. Poinciana is a nightmare. If I was going to bring some pictures, you've got a few. If you pulled up the Google map for driving directions, you will see a picture taken when it was raining. I mean, when we had a rain. Goldenrod Lane ends, like you said, in a big ditch. There was an old farm road there, totally sunk in. The developer, when they made ours into a cul-de-sac, they tried to put the blacktop through that also. That probably is what made it all cave in. I don't know. But to make a long story short, Orchid Lane and Goldenrod Lane are separated by a big swale. It's at least five feet to six feet deep. If you looked on this picture, there's a bog up in that corner. And I live on the left-hand side of Goldenrod. On that side, there's also a, up in, there's sand dunes. Usually the builders come in. They just did, this last year, did the lot behind my house. They come in. It had a big sand dune on it. They burn all the trees, cut down the trees, burn them. Then they clear-cut the land. They cut the land two and a half to three feet lower than the back of my property and left all the tree roots showing, et cetera, and built on it. We haven't had a big rain since then, but I have a feeling that my neighbor behind me is going to have a nice pool in his backyard when we do. We've been here five years. That area floods. There is also a spring in the sand dune on the side of the road. It's no more than this wide. I wouldn't have known it was there, except I saw a deer stop and drink there one day. Oh, and it's three minutes up? Ooh. You wrap it up. Yes, I want to say that that swale goes to the lake, and it floods. Every time we have a big rain, the lake floods under the Baybury Road. They put a culvert. It floods there. There's also a bog right there at the edge of Baybury down all the way, and those springs overflow. I don't want to see the land clear-cut, and then I end up in a floodplain. So I don't want them to cut our buffer down. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else here to speak for or against this case, please step forward. All right. Seeing none, we'll allow the applicant to come back up, and thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Again, once we get into—this is still preliminary, but once we get into final engineering and water management, district permits, drainage system on the site will be evaluated and designed per code. So just to clarify, during the Level 2 process and further engineering process, assuming you get the lane use changes you're looking for here today, you will then be doing all the detailed engineering design that's being required for the site to meet the standards and codes? That's correct. Thank you. Including environmental, correct? Correct. And traffic and everything. Traffic and everything. All right. Any questions for the applicant from the board? All right. Seeing none, thank you, sir. Appreciate that. We'll bring the item back to the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman, move to approve. We have a motion and a second for approval. Roll call, please. You got a question. Oh, sorry. We have a discussion item. Please hold the roll call. We're looking at, what, 70 houses? Is that correct? Somewhere around 70, yeah. Have we done any calculations as to the impervious area for streets and houses and driveways and sidewalks and all of that that's being added? I mean, this is obviously, that'll be handled. Mr. Chair, if I may, just to be clear, I mean, this is just, this is a future land use change. We aren't proving any sort of development today. It's just a future land use change. That's right. That's correct. At this point in time, all, it's just, we can look at the land use, future engineering will be done according to the code. Any other items for discussion amongst the board before we take roll call? All right. Seeing none, Mr. Bishop, please proceed with roll call. Robert Beltram. I'm for the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Merle Bishop, I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. Hence the motion. Mr. Chairman, the motion passes. Thank you, sir. All right. I believe we're on item number seven. All right. Number seven is LDCPAS 2025-14, a level four small scale comprehensive plan amendment. And Mark Bennett is your planner. Good morning, board members. Before I get started with my presentation, I also want to mention that our intern, Julio Cueva Lujan, did I get that right, co-authored this report with me. So I wanted to give him the due acknowledgement, and I appreciate his help and effort, and hopefully he learned something about planning by doing it. So with that, let me go through the request. The request is to change just over 26 acres from Business Park Center to industrial and the rural development area. The property is generally located south of the city of Mulberry, just east of State Road 37, south of Cozart Road. You can see by the two maps there. Notice, 12 mailers were sent. That board was posted on July 24th. Legal ad published in the newspaper on July 23rd. No response from the public. Staff does recommend approval. Mr. Chairman, move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. Is anyone here to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, do we have a second to expedite? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor for expedition? Aye. Please expedite. Okay. Thank you. Basically, it's currently Business Park Center. You see the blue area there. At one time, this was a lake, but in my research, it has not been a lake since at least 1980. So it's basically a flat site. Proposals to change it to industrial. We consider that to be an appropriate designation because it is industrial to the west and to the east. You can also see there's two railroads bounding it on the west and east. I'll go through these real quickly to give you an idea of the lay of the land. We anticipate no impacts on public facilities and services, and we consider it consistent with the comp plan, direct access to an arterial road next to two railroads next to an existing industrial uses and designations. For those reasons, it's consistent, and I stand for questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff on this app? All right. Seeing none, we are under expedited procedure. We'll ask the applicant to please step forward. Appreciate the expedited walking. Go ahead. On purpose. Yes, sir. I want to say thank you. Name and address for the record. Everyone's time this morning. My name is Matthew Johnson. My address is 590 Ford Hillside Heights, Lakeland, Florida, 33812. And we do appreciate all of the assistance from the county staff. We do agree with everything that is in our staff report, and I stand for any questions, and respectfully request a favorable approval. Thank you very much. Thank you, Matthew. Any questions for the applicant from the board? Seeing none, we'll bring the item back. We had no public comment on this expedited procedure. We're back to the board for discussion and for our motion. Move to approve LDC-PAS 2025-14. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, roll call, Mr. Bishop, please. Robert Beltram. For the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Roe Bishop, I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Reni Heath. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Motion passes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right, item number eight. All right, this is LDPD 2025-4, the Gold Drive PD modification, and Aaliyah Nglema is your planner. Good morning, Aaliyah Nglema with Land Development, presenting number eight on the agenda, LDPD 2025-4, the Gold Drive PD modification. The applicant is requesting a plan development modification to go from two to five single family homes on approximately 0.93 acres. On July 22nd, 103 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on July 18th. A legal ad was published in Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on July 23rd with no responses from the public. Mr. Chairman, move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. Anybody here to speak for or against this case? All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second to expedite? Second. Oh, sorry. Are you here to speak for the case? Marion Skilling, 744. Hold on, hold on, hold on. We're not going to do that right yet. Are you here to speak for or against the case? You're not the applicant? He's the applicant. I'm the applicant. You are the applicant. You're fine. You can sit back down, please. I'll tell you. All right, thank you. All right, so we have no one here in the public to speak for or against the case other than the applicant. And we have a motion to expedite, and we have a second, I believe. All in favor to expedite? Aye. All right, so please expedite. The site is compatible with surrounding uses and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. And I'll stand for questions. Excellent. Wow. Any questions? Okay, with that, we have no questions for the thing. Does the applicant like to add anything? Now you can come on up. You're fine? Okay, so just for the record. She said your piece. She said her piece. Thank you. All right, so we are under expedite procedures. No one's here to speak for or against this case. And with that, I'll bring the item back to the board for discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion to second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Earl Bishop, I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Ren Heath. