Planning Commission on 2026-05-06 8:50 AM

adopt the final order and you'll take action on that okay so those cases that are continued those will be re-advertised uh no they've been continued for the record at the hearing so they won't be re-advertised do we need to take any action to continue them yes we'll just take action and that will um take the place of re-advertising we'll take formal action today yeah we have a time and date certain that is all i have for the work thank you but we will here cindy jenam also here merle bishop here mike hickman here angel sims here linda schultz kevin updike i'm here we have a quorum thank you next we will stand for the pledge of allegiance pledge of allegiance so we have our minutes uh before us and um hopefully you've looked over those are there any questions or comments about the minutes if not i'll entertain a motion to approve motion and second to approve all in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed same sign uh staff had given us a uh some revisions to the published agenda i believe the agenda before us is correct considering those so i will um i don't need any action on the agenda since it's the one do i uh we need an action on to continue the three items for the date certain that are listed in the agenda yes so we need we do that one motion we can do it in one yes so we're continuing case number cdcpas 2025 36 to june the 3rd ldcccu 2026 3 is continued to june the 3rd and ldcpal 2026 dash 3 is continued to july the 8th mr chairman moved to approve the continuations as presented second motion second approved all in favor of signify by saying aye aye opposed same sign okay so next i'll ask our attorney to please explain the general procedures to the audience thank you mr chair 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 expedited hearing procedures may be used by the planning commission under the following circumstances one if 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 three 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 three 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 opposition 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 themselves 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 me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases yes 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 and this applies to all cases so if you believe you may speak at all today please be sworn in do you swear affirm that the testimony or evidence and evidence that you provide to the planning commission today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you may be seated i'll now go over some 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 dear any of them as to their background or expertise then you may do so at this time without any opposition to their admission can we please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning the move second a motion second all in favor of singing by by saying 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 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 a 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 and that concludes my comments thank you thank you so our first case is under old business um do we need staff are you going to present something on that i just want to say a few words okay eric peterson for the land development uh division uh ldcu dash 2025 dash 37 the temp bay circle duplex final order is come coming to you it was a case heard last month there was a vote for denial and there was no appeal so it comes back to you for final ratification of the final order that's all we need a um a motion to approve that i move to approve ratification second motion second approve all in favor signify by saying aye aye thank you so now we move under new business and our second case on the agenda i'll ask staff to introduce that to us eric peterson for the land development division this is ldcu 2026-6 the uh polk county utilities prwc receiving facility 140 mailers were sent to area property owners on april 21st one board was posted on april 21st and a legal ad was published in the lakeland winter haven sun on april 22nd staff supports the staff submits the staff report and application for the record the subject property subject property is located in northeast uh part of the county just north of the city of davenport and uh haynes city it takes access off of holly hill road uh it's a 30 foot access uh there there will be a city park in the city of davenport at at one time at some point in the future and it may take access through that the site was recently changed to institutional two by the board just yesterday and this is the site plan uh it's not going to use the whole site this is a 125 million gallon or one 1.25 million gallon water tank and uh water production facility as well as a blending of the uh polk county uh regional water cooperative water from the southeast whale field into the northeast utility service area the reason this comes before you is for the water tank and the water production facility this is the site a close-up view you notice that it is uh abutting several subdivisions um two within the dell webb community of ridgewood lakes uh polk county utilities is on a a brilliant uh public outreach with the ridgewood lakes folks and the abutting subdivisions to uh explain what what this is all about and that's why we probably don't have much in the way of opposition we didn't have any opposition for the comp plan amendment or the district change and uh this will use a portion of the site and the rest of the site the the use of it hasn't been determined as as of yet if there's anything in it that requires a conditional use within uh or approval or planning commission approval within the uh uh institutional two district it will come back to you otherwise this will um this will probably be the only thing that comes to you on this site this is the site area the one of the the good things about it is that there's buffering and screening on all the the nearby or adjacent residential developments and then this this uh project will add even more buffering and screening on top of that so uh there's a good amount of separation uh the one development has a stormwater pond plus there'll be an additional 50 foot setback for all the structures this is the access it will be improved and it uh goes it's it's screened from all the other developments along the the route this is essentially what it's going to look like um this is a an example of a similar size facility at uh ron reagan parkway just south of champions gate and as you can see it's very subtle it's a it's a low volume use it just kind of sits there uh there'll be staff entering and exiting from time to time to do monitoring and maintenance and things of that nature but it's not a high volume institutional to type of use so it's very subtle staff recommends approval uh it's essential for providing future water source to the northeast regional utility service area uh the abutting residential sites are are well screened already we're going to add even more to it when we develop it and it's low volume for that we'll we'll uh we recommend approval submit this presentation for the record and stand for questions any questions of staff is anyone here from pocony utilities to speak or do they need to if you have questions hunter is here to um answer them if you have any okay any questions of pocony utilities mr chair i'm going to abstain from this or the firm i work for is the engineer record on it okay so noted i'll open this up for public comment is anyone uh who would like speak in favor of this application anyone who would like speak in opposition to this application seeing none i'll close the uh public portion and bring it back to the commission for uh discussion and uh motion please mr chairman move to approve ldcu dash 2026 dash six in its entirety second motion second to approve roll call please cindy jenna masso approved merle bishop for the motion mike hickman for the motion angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion have an update for the motion motion passes thank you next case good morning the next case is ldcpas 2025-12 keller road small-scale conference plan amendment from phosphate mining to agriculture residential rule the staff report ordinance and application are submitted for the record and robert bolton is the case planner good morning robert bolton with land development presenting ldcpas 2025-12 the keller road pm to arr cpa this is a county initiated future land use designation change from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rural on approximately 19.4 acres for the record 16 mailers were sent to area property owners on april 21st 2026 three boards were posted on april 16th 2026 legal ad was published in the lakeland and winter haven sun on april 22nd 2026 no responses from the public have been received the staff report ordinance application impact assessment are submitted into the record this is a level four review and will be heard by the county the board of county commissioners on june 16th the request is a county initiated request as a product of a prior request from the board of county commissioners to identify historically used land within pm district to provide the properties with rural residential entitlements thus the arr designation the subject site is comprised of nine lots of record four of which were are developed with residential dwellings some dating back to the 1960s the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and staff recommends approval the subject site is located southeast of the city of fort meade south of us highway 98 on the east side of keller road this is 2023 contextual uh aerial the site is located in the set southeast of the main area of fort meade and on the east side of the peace river the site is about a mile and a quarter south of us 98 and on the east side of keller road this area between keller road and parish road uh has developed residentially also as can be seen in the overall area much of the land has been mined and reclaimed to either land or water bodies the site was never in a mine plan and has not been mined this is the subject's nine parcels four of which are improved with residential dwellings the vacant parcels are owned by the resident residential dwelling owners this represents the existing land use district in the area there is predominantly phosphate mining with a few areas of arr this area of arr represents an applicant initiated request to arr that was granted in october of 2024 this is what map would look like after uh if the uh land use was granted these are pictures of keller road looking north and south these are pictures of the site looking from keller road uh this is the northern portion this is the southern portion uh both of them show the houses a couple of houses there the site has been has been historically residential in nature with a full build out of the vacant with a full build out of vacant parcels it would not have a significant impact to public schools water and sewer are provided by private septic systems and the area is well serviced by sheriff and fire ems overall there would be little impact to public services phosphate mining to agricultural residential rural on approximately 19.4 acres the request is a county initiated request as a result of a prior request from the board of county commissioners to identify historically used land within the pm district to provide the properties with rural residential entitlements the site's been developed with residential dwellings dating back to the 1960s the subject site will not add significantly to public services and the request is compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and i submit this presentation in for the record and i will stand for questions any questions staff so in essence this is a correcting a mapping error to a certain extent yes because it was never in a mine plan well i i knew when the mapping was done of phosphate mining it was anticipated that there would be situations like this and that's like that county as i recall there's a section in the code that says that if an area was never owned by a phosphate mine or never part of a mine plan that essentially they could develop as they are right and then we would quickly have to come back right this process some of them have not that's where the board said let's take a look at this and we'll be coming up with more in the future months there'll be some large-scale ones coming up is anyone i'll open this up for public comment is anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this in favor are in opposition to this if you come forward please we need to get your comments on the record were you sworn in yes sir okay my name is timothy keller i live at 1855 keller road and that picture on the bottom right is my residence so you you reside in this area i do sir okay my question is why why is the county looking at doing this now and then what is the ultimate outcome of doing this okay well i could answer that but i'll refer to staff okay uh under phosphate mining residential is not a uh uh applicable use okay uh it is not intended for residential by giving the arr it gives the residential use the entitlements should you want to sell refinance there are opportunity or there's potential that a bank would go this isn't unallowably your your residential house isn't mildly use could take longer on refinancing you want to do additions pull permits never had a problem with any of that sir there are certain areas that have sure uh it this uh should have no effect as if you're wondering as far as the value of your house as far as the property appraiser is concerned i don't know if that was one of your concerns or not i just want to make sure that we're not trying to do something for the other pieces of property around a neighborhood a data center things like that but that's my concern it is for the nine parcels right and you own a couple of vacant land so you have control of those properties right so we're just trying to with this it gives you the residential entitlements that you've been utilizing since you or your family both yes and if i try to recognize if i may shonda bennett with polk county the board of county commissioners directed us to do the these this kind of amendment we had there's a couple that applied for a land use change in the south fort mead mine area and the board at that point directed staff to look for other parcels that have residential structures on them and that's part of this effort to implement what the board directed and you should have never been phosphate mine in the first place and then one of the issues too is there's an application fee if you come in to to make that request and the board said why should these people be paying an application fee county you go and do it so they don't have to pay this expense when the phosphate mining area was designated back in 92 whenever anyway when it was first done it was intended to only apply to those areas that were going to be mined and the ownership of fuss by phosphate mining was one of the indicators of that and pieces of property of this size because that was a massive area and so pieces of property of this size were just missed and if we if the staff had been had i guess had the time and the resources they could have identified them all so they knew there were probably this was going to happen so they wrote in the code the provision that if an area had never intended to be mined that it could be used for residential but that we would the staff would go back and fix that error and that's what they're doing now thank you anybody else with comments on this case seeing none i'll bring it back to the board for any further discussion or and a motion mr chair i move a motion to approve second motion second approved roll call please robert beltran for the motion cindy janam also for the motion merle bishop for the motion mike kickman for the motion angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion have an update for the motion motion passes thank you the next case is very it's the same type of request ldcpas 2025-13 mount pisca road phosphate mining to agriculture residential rule the staff report ordinance and application are submitted for the record and robert bolton is the case planner mr chair move to expedite second to expedite a second uh is there anyone in the audience to speak in opposition to this case seeing none uh i believe this does qualify as expedite we do have a motion in a second so i'll ask all in favor of that to signify by saying aye aye so we will expedite all right good morning robert bolton with land development uh presenting ldcpas 2025-13 mount pisca road pm to arr again this is a county initiated land use designation request from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rural this one is on approximately two acres for this case for the record 15 mailers were sent to area property owners on april 21st one board was posted on april 16th legal ad was published in the lakeland winter haven sun on april 22nd no response from the public was received staff report ordinance application impact assessment are all submitted to the record this is a level four review and will be heard by the board of county commissioners on june 16th as we previously discussed this is because of a board initiated request the this subject is southeast of fort meade off of uh mount pisca road this closer area of it just west of uh peace the peace river these parcels are accessed the orange or excuse me green is their access it is owned by one of the property owners the properties don't actually front on it but it is a basically access fee easement this is what the property looks like uh the land use this is where it looked like photos of the sites again there's really not going to be any impact because these have been dwellings for quite some time and again same justification on that with that i submit this for uh the uh presentation into the record and stand for any questions any questions if not uh any discussion or uh entertain a motion move to approve ld cpas 2026-13 second motion seconded approve roll call please robert beltran for the motion cindy jenna masso for the motion merle bishop for the motion mike hickman for the motion angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion heaven updike for the motion motion passes thank you next case please yes the next case is again very similar uh it's small scale ld cpa 2026-4 conference plan amendment from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rule the staff report ordinance and application are submitted for the record and alia and glema is the case planner chair moved expedite second motion second expedite is anyone in the audience to speak uh regarding this case seeing none i'll bring it back to the commission this does qualify for expedited procedure any just further discussion or um i'll ask for a roll call no i will ask for yeah to expedite all in favor signify by saying aye aye aye okay expedite good morning alia and glema with land development presenting number five on the agenda ld cpas 2026-4 the fort grub cpa this is a county initiated future land use map amendment to change the land use designation from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rule the subject property is south of hutchins road west of old bowling green road southwest of the city of fort mead and section 17 township 32 range 25. on april 21st 13 mailers were sent to area property owners three signs were posted on april 21st and a legal ad was published in the lakeland and winter haven sign on april 22nd with no response from the public the site is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code i submit this presentation and for the record and i'll stand for any questions any questions of staff seeing none uh any further discussion i'll entertain a motion uh regarding this case move to approve ld cpas 2026-4 second motion to approve and second roll call please robert beltran for the motion cindy janamaso for the motion merle bishop for the motion mike kickman for the motion angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion evan updike for the motion motion passes the next case is a small-scale conference plan amendment ld cpas 2026-7 7 premier parking it's a conference plan amendment from business park center to industrial the staff report ordinance and application are submitted for the record and alia inglima is the case planner good morning alia inglima with land development presenting number six on the agenda ld cpas 2026-7 the premier parking cpa this is a future lane use map amendment to change the lane use designation from business park center to industrial the subject site is located north of highway 542 east of wrecker highway south of the city of armandale and section 14 township 28 range 25 on april 21st 13 mailers were sent to area property owners three signs were posted on april 21st and a legal ad was published in the lake linden winter haven signed on april 22nd with no response from the public so wrecker highway is an established area for commercial and high intensity uses the location of transportation facilities such as railroads and arterial highways is a factor in determining appropriateness of industrial lands the property is adjacent to a railroad and near an arterial highway adjacent properties are designated for business park center types of uses and activities properties designated heavy industrial within the city of auburndale just north of the site utilities is within the city of auburndale the city did not comment on capacity but stated that there is a 12 inch potable water main east side of wrecker highway and a six inch sanitary force main while aerial imagery indicates that the presence of storage on site a staff site visit confirms that the property is vacant and the site already has an existing commercial driveway so the site is located in a well-established high intensity area because of the similarity in current uses and future lane use designations designating the site as industrial will be compatible the proposed request is consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan i submit this presentation and for the record and i'll stand for any questions any questions of staff the city of armadale had no comments about the land use change they did not have any comments uh with that i'll open it up for a public comment is anyone to speak in favor of this application well no let me back up i'm getting ahead of myself is the applicant present well would you come forward please take your name and address and where you were you sworn in i guess we're all all of y'all sworn in okay i'm zach thornton the civil engineer of record um madrid cpwg 5001 north nebraska avenue tampa florida hey do you have anything to add to what staff has said or any no i i think um i think she said it well i i you know i expect approval i i think it's a it's a good area for industrial use so any questions from the board of to the applicant okay thank you seeing um no questions i'll open it up open it up now for public comment is anyone to speak in favor of this application anyone speak in opposition to this application yes ma'am if you come forward please state your name and address were you sworn in caroline uh when we're located adjacent across the street to the property okay good morning um i have two concerns two parts uh the first is the uh the purpose of the bpc2 to industrial because to my understanding the bpc2 already allows the parking purpose and the second is there's no um widened lane and there's no turning to the property and the wrecker highway is already very busy uh highway and my concern is is the parking if they have a they use the oversized the trailer until because that will uh require extended time to go in and out and that's the impact of the traffic to the wrecker highway and those are my two concerns okay i'll i'll defer to i'll call the applicant back up to uh address your concerns um thank you is anybody else to speak in opposition to this case if the applicant would please come forward and if you could uh address her questions and concerns yeah the reason for the um the owner does own a semi tractor truck parking um parcels around around the county and the county and the city um we're moving to industrials to allow uh allow there used to be a storage yard right now he has a potential tenant that's going to store just modular classrooms on the site instead of the instead of doing the the semi truck parking which would decrease um the actual demand on on the property um and a turn lane would not be warranted for for either uses at this time okay um i i should have asked this when the um opposition was up but let me ask if you would mind coming forward please again sorry tell me where you live where you own the property across the street or you reside in this area no it's a commercial property 156 uh 5615 rocker highway across the street okay yeah and uh i guess i wasn't opposing the approval but those are the the facts impact i just wanted to be clear as to your property in relationship to the right right that's why i have the notifications so is your property is there anything on your property now is it being used uh no we we are uh we we we're building our own uh warehouse so there'll be traffic coming in and out all right thank you so i'll close the uh public comment portion and bring it back to the commission for discussion and a motion a quick question for staff yes staff um is there a traffic study that'll be required by this change at all it will be a minor traffic study so there will be one that'll be done a level two yes thank you mr chairman moved to approve ldcpas 2026-7 and it's in attire second motion and second to approve roll call please robert beltran for the motion cindy jenna masso for the motion merle bishop for the motion mike kickman for the motion angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion kevin updike for the motion motion passes thank you next case next case is a small scale future land use designation map amendment ldcpas 2026-3 sumner cozart road case to industrial the staff report ordinance and application are submitted for the record and mark bennett is the case planner morning board members for the record mark bennett land development division presenting ldcpas 2026-3 as far as notice 14 mailers were sent to area property owners on april 21st one board was posted on april 20th with a legal ad published in the lakeland winter haven sun on april 22nd no response from the public staff does recommend approval um shonda went through the items being submitted for the record and this is a level four review and the board county commissioners will hear this case on june 16th move to expedite motion and second to expedite is there anyone in the audience to speak in uh opposition to this case seeing none i believe it does qualify to be expedited so i'll ask all in favor of the motion to expedite signify by saying aye aye okay we will expedite okay the request is to change the property from business park center to industrial um because of the location of the surrounding uses the surrounding industrial land use designation um these are real quick areals of the site no impacts anticipated on public services or facilities meets the location criteria for industrial and our comprehensive plan does have direct access to an arterial road via cozart road is next to two railroads we consider to be compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan and with that i'll stand for any questions and ask that the um presentation put in the public record thank you does the album got present good morning commissioner steve sloan with sloan engineering group 150 south woodlawn avenue um we appreciate working with staff we agree with the recommendation um and happy to hear happy to be here to say good morning to everyone and uh stand for any questions if you have it thank you i have a motion move to approve ldcd 2026 dash two second motion second to approve roll call please robert beltran for the motion for the motion cindy jana masso for the motion merle bishop for the motion mike hickman angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion heaven up dyke the motion motion passes thank you next case next case is a text amendment to the comprehensive plan ldcpal 2026 dash two regarding a new land use designation called main street corridor staff report ordinance and application are submitted for the record and mark bennett is the case planner good morning again mark bennett land development division for the record um regarding notice a legal ad was published in the polk sun on april 22nd with no public response as shonda mentioned this is a proposed text amendment to our comprehensive plan land use element the purpose of it is to establish a new land use category to be called main street commercial corridor the intent is that the msc designation would only be allowed in redevelopment districts that are outlined in our comprehensive plan um redevelopment section and land use element and this this new section addresses characteristics designations and mapping location and development criteria this came about as a result of recent planning efforts in juanita and ongoing planning efforts in loes there's a need identified to have a uh modified comp plan to create a a designation that would promote development redevelopment our comp plan is oriented in our land development codes generally oriented towards what's occurring in the county transitioning from rural to urban with a focus more on the suburban or auto oriented form of development our regulations don't cover or address as much the need to look at redevelopment or revitalization of existing corridors in along collector urban roads in existing development areas so that's the background what does the amendment include it would establish the msc land use it only permits it in redevelopment districts additionally it only would be allowed in redevelopment districts that have an approved redevelopment district revitalization plan or a community redevelopment plan or an urban infill plan or some sort of similar document the intent is to make sure that any development does reoccur or occur excuse me in this land use category fits the applicable redevelopment plan and the idea is that in the main street corridor it would allow neighborhood commercial office institutional uses typically located along a roadway especially those roads that fit sort of as a main street or the center part or the focal point of a community would propose new residential development to allow for duplex triplex quadplex multifamily single-family residential development which is excuse me would be protected under vested rights and non-conformity provisions that exist in our land development code and these policies require that new regulations be created in our land development code that are context sensitive um promote urban oriented design encourage safe pedestrian bicycle movement and provide flexibility and creativity and site and building layout the intent is to promote redevelopment revitalization in these areas infrastructure impacts we anticipate this would remove some barriers and develop to development or redevelopment by allowing flexibility and site design a provision that requires frontage roads shared access ingress egress egress easements cross easements and of course any infrastructure impacts have to be addressed per our land development code limits of the ordinance impact new development in existing corridors and redevelopment districts and allow for the redevelopment of those areas justification for approval there's a specific policy in our comprehensive plan land use element regarding redevelopment activities excuse me um you'll see the second bullet here specifically contains a reference to a main street and that revitalization plan shall contain commercial uses oriented towards town center main street or placed um in neighbor isolated neighborhood market sites so creating this land use category we believe implements the intent of this policy by promoting redevelopment and revitalization of main streets and for that reason we consider um consistent with the comp plan land development code um and with that i'll ask that the uh slideshow be put in the record and stand for any questions thank you any questions of staff quick question for you mark yes sir where does this really apply i mean it seems very limited and you talked about wanita and eloise being some of the precedent to the areas is that where this will apply or is there other areas in the county that this applies to um this came about primarily as i mentioned eloise and juanita um internally among staff we talked about along cumby road there would potentially be areas there i've often often thought also that perhaps areas long havendale would be potential areas those are existing developed areas that are seeing redevelopment occurring and there's already a redevelopment plans in those areas or they just have to be formed in the future maybe um because i thought that was the other criteria you had mentioned yeah the the comp plan lists currently like 35 different areas that are redevelopment districts so that would be the starting point to identify those and then the plans would have to be formed and then they could apply this right okay thank you is this um well i'm thinking why not do an overlay district why do a special a new special land use district well my first thought or response is that we could still do an overlay district where we thought it might be applicable in juanita we suggested an overlay district because there was existing non-residential land uses and we didn't want to create a new land use district that may or may not have um the potential for taking away certain rights and uses and ability to use property we think and again we're working through a similar project with eloise we thought a land use district would be applicable there at the end of the day i would say more tools in the toolbox so to speak in terms of if we have a land use district then it clearly recognizes on the map what's allowed what's possible that's okay any other questions anyone i'll open it up for public comment anyone in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition to this uh application by staff seeing none i'll close the public comment portion bring it back to the board for any further discussion or and a motion move to approve ldcd 2026-3 second motion second to prove roll call please robert beltran for the motion cindy jenna masso for the motion merle bishop for the motion mike hickman angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion kevin updike for the motion motion passes thank you thank you next case our next case is ldcd 2026-2 we call it the avenue q auto body district change we didn't choose 42nd street because we already had a 42nd street auto body land use change in the past so we uh call this avenue q since it was a different road uh the uh request is to go from business park center one to business park center two on approximately one acre uh the uh we submit the staff report and application for the record along with the ordinance uh this um site is located at 1453 42nd street northwest south of avenue q west of the 42nd street north west east of wrecker highway south of alberndale west of the city of winter haven in section 14 township 28 range 25 45 mailers were sent to area property owners on april 22nd uh two boards were posted on the property on april 21st and a legal ad was published in the lakeland winter haven sun on april 22nd so far we received no uh opposition the we submit to you as i mentioned the staff report the draft ordinance application impact assessment and demonstration need for the record as mentioned before the location is in inward which is an area that is is uh served by two cities as far as utilities are concerned auburndale and winter haven all kind of co-mingle in this large platted subdivision called inwood this site has been used for auto body in the past it was c4 under the old zoning it after the land development code was adopted it became vpc1 the c4 zoning went away the use went dormant for a period of time it became storage and other uses and now the applicant is is seeking to uh do auto body repair and that is one of the items that you can do in bpc2 that you can't do in bpc1 also bpc2 allows for some outside storage the area as you can see is a mixture of different uh land uses to the south it's very industrial this is old castle concrete and asphalt products there is a residential subdivision immediately to the west that is uh actually bpc1 currently uh another and a bpc2 property here is the lake wales ridge wildlife environmental area that's managed by the florida fish and wildlife commission uh the corridor along 42nd street is a mixture of industrial and commercial uses and we even have a con another concrete plant to the southeast as you can see the land uses are representative of some of the things but not all of them uh this this would uh recognize this site as bpc2 and allow the applicant to continue in their pursuit of an auto body repair business this is the site today as you can see the automotive repair this is immediately across the street it has just one entrance and that's on 42nd street and like i said before we didn't name it 42nd street because we had another case named that so we went with the avenue q this is the intersection of avenue q and 42nd street and as you see there's no driveway access on avenue q which is a lesser used road it also borders a subdivision to the west most of the property is separated by the self-storage facility that is on it um so there is some mitigating uses there are some things on this property that will be need to be uh remediated to fall into the bbc2 category this is just the first district change the board of county commissioners will hear this case on june 2nd staff recommends approval this site has been used for auto body and outdoor storage in the past the abutting residential neighborhood is mostly screen uh the vehicle repair of course is required by the code to be conducted inside uh and in closed structure so with that i submit this presentation for the record and stand for questions any questions with staff seeing none is the applicant present nope yes not i assume they knew about this they were notified yes yes okay got a copy of the staff report okay anyone uh in the audience i'll open up the item for public comment is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition to this request seeing none i'll bring it back to the board for discussion and emotion what's your pleasure mr chairman move to approve ldcd 2026 test two in its entirety second motion and second to approve roll call please robert beltran for the motion cindy jenna masso for the motion merle bishop for the motion mike hickman for the motion angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion kevin up dyke for the motion motion passes thank you next case please our next case is an applicant initiated text amendment to the land development code case number ldct 2026 dash two uh titled the firearms range access the uh there was a legal ad published in the lakeland winter haven sun on april 22nd we submit uh the staff report application and ordinance for the record uh this is a text amendment to chapter three conditional uses section 303 criteria of conditional uses uh for high intensity recreation to allow access via easement for only firearms ranges let me interrupt you real quick that the slide says ldct 2026 dash two oops sorry which was i just want to make sure you got the it looks like the picture is right but i just want to make sure you got the right case up there the wrong case yeah this one was continued right yeah fire we had number 10 on the docket fire uh ldct 2026 dash three firearms range access i had that one crossed out was i incorrect that was incorrect the that was the uh a different firearms range range on on a different road was the one that was continued this is okay this is a text amendment that one was a conditional use so it is ldct 2026 dash three yes this is okay dct 2026 dash three okay the uh what the applicant is requesting is that firearms be treated differently under high intensity recreation is is is a number of recreational uses that have lots of people or have some form of of stadium nighttime lighting for nighttime sports activities or discharge firearms they're all lumped into one category called high intensity recreation and while the uh stadium lighting and the large crowds probably need direct access to a paved public road firearms ranges are a little different uh firearms ranges don't necessarily need that that road frontage access as a matter of fact it's often better that they're further away from the public road as far as you can get so that there's no um possibility that that rounds go into the public road uh you can see where uh high intensity recreation is a level three review in these categories agriculture through uh residential high in the pm area um they are administrative approval level one review and tourist commercial leisure rec uh institutional one institutional two and and recreation open space so you know typically if there was an issue with the access being uh needing to have more frontage through the conditional use process we could condition a particular firearms range request the others too would would go administratively uh this all text is uh amendment is also very limited uh there's still a requirement for sufficient uh public safety access fire trucks and ambulances and police vehicles and it's limited to no more than 50 daily attendees so these are small firearms ranges not a big facility like like the one we have that's been on east espn on highway 640 uh this this would be for a little more uh casual and limited uh activity we looked at all different types of jurisdictions and how they treated firearms uh act uh uses most of them were conditional uh so they had an opportunity so access wasn't a standard condition for these and they could condition the access approval through the conditional use process so staff feels that this is just a minor uh change to our our rules it gives a little more flexibility for the small firearms ranges it also serves a greater uh public safety uh aspect to it in that we get these firearms ranges farther away from the public road uh just in case you know rounds go beyond the berms