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, the motion passes. Thank you. All right, next item. Item number nine. All right, for the record, enhanced land development. Staff recommends approval of LDPD 2025-1. A request for a 430 single-family plan development located south of Chinook Road, north of Halibut Road, east of Caspian Road, and east of the city of Haines City. Section 34, Township 27, Range 28. For the record, on July 22nd, 227 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two signs were posted on July 21st, and a legal ad was published on July 23rd. Staff has received no response. Here's the site, east of Lake Marion. It looks like it should have been part of the larger Point Siena pre-DRI development, but it was not. Single-family homes are the primary. Excuse me. Excuse me, Ed. You had no responses one way or the other? No. Then, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. Anyone here to speak for or against this case in the public? All right, seeing no one else. Do we have a second for expedite procedures? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor for expedite procedures, say aye. Aye. All right, please proceed under expedite procedures. Let's find a good slide here. Essentially, this boils down to a request for reduction in lot widths to 45 feet wide, minimum lot size of, I believe it was 5,400 square feet. You guys threw me off with this. 5,400 square feet in reduction of setbacks. I'll just show this slide right here. This is essentially infill development. This is single-family development going amid single-family development. The key to this one is that the Point Santa was platted back in the 70s. This area here is just now building out. This particular development is being held to all the current PD standards, including the open space requirements, recreation requirements. We're going to have an internal road connect these two roads within Point Santa, create connectivity. So this is kind of a plug-and-play development that's compatible with surrounding development and consistent with the comprehensive plan of land development code. I'll stand for questions. Any questions for staff? I think that's the first time I've ever heard the term plug-and-play apply to a land use change. That's the only piece of the missing puzzle I can't remember. No, it's very appropriate. Yes, plug-and-play. All right. Any other questions for staff? All right. With that said, we'll invite the applicant to step forward, reminding you we're under expedite procedures. Hey, good morning, commissioners. For the record, Bart Allen, I'm a land use attorney with Peterson and Myers. My address is 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. Appreciate staff's comments. Appreciate all of their work on this project. This has been a long time in the process. We've gone through a number of things. We would request a favorable vote on this plug-and-play project. Thank you. I see that term coming up in the future. It could be on your staff report. That's right. I thought about that. All right. That all said, we've now heard from both the staff and the applicant, and there's nobody here to speak for or against this case. We're under expired procedures. We're back to the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDPD 2025-1. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltram. For the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Earl Bishop, I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. Rennie Heath. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, the motion passes. All right. Case 10. All right. Next up, for the record, Ian Nance land development. Staff recommends approval of LDPD 2025-2. This is a PD request for 1,599 residential units within phase two of the Ridgewood Lakes Developmental Regional Impact. This request includes a reduction in lot sizes and lot widths below 50 feet for single-family detached units, as well as short-term rental. The subject site is located west of County Road 547, south of Ernie Caldwell Boulevard, east of U.S. 27, west of Davenport, in sections 21, 22, 28, townships 26, and range 27. For the record, 193 mailers were sent to area property owners on July 22nd. Four signs were posted on July 21st. An illegal ad was published on July 23rd. Staff has logged no responses. This is an aerial image for contacts of the area. U.S. 27 is to the west, and the shaded properties are those undergoing some level of review by the county. As everyone knows, this northeast corner is developing rapidly. On the right of the screen is map H of phase two of the Ridgewood Lakes DRI. This map governs the overall development of this phase. Everything in green is dedicated open space with higher density residential development in the oranges and yellows and where I shaded the subject site. This was approved in 2015 and vested phase two for 5,571 dwelling units. Those portions within the subject site are entitled to 1,628 units. And this is the overlying future land use map. What's important to note here is the relationship between the DRI and the FLU map. The DRI vests units and densities, but the future land use and PD process guides the layout and design. So this site is within a residential low-floor land use district, which allows by right two to six dwelling units per acre with 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots and 4,000 square foot lots allowed through PD. Multifamily is also allowed here by right. This is the site plan, 1,599 units, a mixture of multifamily townhomes and single-family lots. The proposed density is 4.28 dwelling units per acre with minimum lot sizes for the single-family units of 4,600 square feet, minimal deviation from the RL4 standards. Proposed setbacks meet RL4X standards, though staff has recommended a condition to allow pool enclosures with hard roofs to be set back five feet from rear property lines to avoid years of variances as future homeowners replace screen cages with hard roofs. Though the lot counts in density are vested by the DRI, staff still reviewed the site plan against a recently adopted locational criteria to determine the site's eligibility for the request of density. It was found that the necessary points could be met and exceeded due to the proximity of utilities, collector roadways, and connectivity with surrounding properties. In addition to all that green on map H, noting open space, the site plan calls out an additional 114 acres of open space within this project area, which includes recreation areas, curvilinear and landscape ponds, and wetland and compatibility buffers. Amenities include passive recreation, community pools, totlots, dog parks, and picnic pavilions. No rec space can be smaller than 10,000 square feet, and it all must be connected by sidewalks. In addition, an extra 284 parking spaces will be provided as required by a land development code. Here's an overlay of the site plan on the subject property. To the north are the Greystone North and Estonian developments. Each were approved with 40-foot-wide single-family lots with comparable lot sizes. Estonia isn't part of the DRI, but you can see how the proposed development easily fits within the master plan of the area. The extension of Ernie Caldwell Boulevard from 27 to 1792, and the availability of utilities, which you see here in the green, blue, and purple lines, were all done in accordance with the area developing as you see here. While the developments to the north are similar, there are larger lots to the south. These will be screened and buffered with landscaping and open space. The main entrance to this site is off Highway 