and things of that nature um it's limited to uh the number of occupants and um there the public safety standards for access will still be met that'll still be a requirement i submit this presentation for the record and stand for any questions this is an applicant initiated amendment so the next step would be to allow the applicant to speak there's any questions of staff if not i'll invite the applicant to come forward please thank you eric good morning everyone for the record tom woodridge tdw land planning i've run into several sites like this over the years where an applicant needs access for this type of limited use typically a club and when you search for parcels in a rural area which is where people want to go to maybe hunt or shoot the challenge has always been finding something that's on a county the word is paved road and while we have done a lot of research to show that there are other types of similar activities um you know tannerock and hilochi areas and uh flaming area boy scout camp for example is more than a half mile on an unpaved road uh with greater intensity we could argue uh the intent has always been to provide safe public safety access sufficient for you know police fire and ems to obtain access when necessary for this these are limited access areas with groups uh we have small groups that that we're talking about here today and we still want to ensure that access is provided sufficient for emergency access but also that is financially feasible for a smaller group and if you consider the economics of a smaller group they cannot afford to purchase a parcel neither do they probably want to be located on a parcel that has paved county road access those areas are better served for businesses or perhaps residential where you have constant coming and going of trucks and residents going to school or whatever for business or for residential purposes certainly that's what those roads are for those accesses are necessary for for these types of club activities you want a rural location you're going to be off the main road you're going to be back behind something in the woods and for that reason a lot of those areas in the county are not sitting on a county paved road so we're here today to propose this um minor modification to the land development code text it still supports the land development code and comprehensive plan policies uh in terms of being consistent with the access requirements of those two ordinances and i'll stand for any questions that you have regarding this request so the change would allow for access via an easement or i guess an unimproved road for no more than half a mile correct right okay and no more than 50 daily attendees is that and is that new that that's we're suggesting when we worked with staff we proposed um this concept to draft and we agreed that probably that's a good threshold to maintain the frequency of traffic that could be below a concerning level okay any questions that anyone i'll open up the uh hearing for public comment anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application anyone to speak opposed okay thank you thank you um i'll bring it back to the board for any further discussion or questions i have a question for eric hey eric what does this look like in light of what we've been discussing on old grade road kind of like the ranchero situation is this you know old grade road is one of those land sale um type of uh i don't want to say a subdivision an unrecorded subdivision and uh it's also in the green swamp uh two things that don't we are not uh permitted to allow access via easement through so it would not it it would be limited to areas that were not uh land sale lots or platted right of you know uh paper plats uh where you would be going on public right of ways that were unopened and unmaintained so this would uh uh be limited to um just recreational uses and i said before um the districts it would go in and in the case of agricultural residential rural areas um the uh all the residential areas and those those places would still be a conditional use so coming in to do the firearms range would still we could condition any access or limitations hours of operation things of that nature if that was to come about it's only in the towns are the tourist commercial center leisure recreation and the institutional uses which are typically government and recreation open space which is typically our public parks thank you thank you do i have a motion i'd like to make a motion to approve ld ld sorry ldct 2026-3 second motion second to approve roll call please robert beltran for the motion cindy jenna masso for the motion moral bishop or the motion mike kickman angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion kevin update for the motion motion passes thank you next case please ldcu 2026-4 highland city uh employment center cap this is a request to expand the uh commercial uh limitation of the retail cap above beyond the 30 percent allowed in the us 98 selected area plan employment center andrew gohowski is the case planner and we submit the staff report and plan uh application for the record good morning andrew gohowski with land development presenting ldcu 2026-4 the applicant is requesting conditional use approval to exceed the 30 percent cap for retail and commercial uses within an employment center land use district in the us 98 selected area plan policy 2.131-q4 of the comprehensive plan limits development of commercial and retail uses to 30 30 percent within the ecx land use district with the goal of providing large employers such as office centers and medical facilities to develop within these areas however the comprehensive plan does allow for the cap to be exceeded through a conditional use this allows staff the opportunity to review the use and and the compatibility with the surrounding uses to ensure the use is appropriate as a support service for nearby residents and tourists to the area the request is specifically asking for the construction of two drive-through restaurants one medical office and one vehicle service establishment in highland city as well as landscape alternatives to ldc section 401.04.k for the record on april 21st 35 mailers were sent to area property owners two signs were posted on april 21st and a legal ad was published in the lakeland and winter haven sun on april 22nd with no response from the public staff is recommending approval the subject site is located near the intersection of us highway 98 and clubhouse road the subject site is approximately 3.18 acres within the employment center land use district in the us 98 selected area plan the core of the request is to exceed the 30 cap outlined in yellow is the ecx land use district in question the subject site is outlined in blue currently out of the approximately 5.5 acres of ecx 1.94 acres are developed which is a drive-through restaurant to the north the drive-through restaurant was developed within a tcx land use designation prior to the adoption of a future land use map amendment to the ecx district in august of 2025 case number is ldc pas 2025-9 approval of this request will preserve the applicant's ability to cross the threshold cap and develop retail and commercial uses in the entire district the subject site is the only vacant parcel left in this particular ecx district outlined in yellow the site is abutting the fort fraser trail to the southwest and is within close walking distance to the main trailhead and to a citrus connection bus stop the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into three out parcels to include two drive-through restaurants one dental office and one vehicle service vehicle service establishment the uses will be located between an existing drive-through restaurant to the north and a daycare facility currently under construction to the south according to table 4.12 of the ldc drive-through restaurants are c3 or level 3 conditional use approval from the planning commission meanwhile medical office and vehicle service mechanical uses are subject to conditional level 2 approval here is the site plan submitted for the record with the three proposed parcel boundaries outlined in red according to the plans two access points are proposed off third street southeast and one access is proposed off central avenue southeast cross access is also planned to connect to the existing site to the north yesterday at the regular set hearing the board agreed with the recommended changes from tpo and the tac to the functional reclassification of third street southeast and central avenue southeast from local residential to local commercial roadways this negates the need for any driveway waivers during the level 2 review process under this request the commercial and retail allowance will be permitted in the entire ecx district given the proximity to the fort fraser trail additional development requirements such as raised crosswalks and sidewalk connections are required and shown on the plans according to ldc section 401.04 k a five foot wide type b landscape buffer is required between non-residential uses on the right hand side of the screen is a general illustration of the us 98 selected area plan landscape requirements as part of the request the applicant is proposing an alternative to the type b landscape buffer buffer just internal to the site between each use circled in orange given the buildings abutting each other are utilizing shared parking areas staff has worked with the applicant to allow landscape modifications to this particular requirement while this will not remove the internal landscape buffer entirely the condition gives the applicant the flexibility to locate these plantings along the buildings within within other landscape buffers or elsewhere elsewhere throughout the site as part of the conditions the landscape plans shall call out where the type b plantings and species counts will be located at level 2 review no alternatives are proposed for the landscape requirements along the exterior portions of the site landscape and tree preservation requirements are incorporated into the conditions of the staff report here's how the proposed project will fit with the request if it is approved residential homes are found across third street from the subject site the request meets ldc section 220 which requires at least 50 feet separation between the drive-through facility and residential properties or residential land use districts the site plan provides at least 83 feet as well as a required 20-foot type c landscape buffer the proposed types of uses are not uncommon in the general facility with retail restaurants gas stations and drive-throughs within close walking distance nearby the location is ideal for these uses as the businesses will have visible visibility of highway 98 and provide a natural transition and intensity between highway 98 and the residential homes to the east the use is similar in intensity to the retail and commercial sites in the surrounding area so this is just an area aerial excuse me illustrating the roadways that have recently been changed in classification by the board from local residential to local commercial the site will have direct access to both central avenue southeast and third street southeast as well as cross access to the existing northern development these are just site photos submitted into the record there's the fort frazier trail that's directly abutting the site to the right and on your left you could see us highway 98 so staff is recommending approval the request is compatible and consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan with that i submit this presentation in for the record and stand for any questions any questions of staff so the uh the current restriction is 30 that's correct what is the what is the request and what is the new percentage with this development it would be a hundred percent so the entire district would allow for retail or commercial development any questions no question um is this the right lane use for this then or i mean if we're going to give the exception good from 30 to 100 is there a better lane use designation for this um so the the draw um the vehicle service mechanical use um as i mentioned previously it was tcx um that actually doesn't allow vehicle service mechanical so ecx is um permitted as a c2 um in ecx um considering that the us highway 98 um intersection has tcx or ecx um ecx would be the most likely lane use designation yeah so looking at the um future land use map for the intersection there it looks like the only alternative probably would be the tcx which doesn't work i'm not sure what else could i mean i'm not sure what else you would apply there the parcel was changed employment center yeah i know i realize that and before the sap was adopted it was linear commercial corridor the depth is pretty low it's not very deep going going back from the road so um employment center provided the most flexibility so but not perfect but right mr chair yes so uh what use would they have currently if they didn't get this additional 70 percent i mean what what kind of application would they what kind of structures would they be able to put in there if they didn't get this so the drive-through restaurants um would be allowed but as a level three um so they would still have to come back to the planning commission um the medical office would be um permitted as a level two and then again the vehicle service isn't allowed in tcx if yeah i mean i just wonder how many vehicles or east uh places we need over there there's already two just you know diagonally across in the highland city you know public's area there i mean you know i guess the market drives that but it just seems like you know there's better use for that property there than more you know that's just my personal opinion on it so i'm just you know i'm just wondering what other what better uses would be applicable for that property you know how many you know tire shops or auto repair places do we need in in that area oh i gotta well i sounds like staff is thinking about that has there been any consideration or investigation or analysis of i mean that that tcx is a fairly large district and this particular case focuses on this area at the southeast intersection what about the entire district what is the percentage of its development is it's 30 i mean i'm just wondering what if you look at the entire district what would the percentage be and i'm not i'm not saying you have to have an answer to that i'm just thinking yeah it's 100 for this but the requirement for the 30 could be looked at from the standpoint of well what is the overall development because there's residential development as part of that so i'm just thinking how how does this really affect or impact the tc well the the uh eric peterson for the land development division the tcx uh area is is pretty much uh built out with with the exception of uh three out parcels which we all have um approved plans and and potentially approvable plans that might even come to you before uh for other uh requests uh the uh this the 30 percent pertains just to the ecx district which is a very small isolated district okay i got you here the the other eight you can't see my screen this this is just a small okay all right all right further to the north there's a whole nother larger ecx district where the commercial has been able to stay within that 30 percent cap okay yeah we're gonna need to hear from the applicant too that may answer a lot of this all right will the applicant come forward please um good morning commissioners for the record bart allen land use attorney with the peterson and meyers law firm i had addresses 225 east lemon street lakeland florida i'm here this morning on behalf of the applicant ecp partners and i have with me mr jacob mossholder who's in the audience um there um we've been working on this this property for quite some time i've been in front of you to change the land use we've amended the code um in order to get to this to get to this uh place where we are today and i just and i want to make sure everybody's 100 clear on what it is the 30 percent only applies to this five acres by code we don't consider we're not allowed to consider any of the other ecx districts in the sap so we are only looking at this five acres which is why we had to amend the development code to get to where we are today there was a little bit of a hidden provision at the time because we were evaluating it as the whole like y'all were talking about there what does this have on the whole but the reality is is when you you have to look at the contiguous acres going to ecx on the property when we made that land use change with that unintended consequence that was not in everybody on the windshield of everybody at the time would have made this site wouldn't would have precluded any retail because the culvers that's already there would it was almost 30 of that five acres already because it's about one and a half acres so you wouldn't have had any retail opportunity on this site at all so that's why we amended the lane of omen code to land where we are today um the uses are certainly market driven um this is right on the front edge of us 98 you get a lot of vehicle traffic in this area you've got a growing population in this area as we know so you're going to need more services for the local to provide for these residents that are coming into these areas so drive-thru restaurants the coffee shops that we're talking about for here the food service establishments that historically didn't have necessarily a drive-thru associated with them but now do and have some of those uses and obviously i'm not at a place in this deal where i can talk about my specific users so i'm talking about them without saying who they are those those services and providing those opportunities at this intersection which has been rebuilt and maxed out over the past and i say maxed out i mean has been built to the ultimate design at clubhouse and us 98 through the cooperation of of developers and landowners and things of that nature over the years that's why you're seeing this development now and that's why you're seeing these kinds of uses come to this area because that's the appropriate place for them is at intersections where you have the ability to use signalize ingress and egress um we appreciate all mr grahowski's work we've um spent a lot of um time with staff shonda eric um mr ziskell working on this and we we have a favorable staff recommendation um but we're and would request a favorable approval of this and again are there other lane use classifications in this county bag of of the lane use classifications maybe the problem is when you look at locational criteria if you wanted to do nac for instance let's say we wanted to do an nac which would make sense for these uses i can't establish a new nac because my tcx is sitting right there next to me and i've got separation criteria that i can't that we can't qualify for so the ecx and this path was the best way to get to where we are today not perfect and i think miss miss bennett may have even said that it wasn't ideal but it is but it was the best way to get to where we are and we would request a favorable vote this morning any questions mr chair i've got a question bart there's some conditions of approval in the staff report you guys are in agreement with all those conditions we are in agreement with all those conditions we've got a bit of them there are yeah thank you okay i'll open up the uh item for public comment anyone in the audience speak in favor of this application anyone is opposed to this application seeing none i'll close billet comment bring it back to the board for further discussion and the motion mr chair moved to approve ldcu 2026 dash four second motion and a second to approve roll call please robert beltran for the motion cindy janem also for the motion merle bishop for the motion mike kickman for the motion angel sims for the motion linda schultz for the motion heaven update for the motion motion passes thank you next case good morning shonda bennett with land development division for the record this is a request for the planning commission don't consider a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment ldcpas 2026-11 the delaroid business park center to residential low on 5.14 acres in the urban growth area 12 mailers were sent to area property owners on april 21st two signs posted on april 21st a legal ad published in the polk sun on april 22nd staff did receive a letter from the city of lakeland as well as a letter from a neighboring property owner that neighboring property in a letter was passed out at your desk seat this morning submitted for the record is a staff report draft ordinance impact assessment statement narrative and demonstration of need some additional emails between the applicant and a few staff members and of course the letters from lakeland and neighboring property owners a property is near the lakeland linder airport to the west and south it's on the south side of medella road and it is west i'm sorry east of county line road a few facts of the case that you'll hear in the presentation are that if you consider the land south of medella road and unincorporated polk county the majority of that is designated with a residential land use classification five of the 12 parcels designated business park center on the south side of medella are developed with residential homes the other parcels are either vacant or have agricultural uses on them there are no non-residential uses south of medella road other than a cemetery at the south east corner of county line road and medella road uh the property was subject to a request in 2020 the planning commission recommended approval the board of county commissioners did deny the request the applicant was aware of the designation when it was purchased in 2021 by the applicant however at some point and i have not been able to identify exactly when this happened the data viewer that we use is the public facing information to all the staff members that relay land use information to residents or customers that call in display the parcel as residential low at that time then the applicant made the decision to get a road furniture waiver and apply for a building permit for a residential home and that's when it was identified but the map was incorrect one of the items or issues that have changed since 2020 is that the grisham farms village in unincorporated i'm sorry in the city limits of lakeland due west of the site i'll show that in an area in a photograph coming up was developed and it includes 78 residential homes it's a larger location map the green is the city of lakeland you can see the orange outline that includes the site this is an aerial photograph of the site and context aerial the cemetery that i had mentioned is i'm pointing that out with the mouse here at the southeast corner of county line and medela road this is the grisham farms subdivision that's south of medela road and then if you go further south then you'll find the publics there at the northeast corner of pipkin and county line road the uses in the city of lakeland i'm sorry in the city of lakeland adjacent to the site are residential this is the close-up aerial currently the site is vacant it does have some farm related structures on the very southwest corner you can see some floodplain around the site and capturing a little bit of the corner of the site and you can see the home surrounding the property north of medela road there is a solar farm for the city of lakeland's electric system on the north side this is the current future land use map with business park center on the south side of medela road you can see some of the acreages of the neighboring parcels they're about five acres or larger the smallest parcel is not too far from the site to the east it's about an acre in size staff has focused mostly on the south side of medela rather than the north side of medela road since the north side there is the existing solar farm and it's mostly it's more impacted by the runways from the airport than this site is and i have a slide to show that if the request is approved this would be the current would be the future land use map if approved some site photos to the this is looking on the property on medela road looking east i took this the day friday of the sun and fund opener opener opener and you can see some rvs parked across from the property that are related to that this is looking south southeast into the site on the left side you'll see a house that's the small one acre piece that's due east of the subject site and this fence is on the front edge of the proposed site of the subject site and their entrance is on the left this is standing near their entrance into their property off from the fence sites on the left this is medela road looking west and then you can see the house on the north and if you notice you don't see any non-residential uses on the road even though in this photo what's on the north side of medela and the south side of medela is designated business park center in terms of impact assessment there's no impact that is anticipated to significantly decrease the concurrency for schools for the elementary bruce wagner sleepy hill middle and george jenkins christina park and ala fire reserve are the closest recreational facilities sheriff ems facilities are in decent close proximity with variety of response times the property is within the city of lakelands water and sewer service this request for residential low at five dwelling units of the acre is a reduction in water and sewer needs it's a reduction in average annual daily trips but a slight increase in pm peak hour trips in terms of environmental impact there's a small flood zone area on the southwest corner no wetlands it is within a potential connection in the pulp green map in terms of connecting from areas that are already conserved or owned by conservation organizations it is near a conservation easement related to the morgan creek development to the south and it is not within the wildlife corridor one item that is relevant to the case that needs to be mentioned is according to section 220 the compatibility section it does increase the setbacks if approved to the parcels on the east and the west side of the property because section 220 has several different items that it includes which is listed on the screen signage lighting buffering specific items regarding commercial vehicles linear commercial quarter commercial enclave and loading areas but for buildings and all of this is related to a 50-foot compatibility zone and that 50-foot compatibility zone is either adjacent to a residential structure if it's in a non-residential land use district or within 50 feet of the property line of a residentially designated property so if you take the upper right the smaller parcel that these black boxes are about 50 feet in width and they're not on the property line they're 50 feet from the structure but on the subject site the red orange is the 20-foot side setback in business park center so if this is approved it does impact the neighboring properties by increasing the building setback from 20 feet to 50 feet that 50 feet though can be used for retention drive aisles buffer areas parking etc as stated earlier the property owner was aware of the business park center designation and applied for a couple of land development requests that's one of the findings of fact in the staff report and but then once the applicant was told about the residential designation then they proceeded to apply for a road frontage waiver and it was granted by staff for a road frontage waiver of the 210 feet requirement for a single-family home as the property only has about 171 feet of frontage on medela road which is a collector road and then the applicant proceeded to apply for a building permit which is currently on hold pending this request some other facts of the area that 60 or about 60 percent of the parcels south of medela road in unincorporated polk county have a residential structure on them nine i should say about 70 percent of the area south of medela road is either designated residential low or residential suburban so that leaves about 29 percent of the area south of medela road in unincorporated polk county as business park center so the majority is residential 12 parcels in the business park center where i had previously mentioned that five of those parcels have residential homes on the property there is a concern with when you bifurcate residential in the middle of non-residential like this it prohibits a coordinated congruent type of growth within the business park center although the existing residential units in the business park center probably do the same thing in terms of forcing um buying up all the properties to try to have a more a coordinated development of the entire business park center district south of business park south of medela road in terms of a little bit of land use history um the land uses have been changed to rl kind of going from the outside in in this district the first was at the northeast corner of aaron morgan road and medela road the next was just south of it and then again next to that was another one and the last one to occur was all was on the left hand side on the west and that was a bifurcated land use request due to a banking a bank financing issue so the property owner had to split their land use of where their home is versus where they have an accessory structure that they're doing some kind of home occupation out of that we with the request from the city of lakeland we did get this map that's part of your attachment or a exhibit in the staff report i've you can see the runways on lakeland linder airport here going east west and then the one kind of going catty cornered and you can see i tried to basically outline where the site is uh in relationship to the airport sorry i thought it had the other map here uh you can see some of this uh cone-shaped uh red lines that come off of off of this runway if you saw them here the parcel would not be included in in those they are included in a variety of different overlay zones related to the airport but those would be more impacted if it was a tall building the city of lakeland's letter that is included in the staff report does require does ask that the case be denied but if the board of county commissioners ultimately wishes to have the case approved they do ask that the applicant execute and record an navigation easement and they provided an example from another property owner i attached that as a separate document in the backup material that you have we cannot i told the city we are not able to force that kind of a condition because this is not a conditional cpa if you're aware when we have those we add conditions in the land development code that's not the situation here this is either simple approval or denial we can't make that that condition so that would be an issue that the board would have to discuss with the county attorney when it comes to them for their hearing staff does recommend approval we did not recommend approval five years ago but the area has not shifted to non-residential uses since 2020 the new subdivision grisham farms is the biggest difference between 19 1920 between 2020 and today and again it had 78 units so neat residential units that are now there there are no non-residential uses in the bpc south of medela road some of the lots in the business park center have residential homes on them the current request is compatible with the current adjacent uses being all residential or vacant and so staff finds it compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan of land development code and i submit this presentation and for the record and stand for any questions any questions of staff so backing up this property was purchased and she proceeded because there was an error made in the designation so the property owner thought and everybody else apparently did too that this was residential she bought it knowing it was business park center okay but at some point the map displayed differently and when she called back after she bought it yes sir so she bought it as business park center yes but there's documentation in your backup material that she had several email conversations and phone conversations with staff in building and in land development the map displayed residential and they have to rely on the on that map so that's when she thought oh it's changed okay and then proceeded to go a different direction with her so my next my next question is if this is approved and based upon what you know is out there and maybe this is a fake question isn't fair maybe i'm not saying you have to answer this but but so if the other properties came in and said well we're we've been residential here for a long time and we don't want business park center because of what it does to our property or insurance or mortgage or whatever would the staff recommend those parcels change as well i mean is there the potential for this area to transition from business park center to a residential land use category i can't answer the first part of your question because that's not in front of i know right second part that's the basis for the approval is the grisham farms development okay right i remember that yes that wasn't present at the time that 78 unit development yeah was not there in 2020 and it's evidence that this area south of medela road is so you could potentially transitioning to residential so you could see the staff recommending additional changes from business park center to residential south of medela road i think that's a possibility i do anticipate this parcel here that's the parcel that um the letter writer that you uh miss nancy i forgot her last name that i passed out this morning this is the other parcel that she mentioned that there was an interest in that being residential and we do have a land development record record that they applied for a pre-app back in 2020 asking for potential for this to be changed to residential and it was held off because when the board denied this request the board asked staff to send out a letter to all the property owners south of medela road asking them if they would like us to do a county initiated amendment to change it to residential because it's not developing for business park center there are long narrow strips of property and there are residential peppered in there but the majority of the residents that responded to our letter said no we do not want the land use changed the board told staff okay let it go don't don't make the change so when i was when i figured out what's going on here i sent another letter to all the property owners asking the same question telling what telling them what happened asking would they like us to do a land use change for all of them county initiated and the response was very similar but i only heard from three four four property owners i heard from this property owner the large block i heard from this property owner and then this property owner here and she owns this parcel and the big block to the north and i heard from this property owner and they all are related or married to the morgan family merle yes back a number of years ago i tried to assemble all of those parcels together to do residential with it and the city shut me down uh they they really didn't want to discuss it because really they'd like to just see it remain unused in anticipation of the activities of the of the airport there but it would be very appropriate for low density um residential in that whole strip and there are these right there's about 10 little strips that are all owned they were inherited you know by individual family members and uh they were all in agreement to assemble it and sell it and make it into residential but i couldn't get the city to even you know address it in any manner so but yeah i think it's a good use for the property and i think it would continue hopefully it would encourage the others to do the same and imagine the reason you got the reaction that they didn't want to change anything is like most people they don't you know they think change is a bad thing you know and they don't want to lose value or the opportunity to use their property but that's really what it needs to be in thinking about mr hickman i appreciate that information what you're talking about this subdivision here the more part of the morgan creek subdivision it's within the flight path of the airport and that was but not but not the properties due south of medela it's this little block going north that's not in but this development is in lakeland that's in the city of lakeland i mean i i had all 10 properties under contract all which was pretty difficult because they were spread all over the country you know to turn it into residential use and and the city shut it down so i think it's going to go that direction anyhow and i think we should encourage and i certainly feel awful about the fact the map was wrong we've certainly instituted a new process to make sure that we only have signed ordinances before any maps are changed to make sure that doesn't happen i can't fully explain why it happened um at the time it happened we didn't have a mapping staff in our division we do now lots of things are different we're trying to implement new processes to prevent this and i i feel bad for everybody involved um it's it's it's been a struggle so um just trying to find the right path for everybody moving forward okay yes can you go back to the i mean if we were to approve this it's going to place additional restrictions on the adjacent properties is that that's correct just like this one did here those restrictions with this approval i'm sorry there's no way to waive those restrictions with this approval no i struggle with changing one lane use that impacts your neighbor i would but they could come in for variance i guess no no not to the 50 foot compatibility okay but but that's assuming they they don't go residential themselves yeah that's correct and i guess i'd argue that every every land use change has an impact one way or the other directly or indirectly this one did this one here did and it was approved and so did this that would have caused a 50 foot setback here and here and here and here that didn't exist before the board approved that and that's been within the last five years it almost feels like to me if we approve this it forces those two adjacent properties to switch yeah i hate telling people what to do yeah which was our struggle back in 2020 that was part of the concern i i their property they get to yeah i mean within the rules right it's tough yeah that's what i'm struggling with okay let's have the apple come up is the apple present yes yes ma'am oh yes are you that you're the applicant yes come forward please were you sworn in okay hi i'm aniela sagado five two one zero white eagle lane lakeland florida three three eight one one so i just want to clarify something yes i purchased the land knowing that it was business however when i attempted to do a business on my property i was told that it was residential i did not take advantage of one single information one bad day that anybody can have i pursue confirmation from the county staff for the course of two years i have more than 15 emails from the county staff office saying no you can only do a home at that point i changed my plans from doing the business that i was planning on doing to residential i do appreciate the county staff you know for helping me identify that issue and and moving forward and trying to help me get here today the property right next to the east side of my property does have a home on there yes while the surrounding area is business they all have a residential home on on the properties so they're they're having the benefit of having a land classified as business while they also have a home there where they live they have a designation for pastor so that's that too we have livestock on our property as well so we do come to our house to our property every single day to care for animals so making the change is not going to alter the strength in the area in any ways because like i said they have parcels they have pastor which i do and they all have a home there so assuming that let's say okay let's go back to business again that setbacks is also going to affect me because there's already a home right next to my property on the east side so it's it depends on who's looking at it and which way they want to look at it we all affect it somehow because the parcels are very narrow and they're basically right next to each other um again i don't i mean in regards to the letter that it was received from one of the neighbors i think it's you know i want to address paragraph number two when she knew when she made the application no i did not know i was told that it was residential and i don't know anybody i mean i questioned that for two years not one time two years and i was told it was residential number three um just referring to the history of the property that was turned down back in 2021 conditions and planning priorities evolve and this request reflects that i mean as the time goes everything changes and that's exactly what's happening not to mention 4414 medulla row the land use change was approved from business to residential there's a home that was built there back in 2021 paragraph number four in regards to step backs i just said that you know there's a property right next to me on the east side so that also affects me if i were to do a business last paragraph um she's concerned about the possible airport expansion and whether or not i'm going to be able to stay there that is our concern and we have considered that um she does uh well they just you know letters were sent out to all the neighbors in the area yes three or four of them call back against my request they all from the same family so it's like one family against the entire neighborhood not to mention that her backyard becomes it becomes a campsite where hundreds of rbs parked there so isn't that also a concern and against it's a violation of the land use thank you thank you any questions of no okay is there uh anyone to speak in favor of this application anyone to speak in opposition yes ma'am that's your name and address and where you sworn in okay my name is jamie collins and i live at 44 44 medulla road i'm that little tiny parcel that doesn't really matter but it does to me and it does to my family that was a wedding gift to me