547, but an urban collector roadway that extends north to Ernie Caldwell Boulevard through Greystone will be necessary for the eventual success of this project and is required to be constructed through the terms of the DRI. No access is proposed off Crescent Valley Road or 3-H Acres Roads. And this request includes short-term rental. The APCAN is requesting a kind of a novel idea here to provide a market option as this whole site develops. The idea is to designate pods or villages for short-term rental only. This will be ultimately dictated by Platt as different phases come in for review, but the intention here is to separate vacation renters from other traditional single-family neighborhoods. So whereas we've had subdivisions in this area where you've had a development-wide short-term rental and this person wants to do it and this person doesn't, the plan here is to, you know, ultimately select one of these pods to be for short-term vacation rental units only. Having said that, what ultimately is approved, whether it's short-term rental or standard family single units, will go a long way towards determining impacts on services. Schools, as I understand, do not have capacity if this all develops a single or standard single-family, but this is clearly not going to build out overnight, so reviews will take place as level two applications for different phases of this development are filed. Utilities and emergency services are available and there is capacity. These are further items that will be reviewed. A species study is required pursuant to habitat management plan for phase two. Ongoing traffic monitoring is also required every two years as phase two builds out, but the roadways currently do have peak PM hour traffic capacity. Staff finds the site plan is compatible with surrounded uses. It meets or exceeds all plan development standards. The application meets the conditions of the DRI development order and the pertinent goals and standards of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Thank you. I'll stand for questions. Any questions for staff? All right. Seeing none. Applicant, please. Good morning, commissioners. Again, for the record, Bart Allen. I'm a land use attorney with the Peterson and Myers Law Firm. My address is 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. I'm getting better at figuring that out. Here this morning, on behalf of the applicant, Center State Development with me this morning, I have Mr. Sean O'Connor on behalf of Center State, but also not in attendance. I just want to recognize Mr. Reggie Baxter, who's also been involved in this project. From an engineering perspective, Hunter Engineering has prepared the site plan and helped us work through these issues, and I have Mr. Brian Hunter here in the event. We have any engineering questions that we need to dive into. Mr. Hunter is a longtime professional engineer, has appeared before this planning commission on a number of occasions as an expert witness. So, you know, if we need to get into that, we can. Mr. Nance has done a wonderful job, to say the least, of giving you an overview of what this project is. This, what we're talking about here, is something that goes back to the mid-'80s, really, when you think about when the original DRI was approved for Ridgewood Lakes. And this is, it feels a little bit like a rite of passage, getting to work on Ridgewood Lakes, given, and Mr. Bishop, as your prior tenure here, probably worked on it, too, with Jack, Brandon, my mentor. Go back to 71. Yeah, well, I don't go back to 71 either, literally. And... Is that right? That's correct. Mid-'70s. Not early-'70s. But, you know, Mr. Brandon and Mr. Lewo, who were really the kind of the developers at the time, Mr. Brandon was my mentor at Peterson and Meyer, so this really is kind of a passing of the torch in many regards, so I'm honored to be here on this project. This is the site plan. There's a lot going on here. You know, as it relates to the development, it is 1,599 units to a mixture of single-family and Tehono units with the short-term rental. But at the end of the day, the request before you this morning is simply this. We'd like to go from a 50-foot lot to a 40-foot lot. We would like to go from 5,000 square feet lots to 4,600 square feet lots on single-family, and we would like to add a short-term rental option. The densities, the intensities, the fact that these uses are being requested are already in the DRI. They're in the existing future land use and all of the existing entitlements. So this is really what our request is this morning is to change those three standards to deviate from what is essentially code requirement, so very nominal changes at the end of the day. Because of all the history, and I'm not going to belabor all of these points too long, but I do think it's important, this was Ridgewood Lake's DRI as it was approved in 1984. These are the three boundaries. And the green was what was phase one, and that comes out on the U.S. 27. It was now a signalized intersection. The red and the blue areas were the additional boundaries. Blue, red is phase two. Blue is phase three. Those are what was approved. Those phases were approved in 2015 through that resolution, resolution 15-122, which is the development order for this DRI. And this is just, again, just a little bit of history. Originally, the entire DRI was 8,100 units, with phase one being 2,500 units on 1,000 acres. Just, again, highlighting a few things. This is referencing the resolution going back to 2015 when these particular units were put in place, and this is the 5,571 units. A lot of those are all now encompassed in various plan developments. Again, just kind of giving you some evidence here that these are actually real approved units. These are the actual documents that were approved in 2015. And then this is our future land use map that was subsequently changed. This was map H. It is map H that was associated with that DRI, and you can see these yellow areas. Those really are the comprised, the different pods, if you will, of the development within the overall phase two of the DRI. Mr. Nance referenced road, the connector road. This is road A, as it's referred to in the DRI. It has to be completely built out in order for the entire development to function. And there are multiple PDs, and I'll show you a little bit of that here in just a second, that go into all of these different units. And these are the villages, again, just to kind of show what we're doing is consistent with what was previously approved. Mr. Nance touched on a little bit of this as well. There was a tremendous amount of work that went into the environmental, that went out here, Horse Creek, the preservation of Horse Creek. There's a 976-acre set aside that's gone along out of this DRI. Substantial improvements, substantial enhancements to the environmental community in this area. And that includes, you know, a lot of times there's just set-asides that are all wetland, right? This also includes a tremendous amount of upland areas that could be potentially developed in order to do some on-site mitigation. This is just an excerpt of the Habitat Management Plan out of the DRI, again, identifying the different mitigation areas, just to show you the level of effort that went into a lot of these reviews in 2015 and now getting back, drilling down into the actual phases. Again, utilities, infrastructure, investments, and all of those things are an important piece when you talk about a DRI, right? There's a lot going on here, a lot of units, a lot of intensity. This road is a, the completion of Road A as a public road is a significant investment into the property. In 2015, this was estimated at a $12 million road. I can only imagine when that gets fully costed out today, what that number will go to. But it will be an urban collector road, a brand-new urban collector road that runs through and provides access to these communities. So we're also where all the utilities will go. Utility infrastructure has been, there's been some investments in the utility infrastructure along the area as part of an overall expansion of the utility service area in this, in the Northeast. Sewer lines were brought from Posner down Ernie Caldwell Boulevard through a public-private partnership between some developers and Polk County. And you can see this green is the sewer line that comes in all the way down. It's been extended to Lee Jackson Highway. You can see the blue and the pink are new water lines that were extended as part of that public-private partnership that's done. All of