and my husband when we married that family that property has been in our family since the original polk county 150 years the property has been divided and yes i was the first family that built out there it has been agricultural all these years y'all came in after i built my house in the 80s and well when i we moved out there in the 80s and changed it to business nobody voted on that nobody requested it was just done and we accepted it and we've been asking from the beginning to keep it uh if you're gonna have to rezone it to keep it rural residential agricultural because everybody on that section down there has animals the people bought when family died and people sold properties people bought being told it was business commercial they knew it was business commercial it was changed after the single home me we have livestock on all those properties they're not empty properties they're growing plants and animals and if it goes to residential even low residential you can't have chickens you can't have ducks and my daughter can't buy just random animals because of her health conditions we grow our own foods there's never been a chemical on any of that property there's never been fertilizer on any of that property other than natural cows and animals and we knew that eventually people would move in but they were all told when they came out there with the realtors we told them it was business commercial and we have people behind us there's a skinny little drive and people behind us that are going to want to build too and there's no water out there people are on wells and we're already in the biggest drought that florida has ever seen anybody else builds wells out there we're going to lose what little bit of water we have out there and we were told by the county in 2020 when we were all sent letters the friday before thanksgiving that we i mean it came in the mail friday and saturday and we were all given three days to say if 13 family members wanted it changed and we all said no if you're not going to put it for agricultural leave it alone and y'all promised us then it would be left alone and it's not being left alone okay thank you ma'am is that your um is that your i'm the little tiny home on the 1.04 acres the property straight back yeah and then all my husband died so they sold it i got you okay very good thank you and i'm not moving yes ma'am if i got a question of staff so if this area were changed say others came in and this area were changed to rl1 what impact does that have on the people that live there now and their family farm operation it will not change the family farm bona fide agriculture is allowed in every land use district in the county and we have neighbors now that tell us the chickens are too loud and the chickens have been there the whole time they're moving in and they're complaining about the animals they're they're permitted in every land use classification okay thank you anyone else to speak in opposition to this application seeing none i'll close the public comment and bring it back to the board for further discussion and a motion i have a question for shonda yes if uh it stays business park center what could go there now um and could you have farm animals on a business park center yes yes you could uh warehouse distribution commercial vehicle parking offices commercial vehicle parking so that could turn into a parking lot right next door yes which which in fact the uh applicant that was one of the original applications she had made before she was told it was rl uh but she decided to withdraw that because she was going in a different direction before she was told the rl and because that's the site that we're talking about was mysteriously changed from business park center to rl now the two surrounding properties are already subject to the 50 foot setback correct because it's already rl or that's what we're trying to make it we're trying to make it rl permanently the rl's not legal uh we're trying to finalize it the map was changed on the viewer okay for miscommunication so it never was officially rl it was always business park center since the comp plan was adopted but somehow it was shown as rl and and all the staff members that communicated with the applicant it's not realistic or expected that a permit technician from the building division or a planner on call communicating with a property owner does a lot of research to figure out if it's legal that's just we have too much volume we have too many people that's not expected they have to trust the maps correct so i don't fault any staff member from that miscommunication yes question chandra the the applicant earlier said that there was restrictions on her parcel if she did business because there's residential next door yet the whole thing is zoned business correct there is there is there not restrictions if she chose to use it for a business so um the the home here granted i didn't go out and measure this or survey it but from an aerial photograph um i did the 50 foot compatibility zone it doesn't appear that that goes onto her property but i could be wrong um but uh but the side setback or 20 is 20 feet this parcel this section couldn't be developed with anything it couldn't meet any side setbacks so it would be an access to something back here um but uh i don't see um that 50 foot compatibility zone being impacted on this parcel if it was developed for business park center uses so as it stands the way she purchased it just so i'm clear she could do what she needs to do with the designation as it as it was when she first bought the property a business park some business park use correct without any impacts or setbacks or from the adjacent parcels from the compatibility zone the compatibility zone okay i mean i can't i can't speak reverse if we changed it we would impact the adjacent branches yes that that setback would be increased correct right right i i can't speak to a fully engineered site plan of course understood yeah but just basically based on the area right right right thank you i have a question okay question chandra the applicant mentioned that there were homes on the business park center sites that are contiguous to what we're talking about um are they homestead or how does that work i didn't verify that whether it was homestead or not but miss collins who spoke previously that's home there the parcels these other larger parcels east and west of the site are vacant this parcel this larger eight acre parcel has a home on it this eight acre parcel has a home on it this has a home on it this has some older um structure that probably was residential uh this has i i perhaps that's a well house kind of a a structure there um and then after this land use was changed prior to covid uh they put they built a house out there the designation in the city here is residential that's why it made sense to staff because it was next door same with this and then after this one was changed a house was built so this and these these two were post-covid wait i'm sorry pre-covid but the house was built 2020 ish give or take okay so those were changed from business park center to rl1 yes yes both south and north of medela yes sir okay and what about that irregular shape this one that comes yeah that one was done the property owner had an issue with bank financing and needed it split when was that was that changed fairly recently 2018 okay so there's other changes in this area that sort of impacted the bpc district i i think it at least when you look at it from a macro standpoint it certainly started a trend going residential and then the grisham farms furthered that well right i can tell you in in 2005 it was all business park center except for that miss collins home right there that was the only thing that was there and so it has transitioned right the residential since then and i understand the the and and the other the other thing too is when we i mean as an individual strip it really is not conducive to business park now if you assembled it like we had it you know it made sense but um you know the city's not going to let that happen on their property right they don't want anything out there that's just the way they are but uh again it's just to me that would be the best use of the property and and i think you're going to see everything else go that direction okay no ma'am we're not going to take any more uh public comment any other discussion questions they all ask for a motion i move to approve uh ldcpas 2026-11 motion and a second okay roll call please robert beltran i'm against the motion cindy jenna masso i'm against the motion merle bishop against the motion mike hickman for the motion angel sims for the motion linda schultz i'm against the motion kevin updike for the motion the motion's been denied so we need a new motion oh do we have a new motion i move to deny the motion or the recommendation as presented second second motion second to deny roll call please robert beltran for the motion cindy jenna masso for the motion merle bishop for the motion mike hickman motion angel sims that's the motion linda schultz for the motion kevin updike against the motion motion passes okay so the motion passes so this will go this is a comp plan of small scale complement amendment at level four and it will go to the board of county commissioners on may 19th on may 19th okay thank you our next case is ldpd 2026-2 it is a request for a 400 unit uh single family detached home plan development on 151 acres uh the and application are submitted for the record kyle rogas is the case planner good morning kyle rogas for land development presenting ldpd 2026-2 the bolti cruise lake subdivision plan development the app plan is requesting a plan development approval for 400 single-family detached homes the purpose of this request is to allow reduced lot sizes setback reduction and increased density on approximately 152 acres on april 21st 157 mailers were sent to area property owners three boards were posted on the property april 21st a legal ad was published in the lakeland winter lakeland and winter haven sun on april 22nd staff has received 15 emails in opposition staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan in the land development code staff recommends approval the subject site is uh is west of us highway 98 south of cruise lake drive west of yarborough lane south of county road 540a east of dewitt road and northwest of the city of bartow in sections 22 27 and township 29 range 24. the subject site is located in the residential low one future land use district in the urban growth area there is a small portion of the site within the transit supportive development area along the northern property boundary the standard density in the residential low one land use district is one dwelling unit per acre but can reach up to five dwelling units per acre in the uga through pd process which is required to drop lot sizes below the minimum 40 000 square foot reduce setbacks and increased density while the majority of the site is within the urban growth area a portion is partially within the transit supportive development area to the north from a public investment standpoint urban level services are expected and available at this location this area is known as the lakeland highlands and has been built out with single-family development that was once orange groves a previous case pd 0505 a request for 158 lot single-family subdivision on approximately 60 acres received a 4-3 vote of approval by the planning commission on march 8th 2005 the proposed gross density was 2.63 dwelling units per acre this case was then denied by the board of county commissioners on may 18th 2005 by 5-0 vote the board of county commissioners based its decision upon compatibility school concurrency transportation and conclusions of law since the denial of pd 0505 in may of 2005 the surrounding area has seen growth over the last 20 years based on aerial data dating back to november of 2005 six months after the denial of pd 0505 and current aerial data as of april 2025 you can see the increase in development with the anticipated infrastructure to support development key developments that have been built out since the previous denial consists of tremont phase one and two hartford estates phase two highlands creek phase two touchstone and wind meadows this growth includes multiple residential and community projects the expansion reflects plan development supported by increasing infrastructure and investment indicating the area's well positioned for continued growth here's a site plan submitted for the record the total density proposed is 2.65 dwelling units per acre with minimum single family lot sizes of six thousand square feet the proposal includes the reduction of principal structure side setbacks from five ten feet to five feet otherwise setbacks will remain unchanged or increased from the residential low one land use district standards the proposed use and abutting uses are both single family which do not require landscape buffer however a 25 foot wide type c landscape buffer has been added as part of the the conditions of approval the buffer condition exceeds the county's most intense landscape buffer requirements by including an additional five feet of buffer width along the entire property boundary the proposed development will also implement the largest lots 64 foot wide about in cruise lake woods subdivision in addition to a six foot tall berm and six foot tall fence measured from the average existing grade the closest point measured from lot boundaries is 64 feet and is conditioned to have no proposed lot be closer than 64 feet to the cruise lake woods subdivision for the purposes of this application the portion identified as tract f2 in the tremont phase one plat under its own parcel id number has not been included in the request this tract will ultimately act as a natural buffer from the tremont subdivision not being accounted for in open space requirements density calculations and uplink calculations here's the amenity and open space plan submitted for the record there are multiple type two and four amenities the site has exceeded the minimum amenity requirement of 400 points all recreation spaces have been connected by sidewalks and all 50 foot wide lots are within 1 300 feet walking distance from these amenities pd and section 303 of the land development code designate open space as recreation space curvilinear landscape ponds with trails and walking paths and a 25 25 foot wide type c landscape buffer along all roadway frontages per table 3.4a in section 303 of the land development code an extra 32 parking spaces will be required and the applicant has provided 32 spaces data shows that densities remain generally consistent within the surrounding communities ranging from roughly 0.24 to 0.90 or sorry 2.4 to 2.9 dwelling units per acre aligning closely with nearby subdivisions the proposed development is proposing 400 single-family detached units on approximately 151 acres of upland this equates to the proposed density of 2.65 dwelling units per acre the project introduces a mix of lot widths 50 60 and 64. the lots are balanced against the surrounding developments by arranging the smaller lot sizes internal to the site and the two larger lot sizes on the periphery this approach to density and lot sizing ensures that the proposed development does not introduce excessive intensity but instead remains compatible by maintaining a comparable scale and gradual moderating differences and here's an overlay of the site plan on the subject property as it relates to the surrounding development one access point is proposed on cruise lake drive has been identified on the site plan cruise lake drive has capacity to support 790 peak hour trips and available capacity for an additional 482 trips eastbound and 495 trips westbound before the links level of service is degraded new road links were added to the 2026 roadway database offering a more precise way of measuring each road segment until a traffic study is complete at the time of level 2 review there is no immediate way to gauge the exact impact the development will have on each road link this development will be required to connect to water and wastewater this site is serviced by the southwest regional utility service area and has adequate adequate capacity for water and wastewater public system improvements associated with the subdivision include a sanitary sewer network one public lift station and approximately 2600 linear feet of six inch sanitary force main along mccall road provided is an aerial view of the subject site as it relates to the tremont and cruise lake woods subdivision if approved for the requested pd the items listed on the screen will need to be reviewed by staff during level 2 phase this includes flood study species walkover and a major traffic study sidewalks will be required along the frontage of the site and roadway dedication will be required along cruise lake drive and staff finds this plan is compatible with the surrounding uses there's a number of development to the north and east that have similar densities it meets and exceeds all plan development standards and meets the goals and sections of the comprehensive plan and land development code i submit this presentation into the record and with that i will stand for questions any questions of staff say none uh would the applicant come forward please good morning commissioners again for the record bart allen i'm a lane use attorney with the peterson and meyers law firm i address this 225 east lemon street lakeland florida i'm here this morning on behalf of the applicant pulte homes and if you'll give me just one second probably won't surprise you but i have a powerpoint presentation to run through as well and i promise i will try to move through it relatively efficiently as typical there's a lot of similarity between some of the things that staff and i like to talk about but for purposes of of making sure that the record's clear i want to just touch on a few things before i get into the to the meat of the presentation i i want to introduce a few folks i got mr jeff decent he's the vice president of land acquisition and development from pulte homes he's here with with me this morning i also have mr brian reeves who's here on the land acquisition and development side from pulte both been working on this project for the past few months also as part of our team i have kimley horn kimley horn from an engineering perspective i got mr jason alligood a professional engineer in the lakeland office also there is a handful of other kimley horn i got gage bruno i got jp wilson not sure i know the other one's name um but we got a number of our of our team here as well from the civil side and then finally also from kimley horn i have mr emmanuel rodriguez he's a pe he has been working on the traffic analysis that has been going on related to this project for purposes of presentation today i will probably do most of the initial talking but those guys have done all of the work that has gone behind the submittals and the documents and everything that i will be talking from but to the extent we need them to speak i would like to ask that this board recognize mr jeff decent he as the vice president he's got a bachelor's of civil engineering and he's been working in land development permitting projects throughout the southeast and throughout the country candidly during his career as it relates to land planning and permitting i would also like the board to recognize mr jason alligood as a pe as an expert witness with 24 years of multi-discipline engineering design on all various kinds of projects here in polk county as well as throughout central florida doing environmental civil engineering geotechnical permitting and then finer mr finally mr emmanuel rodriguez who's also a pe as a transportation engineer who has almost a decade of transportation experience doing transportation studies concurrency analysis impacts designs things of that nature as it relates to residential and non-residential projects throughout the south throughout central florida i'd request these gentlemen be recognized as experts to the extent that i need them to testify today and i have copies of their resume and i can make them available for any questioning should this board or any of the member of the public like to question their qualifications so you are submitting their resumes yes okay so we need a motion to accept these individuals that the applicant has so moved told us motion second all in favor signify by saying aye aye all right thank you and now again mr rogas has given you a wonderful overview of this project and i'm not going to try to beat on too many of these uh themes too much but i think it's important that we really kind of again central you know focus in on where we are in the county what's going on in this area and this is really a a pie piece that's bordered by florida avenue highway 37 to the west pulp parkway to the north and us 98 to the east and then on our southern boundary we're really kind of we have the phosphate mining areas as well as a landfill further to the to the south and then you move into the city of bartow as you kind of move for further to the southeast along us 98 this area over time i mean you've seen a tremendous amount of of growth in this area and it's and it's not just single family residential you've got multi-family you've had town homes you've got commercial there's four probably no less than four publicses on the screen on this image right here whether it's you know you have seen this area grow and extend south and bartow uh moving from um from the south to the north into this highland city area so this is where you where the county has experienced a high amount of growth and it still remains one of the highest demand areas within central florida and polk county for for development but the request specifically today is for this 151 acres site and we are looking at a 2.65 dwelling unit acre project with a mix of different unit types and i'm going to start moving through kind of how we got there in the process this is the pd mr rogas has already provided this to you he's giving you an overview of all the of of all the specifics but the property in order to develop in this nature needed to go through the level three review and that level three review for your purposes is how we get to to a final decision today and that takes a number of different steps there was a pre-application conference that was held on an initial concept back in november of 2025 based on that feedback the formal application was filed in february of this year there was a community meeting where pulte voluntarily went out and met with the residents in the neighborhood we noticed the same individuals that would have otherwise been noticed through this public hearing process to engage with the community and and get some feedback and that's why you see some of the additional buffering and the additional standards that are that are in the pd today that mr rogas went over there was a drc meeting on february 26th from there there was additional meetings and conversations and revisions to the site plan and work traffic studies were ongoing traffic data was being calculated and collected and now we're here at the public hearing and this would be from a level three three review very consistent satisfies all the criteria of chapter nine of your land development code specifically section 906 which defines how a level three review is to be conducted what's the standard of review i know you can't read those words down there at the bottom but basically at the end of the day when you look at what is your standard is it consistent with your comprehensive plan does it meet your land development code standards and is it compatible those are the three big criteria that we are here to review so we're going to i'm going to touch on and i know mr rogas did this too but i'm going to touch on each one of them for purposes of the record from an overview perspective the property is in the uga the uga within your comprehensive plan provides for residential low land use classification all exactly what we're doing here are your policies these are your policies up to and including five dwelling units in acre and residential low regardless of what sub-district it is it still allows you to get up to five dwelling units in acre again with the different unit types 400 units it's a density of 2.65 that is well within what is permitted within the residential low density it's and it is very consistent with what's going on around us so once you define that you're consistent with the comp plan on the density perspective then you come in and you ask for the level three review which is your plan development and then how do you get to your specific how do you analyze your piece of property as to what it is potentially able to achieve it doesn't just automatically get five dwelling units an acre you have to meet locational criteria then you have to design your site to make sure that you have your amenities in place and meeting all of your open space and other criteria these are those new standards that the county adopted a handful of years ago now um we are to to really design where the density is most appropriate needs to be based not necessarily on what the internal design of the of the project is but it's what are what's around it what's the external factors the distances to commercial you know distances to parks the ability to get to those services things of that nature so when we score this site the site would score potentially up to three and a half dwelling units an acre the project this development is only asking for 2.65 dwelling units an acre so again we meet all the locational eligibility score for for the request before you today and these are some of your tables directly out of your land development code we then looked at the recreation requirements the amenities open space things like that 20 of the site and then within that you have to have 500 square feet per rec for um per residential unit again we're satisfying all of those requirements through the pd plan with our various amenities this is the open space exhibit again very similar to what is the same one that mr rogas presented we it was prepared by kimley horn this site meets 20 open space just based on what's colored in green here what i would like to point out is that the code allows us to count stormwater ponds when they're curb when they are designed with curvilinear features and things like that we haven't included that in in our 20 calculation intentionally so to demonstrate how much open space is going to be there there will actually be well in excess of the 20 open space if we design if we design the stormwater ponds to meet those standards so this this project is um creating a tremendous amount of open space and that open space helps a couple of things right it's good for the internal residents of the neighborhood but it's also creating separation and buffering from adjacent neighborhoods which gets to the compatibility conversation amenities there's four or five different amenities within the site there's a primary amenity with a clubhouse and or a pool and a cabana i'm sorry i didn't mean to say clubhouse pool and cabana and some recreation activities then we have some intermittent tot lots and dog parks spread throughout the throughout the community as as is encouraged by your land development code again all consistent scoring well in excess of what would otherwise be required for a 400 unit residential project 625 points here this is the amenity center plan again you can see the primary amenity kind of up front closer to uh cruise lake drive and then as you move in you see open space um amenities kind of working throughout the project this is an example this is a this is an example of amenity center that pulte has built in other projects again pool cabana recreation space for the residents there you can see tot lots dog parks you know some areas looks like cornhole there so a nice amenity that the residents of the community can can use as well as you know some additional parking and things that things like that so these are the this is what you would see in what i would call the the primary amenity so working through those three criteria locational score open space and amenity package that helps you get to your design we have satisfied all of your all of the lane development code criteria as it relates to achieving um uh consistency with your lane development code so we're now consistent with our comprehensive plan we're consistent with the lane development code and we're going to kind of go back and look at compatibility again just you know we've already talked about this but again just kind of recognizing the general area working you know in this area you see a tremendous amount of different types of residential it's not all one type of residential you've got some very large lots out there you know two to three acre four acre lots all the way down to 40 foot lots in this area um and i think that those i think that what that gets to is really what your code definition in your comprehensive plan definition of compatibility is and it's when dissimilar uses can all coexist without unduly affecting each other over a long period of time that's a kind of a paraphrase of what your of what compatibility is and you can see that demonstrated on the large regional scale right here on this map multi-family town homes commercial office industrial all within this general area all functioning together as you move in a little bit zoom in a little bit closer again the site the proposed project is here in the middle 2.65 dwelling units an acre with 2.66 dwelling units an acre tremont approved through the exact same process that we're going through here today as a pd in the residential low very similar density to what what is being proposed here today you have the cruise woods lane development just on our northeast corner highland club which was just approved at de novo earlier this year to our east it is not developed yet it just was approved just a couple months ago it is beginning the design stage it's beginning the engineering stage so it is it is moving forward i had the pleasure to work on that project and then as you move east you have touchstone this is yarborough lane right here as you move east along cruise lake drive again crew touchstone i believe it was 550 single family homes with lot sizes ranges from 40s 50s and 60s all accessing yarborough lane which utilized cruise lake drive approved and under development today and then as you move south you have wind meadows wind meadows is effectively built out at this point when meadows was approved through the city of bartow as it was in the city limits at the time it's 850 single family homes with four no 40s 50s and 60 foot lots within that subdivision and that is effectively built out but what what that tells you is as you can see there's a multitude and a range of densities and in this project when you look at it as a whole is consistent with the with the developments immediately on our boundaries as well as the general region for the area zooming in this exhibit is a little bit um um challenging to to see on this scale but this is this is getting into the area in the northeast corner adjacent to cruise with lane and at the community meeting um some of mr decent and and some of the folks over there had a conversation and that's where the the the the idea of some additional setbacks some additional screening on these boundaries and my client is committed to doing that and that's why you see them one in the pd plans but also as conditions of approval in the staff report that was important not only to my client to make sure that that they knew that they were committed to those but also that we were going to implement them at level two some of those uh commitments include a minimum 64 foot setback for the rear lot line so there will be a 64 foot open space in addition to the 25 foot buffer on those boundaries um as part of what they've committed to that's part of our conditions of approval and we stand by that other boundaries will actually be bigger but we just put the shortest one in the as a condition um moving the amenity center to the west side of the boulevard where conversations that were had some of those community meetings as well as making the 25 foot buffer all the way around the project was things that were discussed and you see those as part of conditions of approval looking very on a micro uh more of a zoomed in level as it relates to the tremont those are the other group of existing homes that are adjacent to this property right now these are 60 foot lots on the outside of our of the project there are no 50 foot lots proposed to the exterior of the project you're looking at a 25 foot type c buffer again you heard mr roguis indicate it there's no buffer required by code because it's single family adjacent to single family but we're committed to that and that's part of our conditions of approval and i think that's important and when you look at 60 foot lots adjacent to an 80 foot lot you know that's not a tremendous um change in lot size between the between the two boundaries so our 50 foot lots are internal to the site and and again i just want to point it out i know mr roguis already said this there is this highland enhancement parcel that was discussed that was created as part of the tremont plat that is and that was separated through that plotting process it is not owned by the association it was owned by highlands enhancements which is a very similar ownership group to to the applicant's property owner it is being conveyed but it's not being used as part of the as part of the project so it's not included in any of our density calculations it's not included in any of our site plan it's just it is just there it's an additional 20 foot strip that runs basically the the the north is left on this it basically there's a 20 foot strip that will run the entire boundary with tremont that will be remain remain untouched so again on top of the 25 foot buffer then you've got an additional 20 foot strip that's going to be remain unused i don't know why that was created i was not a part of any of the tremont development aspects i suspect it was created because at one time a call road had right away that ran south on cruise lake drive and was probably being set aside at some point for mccall road to continue on to the south of the um along this boundary but the right of way this this area that right away was vacated by the board of county commissioners um at some time so the mccall road does no longer extends to the south so therefore that strip was no longer required that's just speculation candidly just thinking about it i wanted to show you a little bit of this is a prototype home that pulte would construct in this area um just kind of getting to the bulk and the scale again a single family potentially two-story product garage with a with the with the golf cart garage attached to it could be a boat i guess um you know nice looking project but when you one of the the concerns that we have heard from the particularly the tremont folks is oh a 60-foot lot adjacent to an 80-foot lot is going to be incompatible well incompatible is really going to be compared on the bulk and the scale of each of these uses not necessarily just the difference in a lot size so i think it's important when you this is looking from and i've blocked out the address for intentionally but this is on bent ridge drive this is immediately adjacent to the subject property this is within tremont this is a google earth picture i didn't drive in there i've been in the neighborhood i used to have family that lived in the neighborhood so i've spent some time in here but you can see this it's not dissimilar this is a 60-foot product for pulte which you would be typically see on the boundary and this is on the tremont side there's not visibly a significant difference between the two between the two development types and again you can see because it was residential against residential that there's no buffering on the back side we are committed to doing that and we will be installing the buffer on our side of the property line another conversation i think is is worth having um although not necessarily germane we're not making a decision on concurrency today but it is always one of the issues that comes up in these pro in these projects at this time we are here we're at the preliminary preliminary plan approval the pd approval we're not vesting concurrency today an approval today does not allow us to go stick a shovel in the ground and and i know you all understand that but it's important for us to reiterate it if this is approved there will still be a full the final the um finally the major traffic study that is ongoing it is it is active it is ongoing we met with polk county tpo as last week and um and discussed the current preliminary analysis it is it traffic studies um tend to take a couple iterations to become final there will be environmental resource resource permits school binding school capacity we have a non-binding letter but we'll have to go through binding school capacity at that time protected species stormwater design making sure that we're meeting all of the new standards making sure that we accommodate stormwater commissioner beltran i know you know this better than than most any stormwater that is coming onto the site we have to accommodate as well so we're well aware of those issues we understand how the tremont site functions and where their emergency discharge from adjacent stormwater ponds are and where those those are located um i was looking i was researching their permit a little bit uh in preparation of this hearing uh today uh for today and i noticed how it was it made me laugh it was the kimley horn design tremont and it was mark wilson as part of at that time well mark mr wilson has since retired but his son is now a civil engineer with uh kimley horn here with us today so i thought it was i just found some irony and all of that um i thought that was a little fun tidbit utility capacities uh utility uh will have to be connected all of those kinds of things there's a multiple ways to provide utilities to the site um and those will all be identified during level two just to highlight a few of the road network um conversations again traffic studies are ongoing our primary access is where uh mccall uh the northern extension of mccall reaches the the southern the southern extent of mccall reaches our northern boundary but you can see there's been improvements uh the hard line yellow lines are in place i drove them um last week you can now travel all the way from lakeland highlands through tremont out into wind meadows get out to you have griffin road and make your way to smith lane at a signal they have begun some of the preliminary utility work you've seen it uh going on at us 98 and low parkway that that will be signalized this year um so you can see you've got a multitude of ways to get in and out so you've got four or five different um ways to get to signalize intersections as well as this you could utilize mccall and get directly to 540a with a full median access there as well this piece right here this dash line is not built yet it's not open but i suspect it will be completed as part of a highland club project so it will be coming soon sidewalk infrastructure has been a conversation uh i has i asked himley horn to prepare a sidewalk exhibit you basically have a full fully connected sidewalk network from lakeland highlands all the way down to the project entrance there are a couple brief hiatuses immediately to the to the east at cruisewood lake that does not have sidewalks highland club where it has road frontage will be implementing additional road right away dedications as well as sidewalk connectivity in those areas yarborough lane as it has been re as it has been built to a collector road standards has sidewalks today so you're starting to see new development kind of bring in and complete a sidewalk infrastructure one of the other conversations that that you hear sometimes as it relates to um cruise lake drive is telephone poles some of those older telephone poles that are right on up on the right away there are five or six of those right along this project frontage as new right away is dedicated and as part of the site development plan those telephone poles will be removed pulte is working with lakeland electric to actually put those lines underground so those we will be eliminating a number of those points of potential conflict as part of this project which again is just another been a benefit to the to the road network school concurrency is another issue we have a non-binding letter uh recognize that it's non-binding at this point you have to reevaluate it through the level two process and that's intentional we even if we wanted to get a binding letter today we could not get it the school board would not give it to us and it's because you don't lock up school concurrency until you actually get to the point that you know a development is real and that's the same as it relates to transportation and utilities and everything else you don't want to lock up your capacities until you get to the stage that you know the project is actually going to come online that's why we don't do that today there's a reason behind it it's it's not to push kick the can down the road but it is also possible that the project doesn't develop for some time i mean we've seen that happen before right a project get approved and then not move forward so so that is the purpose of why we don't uh i um solidify concurrency we evaluate it we take a snapshot of it can we serve the project and every indication through all of the analysis related to this project is yes here's the utilities this is out of your staff report um so kind of bringing it all back what are we what are we to look at here is it consistent with the comp plan the density is residential low single family dwelling units are allowed within residential low we're at 2.65 dwelling units an acre which is about half of what is allowed within the residential low we've met all the land development code criteria i've shown to you that this project is compatible we've identified additional landscaping and separation and buffering requirements to ensure compatibility and with that we have the ability to to meet concurrency when we get to that at level two assuming a