this infrastructure is in place. So you have reclaimed water. You have potable water, ample water available to serve all of these projects. I mentioned the previous PDs. This is just to kind of show where the previous PDs, this is the subject site of today. These three prior PDs were approved in 2020. I don't believe this is a conflict, but it was done with Dewberry. It was prior to your time at Dewberry, I believe, Mr. Beltran. But I did have an, I worked on those PDs at the time. So those are in place. Those are valid. All of these developments really, what it all boils down to, tied to two different things. One, the habitat management and the environmental permitting has to get completed, and that is all going through the Army Corps as one permit for the entire phase of the DRI. They're not doing it on a piecemeal basis. So the North Pod and the South Pod and the West Pod don't do individual permits. It's the entire permitting is going at one time. So there's a holistic solution and a holistic improvement to the community. You don't see a lot of that. So I think that's incredibly important. But when that's complete, and that's been ongoing for several years now as it relates to that permitting effort, like I said, I approve these PDs in 2020. And then the other piece will be a coordination of infrastructure improvements, road A, extension of the utilities through the sites. Those efforts and those conversations are ongoing amongst various private developers and the county as we speak. So the timing of all this is right, the timing of getting all these permits, and the timing of getting the infrastructure in place. Again, this is just a site plan just for purposes of the record. I'll wrap up again just to refocus on what we're asking for today is not 1,599 units. It's to go from a 50-foot-wide single-family lot to a 40-foot-wide single-family lot in an area that has a tremendous amount of other 40-foot product, Estonia North, Estonia South. There was recently a significant annexation of standard sand and silica land where you're going to see a 900-acre PUD that was approved in there with similar types of uses, short-term rentals. So these are all appropriate for this area. It's the type of development that's happening in this area and is consistent. You've got a finding that this project is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the DRI, the land development code, and we would request a favorable vote this morning on LDPD 2025-2. To the extent we have any residents, I'm happy to answer questions at the end. If there's any questions of the board, I'd be happy to do it. There's still a lot to do, right? There's still all the level 2 issues, full design, environmental, you know, the gopher tortoise study. All of that stuff still has to happen, but we're just asking for the PD today. Thank you. Any questions from the applicant from the board? You didn't mention there's no capacity at the elementary or the high school for your proposed plan. Yes, the school concurrency is an issue that we'll work through, as we would in any of the other concurrency issues. We'll abide, we'll work with the school board. We've had conversations with the school board as we're ongoing through this site. A mitigation agreement may need to be entered into, as is provided for in Chapter 163 of the Florida statutes and consistent with the interlocal agreement in your comp plan. We will work through all of those issues. But at the end of the day, one of the reasons why you don't lock in concurrency at this point is we have entire pods of this that may go short-term rental. And we, you know, and that's, I didn't talk too much about that, but I think that's an important consideration. Not mixing, there's been, I'll say, some potential problems where you have one unit that's a short-term rental right next to a long-term resident, right? And that creates some friction. We want to have the short-term rental option, but to avoid that friction, we're going to do entire pods, and we're going to set them up that prohibit or preclude permanent residency through deed restrictions. We're even talking about parking them as more of a multifamily-style parking and having a check-in gate and things like that. That will reduce our impacts on schools, so we won't know that until we get to Level 2, and that's why we do concurrency at Level 2 when we get to it and lock it in. We recognize there's an issue now, and we've been working with the school board on it. And that'll be shown on your preliminary plot? It will be on, well, I don't believe we do a preliminary plot here, but yes, it will be on our Level 2 plans and going through the plotting process. All of that will be documented at that time. You said only one pod. It could be a pod. It could be two pods. It could be, I was. You're naming it at some point, right, Bart? Sorry, you guys at some point are going to identify those pods. We do. At Level 2. Yeah, at Level 2, we will pick those pods, and that's conditioned in the PD. Absolutely. With only one pod, I'm still concerned about school capacities. I know at some point in time that has to be addressed. It does. Okay. Just for the record, I want to make sure that's understood. Yeah. All right. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? I ask the school board representatives if you want to address this. Go ahead. To the applicant's point, this region of the county continues to experience residential growth at an alarming rate, and capacities at the schools across both elementary, middle, and high school are reaching their capacity limits, and the school district has already begun entering into proportionate share mitigation agreements with various developers in this region. And as this project matures and they submit their Level 2 plan, that's when we will then begin reviewing what their actual final unit count is, short-term versus long-term rental. But for the record as well, the district has already identified a new elementary and new middle school in this region. However, those schools will not come online until somewhere around 2029, 2030. Appreciate that. Any other questions, Mr. Schmidt? Thank you, sir. Hard to hear you. You're a little bit away from the microphone. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to stay out of the way. No, no, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. All right. With that, I believe we're now to the public comment portion of this case. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this case? Please step forward, name and address, and you'll be given three minutes. We're going to go ahead, and we have a couple people. We'll let him go first, and we'll go you next after. Good morning, Commission. My name is Stephen Sire. I've got a couple questions on this that I don't think should be in my timeline, but the maps, and then I'll start my personal. You've got three minutes for public comment, sir. Okay. Well, the map's not correct one. Okay. I was vice president of JLN Development, Ridgewood Lakes, for nine years after Mr. Lee Will died, so I'm familiar with the project. I'm not against development, but if they're going to present something, it should be right. If you go back to the one on the west side of Horse Creek in phase two, it's outlined as future development. It's currently being built on right now. I used to own the property right next to it. They told me I couldn't expand to that because it was phase two, and I was denied by the county in multiple hearings, and now they're already building on it. I've got written proposals. I've got rejection letters that it's wetland, and it can never be developed. It cannot, if it is developed, it could not exit through Ridgewood Lakes Boulevard, and if it was to, there had to be left turn, deacceleration lanes, improvements at Highway 27 and Ridgewood Lakes Boulevard. No improvements whatsoever. It's a nightmare. Okay, so I'm going to bump up to that. On the other side, off 547, in the development plan, which a lot of people should be aware of, Ridgewood Lakes was donating a school site, and when Mr. Lee Will died, it all went to the wayside. It was all about profit, rooftops, doors. Now, 547's a death trap. No school site, but every school you go around is a charter school that they're building one school after another, and it's all profit. To get out of my house on 547 and Crescent Valley Ranch Road to go to Webb's Candy takes me 45 minutes between the hours of 7 and 9 o'clock in the morning. The school buses, they don't turn into the subdivisions on Davenport Boulevard or Crescent Valley, or they don't come down Crescent Valley because it's not big enough. But the subdivisions, when I call the school board and say, why do all these buses stop every 100 feet for a subdivision? You got traffic backed up for miles. And they say, well, they're not built big enough. The interstructure is not big enough to put a school bus in there safe, nor emergency vehicles. I know some of you board members there are developers. I mean, how much 5 pounds are you? You went from 5 pounds, 10 pounds to a 5 pound. Now you're going to a 5 pound to a 2 pound. Go buy the gallon of ice cream. It doesn't exist. You know, the picture's bigger. The wording's smaller. But you're not happy. Where I'm at is concern for public safety. Am I a little bent out of shape that I was denied the 90 acres? You know, that was not in phase 1 but in phase 2. And I sold it, which I had the financial to develop it, to turn around and now see a lot of Polk County officials, they're now working for these big corporations. And yet, they're developing. And it shows right on the map, phase 2. And it's a phase 1 project that's driving in and out of Ridgewood Lakes Boulevard. So, I asked the Planning Commission to go back and look at how this project has been developed and it's not followed through the way it was originally designed. They don't even have the DRI rent maps right, which a lot of people don't know what DRI means, but it's a development of regional impact. And that's development around it, too, not just in it. So, thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. I did give you a little extra time there. That's okay. Next, please. Come on up. Name and address for the record. One County Road 547 North in Davenport. I look at this and I see 1,600 proposed single-family dwellings or long-term pod rentals, whatever it happens to be. My wife and I have lived in our house since 2015. When we first moved there, it took us about two minutes to get out of our driveway. Now, if I want to go north or south, it takes me 45 minutes from 7 o'clock in the morning to about 10 o'clock in the morning. If I'm coming from the south to turn into my driveway, I have to sit for about 15 or 20 minutes. The number of accidents that we've had on 547 since Estonia, the first phase, and Estonia North were developed is incredible. Monday morning, I went to the VA and passed an accident where somebody had been T-boned at Ernie Caldwell in 547. It's not a fluke. It happens every day. We've had more fatalities since the traffic light at Ernie Caldwell in 547 has been put up than probably any other intersection in Polk County. This is ridiculous. Estonia still has houses that are empty. Why do we need another development? Not only does Estonia have empty places, but Estonia North has empty places. Ladies and gentlemen, I say enough is enough. The school system. We have Davenport High School, Davenport School of the Arts, just north of where we live at. That also is a nightmare. You go up there. You may as well not go there when school's going in or letting out. Why? Because people cut you off. We've had young ladies got killed up there two years ago. So I just ask that you say no, that this is enough. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. My name is Sherry Wilson. I live at 3131 County Road 547 North in Davenport. And my original reason for being here is the next case because that's the original case that I called on because we're within half a mile of Crescent Valley Road. So in the meantime, we got the notice that my husband just spoke to you about. We're stuck. And you just keep letting them just develop and develop and develop and develop. I live in Davenport. I work in Kissimmee. It takes me 20 to 25 minutes just to get out of the driveway sometimes in the morning. And then the drive that used to take me 25 minutes to get to work is now almost an hour because between, he mentioned the two schools, but then I have other charter schools on my way to Kissimmee. We experienced significant flooding during Hurricane Ian and Milton because of those subdivisions behind us because of inadequate drainage. And they're going to tell you that that did not occur. Well, I'm here to tell you that it did. And it took our property probably almost, I would say, seven months before that water started to recede. We own three acres. And all of that flooding from those subdivisions behind us just came down on our property almost up to my back door of my home. And since then, all the wildlife out there is having a problem. We've had bears. We've had deer. We've had bobcats. They have nowhere to go. And, you know, that's not something typically that I know that you worry about whenever you're worried about money. And that seems like where we are with all this. And not only my husband and I, but a whole bunch of people are stuck in the middle of this out there. And you're not considering, I'm a native. I am a Florida native. I grew up in Haines City. I now live in Davenport. And I am disgusted by the amount of development you've overdeveloped. You overdeveloped. You're leaving no green spaces at all. You're cutting down all of the trees that we have that are available to us and to the wildlife out there. You know, we have to live here just like you guys have to live here. But we have to live in the middle of this. And not only are we being affected by this subdivision, the one in the next case is also within a half a mile of us. That road cannot withstand traffic anymore. Ernie Caldwell is a nightmare. My husband failed to mention to you that there's been four deaths in that area down there. And I have a memorial right outside of my home because of a young woman getting hit and killed out there, a pedestrian, and a hit and run. So we're tired of it. You hear? We're tired of it. It's enough. Please stop. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Anybody else to hear to speak for or against this case, please step forward. Seeing no other, we're going to close the public testimony of the case, and we'll go back to the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be somewhat brief here. I can't speak to Mr. Shire's concerns regarding the 90 acres. It's not really relevant to the request that's here today. I'm not sure even really what property we were talking about, but I believe it is a different project that was included in Phase 1, the ATRIA project, but I'm speculating on that. Transportation is a significant issue, and that's why the DRI requires the continuous monitoring of the transportation. As it goes, as improvements are warranted, there are improvements that have to come online. That's all already been determined through the DRI development order as it relates to improvements. There will be improvements at 547 with this project's intersection and connection to that. That will be a new connection there, as well as to the north at Pine Tree Trail, where Rode A will work its way through the entire project as it has been planned since 2015 and laid out since 2015. Stormwater design, all of those efforts, all of those issues, all of that engineering is yet to come. We will have to contain all of the stormwater from the project on site in accordance with the Water Management District rules, and we will design to the standards as required by both this Water Management District and Colt County at the time we get there. This is not a question about approving 1,599 units. That's done. That was done in 1984, really, when the original DRI approved 8,100 units on the entirety of Ridgewood Lakes. As it has built out over time, there have been improvements, there have been additional entitlements, there's been improvements required. That is how a DRI is supposed to work, and we are just in the next step of that, where we are implementing a site plan for this phase of the DRI. And again, to remind you, the only thing that we are asking for today is the allowance to go from 50s to 40s, to have a 4,600-square-foot lot, and to have the short-term rental option. Outside of that, everything else that we're doing is entitled, invested, and I could go to Level 2 tomorrow on those issues and go through that issue. So again, this isn't about 1,600 new units. This is about the three deviations from your code requirements, and minor deviations at that. So with that, I appreciate the residents' comments. We take those things seriously. We do all of the engineering work. We have all the transportation studies. We will have to continue to do that. That's ongoing throughout the life of this DRI, and I think that's important. That's what distinguishes this from many other projects. So, oh, one last thing. This, there was talk about Ridgewood Lakes and US-27. This project does not go into Ridgewood Lakes Boulevard. This road doesn't connect into Ridgewood Lakes. It only connects to Pine Tree, Ernie Caldwell Boulevard at Pine Tree Trail and out at Lee Jackson at 547. It does not connect into the original phase of Ridgewood Lakes. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. There was some concern about US-27. This project won't have any impacts on that. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Chairman, a question for the applicant? Just to make sure everyone's clear in here, Bart. By right, currently today, you could go out there. You could go to level two today and start construction tomorrow. I say tomorrow, but in the near future, with just about as many lots as you could. I don't know what the number would be, but they would just be bigger. They would be 50-foot wide lots instead of 40. So, that's all you're doing. That's correct. And the amenities would then go down because we're being held to the PD standard. So, the extra open space. So, it's not like you're going to go away if something happens and this doesn't pass. So, help me with the timing here in terms of the connection to Ernie Caldwell. So, that, you say you have to make that connection or build that road. So, does that occur simultaneous with this development so that when this is developed, people will have that alternative route and not necessarily impact 547? That's correct. And the DRI requires that at 67% of the development that that road A be completed. And if you don't, you can't get past that. So, we've added, we've reflected that condition in this PD as well. So, that that ensures that there is multiple points of ingress and egress for these two areas of what I call Greystone North and the Center State PD. Yes, that has to happen. So, it has to happen concurrently. It's also where our utilities are going to be coming from. And if you remember the exhibit from my presentation, the utilities are all up on Ernie Caldwell Boulevard. So, we have to use that right away. So, it has to happen. It's correct. Unless I misunderstood when Ian had the color chart up there, the chart indicated that they were going to be 45-foot, 50-foot, and 60-foot lots. Are these all going to be 40-foot now? That will ultimately be decided at the level two. But what we're asking for, that chart was, I believe, for the Poinciana Project. That was for the prior PD. This PD, we're asking for a minimum of 40s and the 4,600-square-foot lot sizes. My bad. No, that's okay. I just, I want to make sure we were talking apples and oranges, or apples and apples, not apples and oranges. Messed that phrase up. Any other questions for the applicant? I'm sorry. The public portion is closed. I'm not sure. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I'd like to approve, make a motion to approve this case. All right, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second for approval. Well, just as a commentary note, I do want to let the board know, as part of the Polk Regional Water Cooperative and Polk County Utilities, they are planning a very similar facility just in the southwest portion of this area that you're seeing here, in order to bring that alternative water supply forward to help effectively use the water resources of the area. So that's going to be something you'll see in the future, similar to what we saw earlier. So that all said, I think we're ready for a roll call. Robert Beltram. For the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Earl Bishop. I'm part of the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. Randy Heath. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, motion passes. All right. We have a question. Next case, please. All right. Number 11 on the agenda is LDPD 2025-3, the Crescent Valley Ranch PD. And Aaliyah Nglema is your planner. Good morning, Aaliyah Nglema with Land Development, presenting number 11 on the agenda, LDPD 2025-3, the Crescent Valley Ranch PD. The applicant is proposing a planned development to develop 350 single-family lots on approximately 153.97 acres. The purpose of this request is to allow 40-foot-wide single-family detached lots, increase lot sizes, and go below the minimum density in the residential medium land use district. On June 24th, 47 mailers were sent to area property owners. 13 signs were posted on June 25th. A legal ad was published in Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on June 25th with three emails in opposition. The subject site is located west of Highway 547 North, north of 3-H Acres Road, south of Little Zion Road, east of Ridgewood Lakes Boulevard, Davenport in Section 27, Township 26, Range 27. The site is located within a residential medium land use district and within the Northridge Selected Area Plan. The intended density for residential medium is 8 to 10 dwelling units per acre for multifamily. As you can see here, there are surface waters on the subject site. These surface waters are due to peat mining in the late 1990s. Of the 153.97 acres, 93.77 are uplands. The density is 3.7 dwelling units per acre. Landscaping, street lighting, and sidewalks will be required for this development. 20% is dedicated to open space at about 18.75 acres. And this development scored 21 points based on location eligibility score for the residential medium land use district. The leftover lakes from the peat mining provides buffering from the surrounding homes. So the maximum permitted within the RMX is 15 dwelling units per acre. With this density, 2,300 multifamily homes could go on site. The applicant is proposing those 350 single-family homes with 3.7 dwelling units per acre. The site is just south of Ernie Caldwell Boulevard, making it a prime location to live with being close to I-4. The proposed development is just south of Estonia, and Estonia consists of 681 lots on approximately 159 acres, about 4.3 dwelling units per acre. This development does have 40-foot and 50-foot lots. And Greystone is just west of Estonia, which has approved plans for 740 total units on 229 acres with 3.2 dwelling units per acre. Here is a photo from my site visit. According to our aerial photos, this property has always been used for cattle, and the roadway is substandard in pavement width, right-of-way, and drainage. The applicant will be improving Crescent Valley Ranch Road as part of this development, and they will be having sidewalks along the front edge of the property. And this proposed request is consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, we'll invite the applicant to come forward. Good morning, everybody. My name is Richard Mills with Keelan Horn & Associates. Address is 109 South Kentucky Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, 33801. I'm the civil engineer of record for the project. I don't have anything to add from what Leah said. I can speak on some traffic-related issues if public questions do arise. But other than that, I'm happy to answer any comments. Any questions for the applicant from the board? How are you getting utilities, water, and sewer to this site? We're extending utilities from the northeast corner of our project up to Arna Caldwell Boulevard. We're extending force main, potable water, and reclaimed water. Any other questions for the applicant? I have a quick question. On the east side of your parcel, that road there, is that 547? Okay, at the intersection there, are you improving the road? Yes, we're going to be improving that based on our traffic study. We are upgrading that intersection to a Type 4 intersection, so we're going to be installing a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane. So there will be improvements at that intersection there that we heard about. Yeah, and the road is also winding from 20 feet wide standard or average. It ranges from 20 to 22 in some areas. We're going to be expanding that to 24 feet wide. And on Crescent Valley Ranch, you guys are also going to be doing improvements, is that correct? Correct, yeah. Along Crescent Valley Ranch, that road has a varying width of 18 to 20 feet wide currently. And with our improvements, we're going to be widening that between 20 and 22. From 547 to your westernmost access? Yes, that's correct. Along our frontage of Crescent Valley Ranch. And so that cross-section will have, you said, delaying width, but it has? Yes, it's going to have two 11-foot lanes curbing in some areas. So between the two wetlands that we have there, it's a little bit of a steep drop-off, to be completely honest. It's probably three feet of space from the edge of pavement, and it starts to drop off. So we're going to be doing curb through there to protect vehicles. And then also installing sidewalk. We're doing sidewalk along the north frontage of Crescent Valley Ranch until you get to those wetland areas. And then we're going to be crossing the road to the south side and continuing the sidewalk the rest of the way. Appreciate the extra detail. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. With that, we'll open the floor for public comment. Anyone here to speak for or against this case, please step forward. Go first. And then, Oscar, just queue up and wait for you. Go ahead. Name and address for the record again, please, sir. 1491 Crescent Valley Ranch Road. On the map, I'm right next to that property. The other property, the hearing that you just had, that's in front of my house and to the left of my house. This is on the right side of my house. And I'm not opposed to development. I got my property when the old man at Ridgewood Lakes died, and they couldn't pay the bills. So I stayed on. I'm retired now. I've got multiple people working on proposals to buy me out. What I'm concerned mostly about is people's safety. 547 Crescent Valley Ranch Road is frickin' a death trap, as is in Kearneyville. The lady said four, there's been ten deaths on Ernie Cardwell since it was built. There's no sheriffs. They don't have anybody. You can call them, ask. The school buses can't make the turn-in on Crescent Valley Ranch Road. And my understanding, this development that's proposed, they're not going to do the improvement to Crescent Valley Ranch Road and 547 until Phase 1 is completed, starting Phase 2, or B, as that was told. Okay. The other part is, at my gate, they're stopping the road improvement. So currently, I have a second interest that I provide the county with school bus access to turn around, fire trucks to turn around, commercial vehicles to turn around. And, you know, I could be a butthead and chain it off, but I have a wife who's a teacher and told me not to. The road dead ends. The other part is, on my other side of my property, I have an easement that goes into the Ridgewood Lakes VRI. You know, and the county keeps saying it's theirs. It's not. You paved the road without notifying anybody. I was still vice president of JLN. We've addressed it. Nobody's ever come back to talk about it. The road at Crescent Valley Ranch Road is an unstable old sand access to road easement that Mr. Johnson made that lives at the end of the property. And they came back and put clay on it. Then they come back and put chipstone on it. And now they're coming through. Well, actually, if you look where they're proposing a bridge, it's all wetland. And the road was put in. I don't have any approach. I don't oppose anybody doing anything, but do it the right way. What happens 2 o'clock in the morning when a fire truck comes down there and passes the entryway and they get to where in front of my house? They're not doing any road improvement in front of my house. So you've got a 20-foot wide road with ditches on the side, barbed wire fence. So the emergency vehicle has to back up an eighth of a mile, a quarter of a mile to turn around. If you're going to do these developments and you see what they're doing inside the DRI, 1,500 homes, 1,600 homes, 300 and something homes, and this little 80-acre square that's in the middle of it, I mean, the loose is getting pulled. You know, I've got some people that are doing some letter of intents to me right now. They want to buy my 35 acres. That's fine and dandy. I'm retired and I'm enjoying life, but when I see 10 people die on Ernie Cardwell and nobody cares, the water retention pond gates that open and close to keep kids out because they ride their bikes, they've been laying down in the grass for two, three years. Okay, now 547. My wife, I was just talking to her yesterday, and she says, you know, I pray every day when I've got to make a left-hand turn. Is that what you want to think about every day when you go to work? Put the freaking inner structure in before. That's like the old saying, I know I'm out of time, but put the horse before the cart, not the cart before the horse. Well, where we're at right now in that area, there's not even a horse or a cart. It's rooftops and doors. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Appreciate that. Ma'am. Gary Wilson, 3131 County Road, 547 North and Davenport. Again, here we are. 547 is a two-lane road, double-lined a lot where people pass where there's a double line. That curve that he showed, that property, that curve right there, there was a head-on collision down there two weeks ago. And I believe, if I'm correct, one person died. Two people to the hospital had to airlift them out. Okay? We've had enough. A while ago, someone was talking, they were talking about the property at Standard Sand that had been procured. That's right down the road from us, too. What are you going to do? Are you just going to keep allowing it until they're in our front yard? Am I going to have to go out to my mailbox and get hit by a car getting my mail? Are you going to let them build right up to the edge of the road out there? It's two lanes, two lanes. Look at your traffic report when you get a chance to out there. I'm done with it. Y'all got to, somebody's got to gain a conscience here. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else here to speak for or against this case, please step forward. My name is Don Mason. I live at 232 McLean Point, Winter Haven. I'm actually the owner of the property and have been the owner of the property for the last 30 years. I understand the individual's concerns about development, but if you really look at this parcel, I was surprised myself when the developers came up with this final draft of this development. The initial drafts had townhomes. They had 560 units per acre. As they said earlier, it's allowed 8 to 10 units per acre. Most of these homes or 50% of these homes are facing lakes. They've got walking trails. They've got dog parks. It's about as nice a development as you're going to get in that area. And it's down-zoned as far as the number of units per acre. And I would request that you please consider to approve this project going forward. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak for or against this case, please step forward. All right. Seeing none, we're going to close the public portion of this hearing, and we're going to come back to the applicant. Anything you'd like to add? So I will say that Lee Jackson Highway, County Route 547, is current. We've done a traffic study, a major traffic study, in accordance with the Polk County's standards. That road is currently operating at 20% capacity. With our proposed 350 units, the trips generated from that is going to bump it up to 27% capacity. So just giving you an idea of what it's going to do to traffic in the future. On average, it's like a 2% growth rate per year. That level of capacity is increasing by 1% per year, just to give it a little bit more context. And then County Road 547 is an urban collector road. We're upgrading it from 20 feet wide to 24 feet wide to meet current standards for that type of road. So, yeah. Any questions for the applicant from the board before we let him go? I appreciate your time, sir. Thank you. All right. With that, we'll bring the item back to the board for a motion and or discussion. Mr. Chairman, if I can make a couple of comments, if you don't mind. Go ahead. I got to commend the developer for one thing. There's a lot of concern in this county as well as other counties and cities about traffic. This property, if it's approved, is actually having a density that's less than what they normally could get by going just to keep in the same land use they have now and not going through the PD process. They can go up from 6 to 10 units per acre. I believe that is Ian, right? Yeah, as residential medium. He's down to less than 4. So, that's a good thing for the surrounding property owners. I think he's taking good care to lay out this property as efficient as possible. In that area, that's what's there is residential. I know that they're going to have to do some traffic improvements. Therefore, I'd like to make a motion to approve LDPD 2025-3 in its entirety. All right. So, we have a motion. And do we have a second? Mr. Chairman, I'm quick. I have a question before that for staff. Was there anything in the public testimony that changes your view on the case? No, sir. And in your mind, this is still compliant with our land development code and comp plan? Correct. Okay. Thank you. With that, I will second Rene's motion for approval. So, we have a motion and a second. I just want to be clear. Do we have any other discussion items before we call for a vote? Seeing none, I'll ask for a vote. Robert Beltram. I'm for the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Meryl Bishop, I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Rene Heath. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. Against the motion. Mr. Chair, the motion passes. Thank you, sir. All right. Case number 12. All right. Last on the agenda is LDCPS 2025-18, the Christina Fire Station CPA. Eric Peterson is your planner. All right. Eric. Good morning. This is one of many that you'll be seeing in the future. We are doing an expansion of our public safety network into this area of the county. This is a request for 4.57 acres to go to residential low, and we're also including in it the stormwater site, which is a stormwater treatment site for 540A in a preservation category for design purposes and also to let the neighbors know that it's not going to be developed or anything else. I'll just say there was 100% area property owners on July 22nd. One board was posted on July 21st. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on July 23rd, and so far we've had no response from the public. It's located on 540A. This is an area that's pretty much built out. The fire station is coming later on as a result of restructuring in the entire area, and I'll get to that in a moment, but just to show you that this is an ideal site, it will change from institutional, which is across the street at Scott Lake Elementary, and there's the preservation that will be on the stormwater side. It's at an intersection, or close to an intersection with commercial uses. It's 540A, of course, is a four-lane road. We've got a signalized intersection, and there's also utilities in place to connect. It's opposite Scott Lake Elementary. This wouldn't conflict with Scott Lake Elementary because of the signalization of this intersection. It really makes it work well. Sometimes we're concerned with putting a fire station next to a school because of drop-off and the congestion that you get around the school, but the signalized intersection and the four-lane road really contribute to an ideal situation. The abutting commercial is to the west. This is Gladman Road. I will say we're going to improve it just a little bit. It's kind of narrow. It's almost like a golf cart path at this point. Immediately to the east of the site is a conservation area within the Hallam Preserve development. There was an eagle's nest up there, and I'm sure it's still there, and, of course, we'll have to develop in accordance with the FWC requirements. This gives you an overall of the plan for this immediate area. We just opened the Eaton Park station. With this station opening, we're going to close down the Highland City station. That is a substandard station as far as there's not enough space to expand. There's not enough space to add an ambulance. We're also doing a joint venture with the city of Bartow down here on 98 at Yale Smith. Is that the road there? That's in the city limits of Bartow. Currently, this area is served mainly by the Medulla 1 station over here, which has to serve a very large area. If you've noticed the development on Pipkin Road and things of that nature, it's really starting to pull demand for that station. This will relieve that station and the ambulance service that we have up here on just south of the Polk Parkway off of South Florida. So that's the end result. The Eaton Park station has just come online and is serving a lot of this area. It will be balanced out with a good amount of coverage for all of what's existing development. With that, I'll just state that it's a good site. It's consistent with the Polk County's comprehensive plan, specifically policy 2.116-83. It's part of the larger plan, which I explained to you, and the institutional is idea. We plan to be here for a long time with this station, so it's not a temporary fix. That'll stand for questions. Any questions? Mr. Chair. Go ahead. What are you going to do with the property at Highland City there when you close that one down? Is there anything anticipated? No, I haven't even heard. What does the county typically do when they shut the door? If it's of no government purpose, we'll surplus it. It's in a good location commercial-wise, but it just doesn't have enough room for us to expand any further. It was a very old station. Thanks for asking that question, Mike. Yeah, I'm sure there'll be some bidders. Is that self-serving? That question? My office is right across the street. Yeah. So the development of this would use that Gladman Road, I mean, so you can utilize that intersection? Yes, yeah. The station won't front right on 540A. It won't take direct access. It'll come in and out of Gladman Road, both entrance and exit, more than likely. That way, you know, they can maneuver much easier on the site. There's excess property after the station is done. There is, you know, there are some parts, some drainage issues on the property that will have to be overcome, so that might take up a good portion of the south side, but it can also serve as other government facilities. Did Gladman Road access a residence back in there? I always wondered. No, no, it never. It might have at one time, but there's, yeah, ever since Hallam Preserve developed, it's been vacant. There was a residence. That's what I thought. There is a residence, and there was a residence. There was, yes, there was. I remember, but, like, Hallam Preserve, when that phase developed, I didn't see it any further after that. I think it got swallowed up. So this was part of the original Gladman track when Mrs. Gladman was alive? Yes. Okay. Yeah, there was a structure there at one time. Mr. Chair, a quick question, I guess kind of a comment as well, but, Eric, did you draft the demonstrations of need for this? Did you? Okay. Yes. I just want to say thanks for that. That was a nice little change of pace there. So you get to the end of reading the whole packet and you see some jokes, and that was nice. So I just wanted to acknowledge that, that I saw it. Yeah. Also, Eric, you know, I was going to ask to expedite this process, this case, but you've sat here all morning. I didn't want to steal your thunder from you. I'm actually very proud about this project because it's really – there's also the Willow Oak one, which you'll hear at another time. It balances out this whole South Lakeland area as far as public safety facilities and really meeting all of the demands. It's a good plan. That's a great location. All right. Any other questions or comments for staff? Seeing that, anyone here for public comment? Nope. All right. We'll close public comment and we'll bring the item back to the board for discussion and or motion. Mr. Chair, I'm going to approve LDC-PAS 2025-18. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltram. For the motion. David Dalton. For the motion. Earl Bishop. I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Higman. For the motion. Brent Heath. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Motion passes, Mr. Chairman. All right. And I believe that's our last case for the day. No other business to speak about. With that, I just wanted to take a moment to thank Mr. Dalton for all his service. I think today is his last meeting. Is that correct? Yeah, I believe so. This one, I think possibly one more we're going to check, depending on when I got appointed a couple years ago, but pretty sure the last one. That said, I just always found your questions insightful, and you're always prepared, so thank you so much. Thank you very much, and it's been a blast, and I've learned a ton from county staff, and it's been fun working with them, and I've learned a bunch from my fellow board members as well. So I hope to stick around and maybe be back in a couple years, so we'll see. You're definitely young enough, at least younger than Bart, from what we've heard, so that's good. That's good. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. If you like getting beat up a lot, come on back. Yeah. It's been fun, though, so thank you. All right. Well, thank you so much. I don't think we have any other business with that. I'll take a motion to adjourn. Will move. Will move. Motion and second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.