favorable vote and an approval of this project and with that um we would request a favorable vote this morning i have my team here i've got pulled the here um we'll answer any questions that you may have and i promise uh if i ask for a few minutes of rebuttal um i promise i will be brief because i've been a little longer than i intended to on my case in chief so with that um appreciate your time and i'll answer any questions you have thank you any questions of the help i do great presentation thank you so much i like the education part of it it helps some of us newbies we have received quite a few opposition letters um on this project part um and you indicated that you did engage the community which is awesome um what type of response did you get when you engage the community i'm assuming these letters of opposition came from these same people so well help me out just a little bit on this one so so in your in the packet online um as of this morning when i last looked at it there was 14 ish emails that were part of that most of those were actually at the time of the original drc if you look at the dates on those emails they go back to november um at that time that project did include the thought of maybe doing some 40-foot lots and other things within it um those have all been eliminated um so majority of those emails i'm not suggesting that there's not folks here to speak in opposition uh commissioner john amasso but i think that's important to point out a lot of those emails go back to november um i did not attend the community meeting it i just didn't go it wasn't for any intentional reason but from what i understand it was you know there was some obviously some folks that don't want anything to happen they only want 80 foot lots to happen um there was some very engaging conversations um and i think it's really important that we we talk a little bit about that because there were significant site plan changes made between the community meeting and where we are today relocating amenity centers implementing 25 foot landscape buffers all the way around the site implementing berming on certain areas the the efforts that um mr decent and pulte with with the community i mean they've reached out to all sides anybody that was willing to communicate with them they have reached out um and followed up with them um to the point that we actually have a letter of non-objection from a group that is adjacent to us on the cruise woods lane and i can give you a copy of that and i appreciate um miss graham i think she said she was coming there she is uh miss graham who is an attorney that represents that group of those folks not everybody i'm not suggesting she represents everybody but she represents a small little uh group of folks out there and she did we were able to get a letter of non-objection so long as we continue to commit to certain things and i can provide you a copy of that if you'd like to see it i think that's i think it's important and i think it shows that pulty has gone a long way to try to find a middle ground um and and that's you know i think that's important thank you yeah yes or uh just real quick the site i know you're going to level two are you under the new stormwater rules or were you grandfathered in believe we are under the new new new stormwater rules commissioner the treatment and quality treatment and quality that's correct okay thank you and and i think we also by condition are doing 100 year 20 uh 100 year stormwater ponds as well thank you and here's another um just there's a couple copies of that letter any other questions nope okay i'll open up the uh public comment portion i need to make uh mr decent oh wanted me to make something clear on the record because i yes i may have misspoke unintentionally certainly on when i indicated the 64 feet from cruise woods that is that is absolutely right but that does include the 25 foot landscape buffer i said it was in addition to and i and i just i didn't mean to i didn't mean to say that so thank you for thank you for i have a quick question you may not know the answer to this i'm just curious do you know what the net density is for that portion on the north end that's next to cruise lake woods i don't know off the top of my head but i promise i will i'll ask my engineer to do some math because i can't do that math so i'm here all right okay i'll open up the uh public comment portion and ask is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application all right i don't i don't see anybody so now i'll ask is there anybody in opposition to come forward please mr chairman we spoke in highlands county about were you sworn in no no do you swear from that the testimony oh anyone that wasn't sworn in thank you sir anyone that wasn't sworn in i'll do it all at the same time right now if you'll go ahead and stand up you would stand please if you are right hand yes thank you do you swear from that the testimony and evidence you present to the planning commission today will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you um mr chairman we spoke in highlands county about me representing i represent six homeowners my neighbor is here but i am speaking on behalf of him and he's in the back um six minutes but it's not six months all right okay and i have a powerpoint can somebody thank you thank you sue i need your name i will you already know me okay my name is sue nelson i live at 2920 cruise lake drive for standing purposes i am the managing member of our six lots located in the northwest corner adjacent to this application i've highlighted us in red on this map because we weren't previously depicted anywhere my neighbors and i are all on deed restricted five acre tracks one home per five acres this application before you today is not consistent with your land use regulations roads basic necessities improvements such as roads water and sewer these are all public facilities the case before you today does not have adequate public facilities namely roads to support this application this is a level three planning commission hearing decision not a level two concurrency you decide today whether this development has adequate facilities to proceed the applicant is currently permitted to build 151 homes however they are proposing 400 this proposed development will generate 3 124 vehicles a day on page 18 of your staff report it clearly states a significant portion of the traffic generated from this development will travel north on mccall road as it is the fastest route how wide is mccall road mccall wisp can vary anywhere from 18 feet 9 inches to 19 feet inches 4 inches wide the florida fire access code requires a minimum width of 20 feet for a fire truck i captured this school bus traveling down mccall the other day i was happy no one was traveling from the other direction look at the picture does this road look ready to handle 3 000 more vehicles a day did staff even measure mccall land development code section 821 table 8.2 clearly defines a collector road as having a minimum pavement width of 24 feet cruise lake drive is substandard the staff report indicates the width at 22 feet but it varies in these photos after the resurfacing the road remains 21 feet wide to the east and to the west on the bridge it's 20 20 feet wide the road is now closer to the utility poles fixed object crashes account for 21.1 percent of all fatal crashes utility poles are among the most dangerous fixed objects cruise lake drive is a substandard road that is clearly deficient to accommodate increased density my husband is the district 10 medical examiner we've had two fatalities on cruise lake drive a 35 mile an hour road with stop signs on both ends the utility poles in these pictures aren't on pulte property they will remain ldc chapter 3 plan developments require development criteria in order to ensure that they are not harmful to the health and safety of the surrounding residents and their surrounding properties according to the staff report staff relies heavily on the roadway network database and its 26 fields of data for its safety criteria by means of crash rates on the left is the roadway network database which staff relies on it lists only six crashes from 2020 to 2024 and on the right is a january 2026 email from jay darvis director of roads and drainage which lists 32 crashes from the same time frame why the huge discrepancy this is very serious policy 3.203 a3 based on applicable crash data polk county shall identify and prioritize substandard roads to be improved to standard width to improve safety conditions clearly polk county recognizes a relationship between substandard roads and safety conditions now that staff knows the true crash rate 32 not six i would like to know how staff feels now before we leave about the safety issues concerning our roadway this case is not consisted with any of the following land use regulations listed here i'm going to read one of them policy 2.102 a15 adequate public facilities states the county will direct growth to areas where adequate public facilities exist or are planned and ensure that essential services are in place to provide for efficient response times from the fire department according to the staff report the fastest route for this development is mccall road but a fire truck can't even use it this is what the site looks like right now a survey was done and the utility lines are now flagged ready to begin construction when asked the man flagging told me an existing neighborhood was expanding i thought did i somehow miss the planning commission meeting other issues on page 14 the staff report states the development function as infill this statement is completely false infill developments are strictly limited to 80 acres this development is 151 acres on a side note i received an email from the executive director of tpo mr ryan kordak concerning the faulty crash data in the roadway network database which honestly i greatly appreciate it i notified them about a week ago he thanked me for bringing it to their attention and are working to correct the problem unfortunately staff use faulty information concerning crashes in our area as they relate to safety issues to generate his report these two substandard roads are clearly not safe in closing we respectfully ask for denial without prejudice so the applicant can come back without paying fees once our transportation facilities are adequate and our safety issues are addressed okay move the utility poles and widen the road thank you any questions anyone else yes sir um okay i also brought printed copies i'm going to limit you to three minutes here's the corresponding 71 page deeply research report citing all your statutes and ordinances that it's inconsistent i think we have that i sent them thank you i appreciate your help i don't have time you can get set up here uh just curious are are any of these folks being deemed expert witnesses is that being proposed i said um no the answer is no not without resumes they're not thank you sir okay go ahead the quarter character date foot locks the proposal is 57 out of seven of the surrounding property so eight foot locks one day five the one is for the east about 175 so inconsistent the commission has used that test to deny things before so that's okay you can't say just because you need 2.65 and they're not in the city the market tells us that there's any compatibility now they're the trademark they'll be looking at properties facing and joining business development the property median in my neighborhood is twice what they're going to do they're clearly not compatible the cold road as they mentioned is tiny it's not even larger than the road data it's that small No one's done a cumulative study on that, and the schools, if you take out the little port-a-potty buildings, they're at 100% capacity and have been for years. We know that. So for each of these four required findings, this application fails, consistent with land development code, comprehensive plan, surrounding uses, concurrency satisfied on the record, all of those things, and it's up to you to determine this. So I urge you to deny. If you must, I included conditions in the full report with additional requirements because your conditions that are on your plan currently don't address these issues, and that's all. Under three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Did you give your name and address? Oh, I'm sorry. It's Mark Lane, 6818 Bentridge Drive. As I said, I'm adjoining their property. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hi, my name's Charles Monachino. I live in Tremont Development, and I have a problem with some of the statements that were made by the Pulte representatives. One, the house that was shown, my wife and I have taken trips from Tampa down to Sarasota. The house that was shown on the picture does not represent the typical house that Pulte builds. So that's problem number one. Problem number two, which has already been addressed by the young lady and my neighbor, is that the roads are not sufficient. There's been numerous accidents there. Interestingly enough, a baseball umpire from Rochester, New York, where we're from, who lives on Cruise Lake Road, has had his fence torn down in the last month a couple times from accidents. And his next door neighbor showed us videos and pictures of cars crashing into the poles and the trees along there. And that's before this development takes place. That's before the Highlands and Ryan homes are put in. That's before the Cruise Lake Road, the Cruise Lake development is established. When we, my wife and I also stopped and talked to the people that were doing the traffic study on the road. And we told them, roughly, we asked them roughly, how many cars are going to be coming through here? And they said that they did the, they do the study, they submit the study. These are the people that work for the Transportation Department and told us that it's obvious that this is dangerous. It's obvious that the roads are not sufficient. And the discrepancy amongst the reports, they said that they, they put in these reports to the Transportation Department and they, they go, they're not looked at seriously enough because Polk County is concerned about one thing, and that is the tax revenue that they're going to get. You're looking at putting in all these houses, you want the tax revenue, and we're overlooking the safety of people and families like my own. And that's just not right. And the, and the roads that are shown on these maps, they show them as straight. Those roads go, go like that through Cruise Lake Road. And if, if any of you have not been on Cruise Lake Road, I would ask you, please, to go down that road and see how that road winds through there. And if you're getting accidents there all the time now, what do you think, let's just look at the, let's just look at the track here for the Pulte track. If you put in 400 houses times mom, dad, and little Johnny, that's three times 400. That's 1,200 cars. Okay. Thank you. Just in that track alone. Yes. Your three minutes are up. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good morning. My name is Ed Smith. I live at 6850 Bent Ridge Drive in Tremont. I wanted to address one of the things the commissioner asked is she asked whether Pulte had had conversations with the neighborhood. And in November, we attended the DSC meeting, and there were about 10 people there that were in opposition to this plan. And Pulte took down the names, email addresses, and I think the address is all of the people involved. To my knowledge, only three people from that list got an invitation to attend their meeting. I was one of them that was there. I did not get it, but my neighbor shared the information, so we posted it on there. As far as the berm that is adjacent to it and their appeasement of the five homes along Cruise Woods Lanes, there was an agreement, from what I understand, entered into in 2005 with the neighbors there that opposed this development. So that's why they put this berm here. But the couple things that I wanted to comment about is the flooding from Tremont. I live adjacent to retention or detention pond in Tremont, and during Hurricane Milton, the water flow did overflow in the emergency capacity, did cross this lot, and did go into Cruise Lake. And it's something I'm very concerned about as far as flooding in this. Additionally, there are a number of 100-year oak trees along the whole beginning, the north part of this along Cruise Lake, and they plan and intend to raise these oak trees, which add to the character of the neighborhood. Additionally, the 50-foot lots are inconsistent with the neighborhood. The premier lot size throughout this area in 11 different neighborhoods along Cruise Lake is 80-foot lots. It's either 80- or 82-foot lots. 50-, 60-foot, 64-foot lots are inconsistent with it. The lots abutting the Cruise Lake neighborhood, according to his testimony, is 60-foot lots, which is a 25% differential between the two. The design of this neighborhood, they account for a 6-foot burn with an additional 6-foot fence, and that's along the Cruise Woods Lane. So you're going to have a 12-foot blight fence across this whole thing that is inconsistent with all the other neighborhoods that you drive along Cruise Lake Boulevard. The thing I want to know is why is consideration given to the four or five homes along Cruise Woods and not the other folks within the Tremont community? The one thing I did want to point out, too, is that this 12-foot fence screams incompatibility, and one of the things that you have considered in the past, as well as the county commission board, is like-to-like, and what they intend to build is not like-to-like, and it will be detrimental to the families and residents in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in opposition? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant if he'd like to come forward. Oh, wait. I'm sorry, Bart. We've got one more. Yes, ma'am. Casey Parker, 6720 Cruise Wood Lane. I just wanted to clarify something that they said. Cruise Wood Lane is not a subdivision, and on your aerial, you showed it, all the subdivisions in that area, and our street is only 10 homes, and it is a single cul-de-sac street, so we do not classify as a subdivision, so we are not compatible with that. The other thing is the McCall Road. When they leave and go to McCall and they drive towards 540A, that is a four-lane road that they have to cross two lanes to get to go west, and it's very, very dangerous. There's no light there, and so I oppose. Thank you. Okay, now I'll give the opportunity to come and address any concerns that's been expressed. Commissioners, I'm going to ask Manny to come up and just speak real quickly. Manny, again, as I mentioned earlier, is our transportation engineer. I want him to give you a little bit of context on the significance of this traffic study because this traffic study has been in the works for several months, but it's also in doing something that isn't always done, and it is building upon all of the approved development that is under construction or not. This traffic study is incorporating those projects and those trips, and I want him to give you a little expert testimony on that. Hi, Manny Rodriguez, professional engineer, number license is 94548, Kim Lee Horn. Yeah, so as I mentioned, we included all the invested traffic to ensure that we are projecting the actual volumes on the facilities and the roadway. That way we, yeah, I'm sure we're predicting and we're not, you know, missing anything. Based on our analysis so far, we have identified that all the roadways within the study area do have the capacity, meaning the volume, to handle that projected traffic. I do want to make an extension between what the capacity, when we analyze them, like the road meets the actual capacity. Basically, that's volumes per hour. That is not the width of the road. That is not, you know, other substandard stuff. So that's different from, you know, want to make sure that's clear. In addition, we also perform a safety analysis that is typically not normal to be included in the traffic impact analysis, but we did. The crash data was obtained from Signal 4 Analytics Database, which is managed by the University of Central Florida. That is the kind of recognized database used in Florida to do any type of safety studies, including the Polk Vision Zero Safety Action Plan that they currently perform and many other agencies are doing. Currently, along Cruise Lake Road, 2.5 miles from Lake Highlands to Cruise Lake Drive, there are roughly, or at least reported within the last five years, 30 crashes, of which 14 resulted in non-injury, 15 in an injury. There was one serious injury and then zero fatal crashes. The most frequent crash type was a rear end. And to actually compare apples to apples, a crash rate or the crash frequency is about six crashes per year. And then we also have another variable, which is the crash rate that is looking and comparing what a similar kind of facility in Polk County, what is that actual crash rate? So for Cruise Lake Drive Road, it will be 1.153 crashes. And then the Polk County average for a similar facility is 1.249. Therefore, it's a lower crash rate as compared to what the average is in Polk County for a similar facility, right? So I want to make sure that's clear. And then, again, there are no serious or fatal crashes reported based on that database within the last five years. In addition, I also want to talk about the intersections. Based on our analysis so far, we've identified that there might be some, I don't want to say deficiencies, but kind of deficiencies and intersections, which can be mitigated with signal timings, adjustments, right? There are some signals. We can move and optimize the green times to ensure that there's adequate capacity. Based on our findings, there is. And also, you know, the TIA, the traffic impact analysis, does warrant or show the needs for ingress turn lanes into our site. So that is something that we will be incorporating at our driveway in McCall. So it will be a little bit of widening. So there will be a dedicated right turn lane and a dedicated left turn lane to go in on site. That would further enhance our entrance and make sure that people can make this movement safely. It reduces potential of rear end. Nobody's going to be waiting on the main line on Cruise Lake Road. So that's like an added benefit for our project driveway and Cruise Lake Road in this area. Thank you. Can I ask a quick follow-up to what you just said, and I appreciate your testimony. I think I heard you say there's 30 crashes in your study. Is that correct? Within the last five years, 2021 to 2025. Based on this UCF database that you've used in your analysis. And I think earlier testimony was about 32 and maybe some other source was six. But you're right at 30, and you pretty much got most of the data there in your analysis. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay, do you have an idea of what the ingress-degress path would be for emergency vehicles? To our site? Yes, sir. We do not know. That is not part of our analysis. We don't know the route that emergency vehicles take to go into our site. We only have one access, so they will be entering on Cruise Lake Road. Right. I'm just asking from the closest emergency stations or things like that. Yeah, no, that's not part of that. Nope, we do not. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. And then I'm just going to kind of wrap up a little bit. I want to touch on a couple of the other comments. Stormwater design, we touched on that early on. We recognize that we need to accommodate the ability for the Tremont development to have, you know, in emergency situations for their water to, if it overflows, we have to make sure that we accommodate that through our stormwater system. That's all handled by the engineering design and issues at level two. But, again, that's a level two issue, not a level three, and will be permitted through the Water Management District. Talking about some of the compatibility issues, again, one of the reasons Mr. Smith may be a berm on one side but not a berm on the other. Well, on the west side, we're doing 60-foot lots with basically 45 feet of separation included within that as a 25-foot landscape buffer with type C planings along those areas. I counted the lots. I think it's important when you start thinking about how it compares within, and I'll use this example, and if I'm off by a lot, forgive me. I promise I did the math this morning, but there's eight or nine homes right along this section, and there's about 10, maybe 11 on this section. Then you're separated by a large stormwater pond. When you compare that to what is being proposed here, we have, on average, one or two additional lots on those shared boundaries based on this layout. So when you think about it, it is not a significant difference when it is lot to lot. It is a little bit more. Sure. Yes, I agree. Is that the same? Does that mean it has to be identical? Is that what your code requires for compatibility? Absolutely not. Compatibility doesn't mean identical. It means can different uses coexist? And when you look at different uses, and let's assume that single-family at 60-foot lot is different than single-family at 80-foot lot, I certainly don't agree with that. I think single-family against single-family is in and of itself compatible with each other. By definition, that is the same use adjacent to the same use, but let's assume it's not for purposes of conversation. We then, to address dissimilar uses are hypothetical. That's why you put in berming. That's why you put in landscaping. That's why you put in these extra separation areas to create the compatibility. And that's exactly what Pulte has done in this instance with what I believe is a very nice layout. Yes, there are primarily, on certain areas, there are primarily 80-foot lots, especially on the north side of Cruise Lake Drive. The reason for that, the majority of the reason for that, is sewer wasn't available at the time those lots were developed. So they had to be 80 feet wide and almost a quarter acre in order to accommodate septic tanks. Sewer is now available in this area. That is one of the biggest differences. But even in light of that, to stay in line with the density, we're not asking to go upwards of four dwelling units an acre. We're still trying to keep the project in line on the density perspective, albeit the lot sizes aren't identical. But the lot sizes that we're asking for, this isn't the first time a 50-foot lot will have been approved out here. There are 50-foot lots immediately adjacent to the site. There are 50-foot lots immediately adjacent on the other side of Cruise Lake Drive. There are 40-foot lots on Yarbrough. I'm sorry, I said Cruise Lake Drive. I meant to say Yarbrough. My bad. I misspoke again. On the east side of Yarbrough Lane, there are 50s and 60s. There are 40s, 50s, and 60s. So you've got a mix of lots. You can't just look in one direction. You've got to look all around. And I think when you do that and you look at what Pulte's done and what they're bringing to the table with this project and the quality of the development that they bring, that this is something that this should be approved. I believe it meets all of your comprehensive plan and land development code criteria. With that, I'll – oh, I've got one last point. There was a data – where did I write it down? The answer to your question, Commissioner Bishop, was it is about 1.28 dwelling units per acre on the frontage. And they did that based on the 64-foot lots with the open space, and that did not include any of the area for the amenity center that's up in that area. So it's basically that box around excluding – this general area excluding the amenity center. So it was about 1.28 dwelling units an acre. So that was the answer to your question. Thanks. Thanks for figuring that out. Yep. No problem. No. That's Kim Lee Horn. Not me. With that, we would request a favorable vote this morning. We appreciate all your time. I promised you I would be brief on rebuttal. So thank you. No, sir. We're finished with public comment. So I'll bring this back to the board for any further questions of the applicant or discussion and a motion. I just have one more question, Bart. Sorry. So Susan Nelson brought up something about safety with moving the utility poles. Yes. Can you address that? I can. And Commissioner John Amos, so I'm glad you asked that question, actually. It's something that we're very well aware of is the location of the telephone poles or electrical poles along Cruise Lake Drive. Within our project frontage, and we don't control all of Cruise Lake Drive, but if you drive the road and you go call it Lakeland Highlands to the west, where that intersection is is Cruise Lake Drive. As development has occurred on the south side of Cruise Lake Drive, additional right-of-way, for the most part, has been dedicated to bring Cruise Lake Drive to standard. When that has occurred, those power poles have been moved off. They have not occurred in front of this particular project. They did occur in front of Tremont and the ones adjacent to it. We will be not only moving those poles off the right-of-way and dedicating additional right-of-way. We are working with Lakeland Electric to actually bury those power lines so those five or six that are on our frontage completely go away, regardless of where they're located. There will also be sidewalks implemented. We've got a condition in the staff report that requires us to work with the school board to potentially provide for a school bus pull-off in that area as well with a commitment to put in a shelter for the children, like a covered shelter for kids to have for a bus stop. All of that improves safety along Cruise Lake Drive. The other piece of it is, and this was something that I learned, actually, recently. I was speaking with Mr. Alleygood. I was talking to him. What are we doing on Cruise Lake Drive as it relates to improvements in our frontage? Well, you heard Mr. Rodriguez talk about the turn lanes and the different things for the project and how that's going to help. But as we dedicate the additional right-of-way that is necessary to bring Cruise Lake to standard from our side of the right-of-way, we can't take right-of-way from anybody in the north, and we legally cannot do that. When Cruise Lake is rebuilt, it's going to be centered within that additional right-of-way, so it will be completely rebuilt and brought up to a full standard, at least to the extent that we can do it within the project boundary. So we're going to be making, I say we like I'm going to be out there with a shovel, but I promise you I won't. But Pulte and their team will be doing everything they can to make improvements that not only facilitate the development, but are also better for the entire community because that's what raises everybody's value. So there's a lot going into that. Thank you. Any further questions? Do I have a motion? I think I just want to discuss it for a second. I was part of voting on the other one there to the right, and I remember the discussion about the narrow roads, and from what Bart just said, there is a plan at the county level to deal with this down the road. Yes, no, this road is 18, 19, 20 feet wide, and, you know, not being able to get emergency vehicles by is concerning. But it sounds like as these developments go in, the road gets wider, the poles go down, so it should theoretically improve the safety of traveling down the road long term. Yes, Commissioner Simms, and I want to make sure we're, you know, the 18, 19 feet that was being discussed was McCall only, which is going north. Cruise Road, Cruise Lake Drive, sorry, make sure I get my roads right. Cruise Lake Drive is better than, in a better situation than that, and that's the primary east-west. Yes, all those issues will get worked out. Highland Club, when it comes in, will be dedicating additional right-of-way as well, similar kind of concept. So there will be incremental improvements made to the road network as each of these projects move forward. I certainly can't, at this stage, commit to exactly what everybody is going to do, certainly. I can't commit Highland Club to doing anything today, you know, but we will be going through the process. This is something that your staff is very much aware of, which is why we are going to the other levels, as Mr. Rodriguez talked about. This major traffic study isn't just predicting what this project is doing on the network today. It also has incorporated the transportation generation and analysis from Highland Club into it. It's also got Touchstone that has not fully been built yet, and there's only a couple model homes from coming out of the ground at this point. So we've taken their trip generation and added it into the transportation study to make sure we're getting a global picture. Highland Club could not have predicted this at the time it came through this process, right? So we're trying to capture it all. Everybody is working cohesively together to make sure that we're making the improvements that are required. Thank you, and I also just want to comment that I always appreciate it when developers have community outreach and talk with the people around, not that they're going to make everybody in every community happy, but, boy, I really appreciate that. I'll make one more comment, and I just feel like, you know, the planners are taxed with where do they want the growth to go to in this county. It's got to go somewhere. BART's first slide up there showed you where the development in this county is planned to do. This is the planning commission. We've planned for growth in that area. You can argue the road's not wide enough, what have you, but the plan, and this is going back before us, was for the growth to come here. And with that, I'll make a motion to approve LDPD 2026-2 in its entirety. Second. Motion to second. Motion to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Next case. Our next case is LBCT 2026-8. Eric Peterson from the Land Development Division. This is a text amendment to the Land Development Code to Chapters 2 and 10, Section 214 to add standalone or add standards and definitions for standalone vending machines and automated teller machines, as well as those for accessory. The case has been advertised in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on April 22nd. So far, we've had no words from the public in response. The case will be heard on June 2nd, 2026, and June 16th for the final reading. The impetus behind this is that we really don't address it in the code, and it happens a lot throughout the county, and we usually have to do some kind of work around. The difference in things like setbacks and design and things of that nature vary greatly with regards to automated machines versus standalone stores and restaurants and things of that nature. So we're getting out ahead of the growth. There's been a growth in automated commerce in the past 10 years. You've seen probably ice machines that go in in all different locations that are, I think we have a schematic right here, of these standalone vending machine, ice machines. But we also have the standalone ATMs with the decline of in-store banking that are usually put out in parking lots and things of that nature throughout commercial developments. So we've come up with new standards for those. We treat them like structures in Chapter 2. This is not a different use. This is not something that's necessarily available in all districts. It still has the use, the sale of retail has to be consistent with the land use. But this gets to the structure, design, and placement with regards to setbacks and other height and size standards. This is just an example where we've, because they have to adhere to the other standards for the building commercial development, they often result in having come in for variances and exceptions to be located where their potential use is best. So what we are presenting before you here is a section in the Chapter 2. Chapter 2 is that part of the code of what can I do with my property today. With regards to these types of structures, we propose a setback of 15 feet from public rights away. It will still be subject to the 50-foot compatibility with regards to abutting residential. Side and rear setbacks, of course, can be relieved by the land use hearing officer, like other structures. We put a limit of 220 square feet and shall not reduce the parking. So if they go in a parking space, the rest of the plaza has to still meet the parking requirements. And it also has to adhere to our drive-thru standards if there is a drive-thru in the proposed structure. Submit this slideshow presentation with our staff report for the record, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Anyone in the audience wish to speak for this application? Hearing none, I'll bring it back to the board for a motion and a second. Move to approve LDCT 2026-8. Second. Motion, second, and approved. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso, for the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Mike Hickman. Oh, he's gone. Angel Sims. For the motion. Wendy Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Ms. Bennett, comp planning. Good afternoon. Shonda Bennett, the Land Development Division. I've passed out your May installment of the updates to the comprehensive plan. It's the infrastructure element. So now we're starting to get into the more substantive elements that the committee has reviewed. And I gave you a chart, not only to help you, but really me, make sure I pass them out appropriately. And you can see what's coming, see what we've already passed out. And I will provide this via email to the full commission to make sure everyone's getting all of the documents. And I included a color coding chart at the bottom. There's some different colors in the text that relate to different items, whether it's more restrictive or burdensome, whether it was based on our evaluation and appraisal report amendments, or it was a change made by the committee. And this particular element, you've heard this before, that the biggest comment here was private utilities, in terms of especially wastewater. And that's really how the county got into utilities businesses, drinking over isolated rural wastewater treatment plants. Merle's shaking his head because he was here when all that happened. So anyway, but the committee, the public comment was really no more growth in the rural areas. So we proposed policies to the committee that prohibited private utilities. But the committee said, no, keep it the way the county has been doing it over the last 30 years, which is basically any new wastewater treatment plants have to be 100,000 gallons treatment capacity. But they did add a comment or requirement that our utilities division has to review them, which has not been the standard in the past. That would be considered more restrictive and burdensome, so we can't do that until the time limitation with Hurricane Milton is over, which should be, if we don't have a hurricane next August, that you would see that more burdensome item. But anyway, but certainly if you have any questions or comments, please email me, call me. The infrastructure element's getting into a lot more nitty-gritty kind of information, which supports or doesn't support growth. So anyway, I'll stand for any questions. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Well, that's, well, I guess it's better than giving it to you a week before the Planning Commission for the whole comp plan update. But, oh, that, that, that's the obnoxious table that Mr. Beltran's company helped us create because a couple of years ago there was a change in the state law that required all local governments to make an analysis of the feasibility of connecting developments that are on septic that have 50 dwelling units in them with septics at one per acre. However, we had to analyze the distance of those septic tanks to the nearest wastewater treatment facility, regardless of utility service area, estimate the cost of, and estimate the cost of connection. That's why that table is obnoxious. I think it's obnoxious. Only by the computer. Right. It was very, it was a very hard project. I thought it was one of the hardest things I've actually had to do in my tenure with the county, and thank God for engineers. So I couldn't have done that. There's no way I could have done that without them. So, and Aaliyah and Gleema with our staff worked on the project with me as well. We brought you an amendment adding that table last year, I think it was. So it's, it's tough. And that's because of these basin management action plans to reduce nitrient loading in the county's water systems, and septic tanks lead to higher nitrogen loads and phosphorus loads in our waterways. So there's been state legislation to try to deal with that. So that's what that table was. So there's no amendments to the table. I think I threatened the committee, don't change that table. Not going to change it. Right. I can send it to you if you'd like me to, but I don't know how relevant it's going to be for you. So I got to, I'm going to have some questions for you on this section for sure. This is dumb. Absolutely. Not this very second. I guess just quickly, what does the different coloring mean? Obviously red means strikeout. Gray. Right here. It's got a legend. Oh, wow. Right on the first page. I got you. Nevermind. I got to read the instructions better. My advice. Well, you were probably reading the text. I was talking. No, I get it. I would have done the same thing. I get it. I get it. So yeah, like I said, this is a more substantive element that's got. So if things are green and more burdensome, are you saying that probably won't proceed or won't proceed at this moment? Or assuming we don't have a hurricane, it may proceed? So the Board of County Commissioners directed us to work with the committee regardless of Senate Bill 180 because the idea is what's appropriate for the county and growth long term to 2050. So once we get through all the elements and it's time for us to take something to you and the Board of County Commissioners, and if we do it before the Milton time frame, we have to bifurcate what's more restrictive out and only bring to you what's not. And then you'll see another amendment in August that's the more restrictive burdensome items. So you might see it in two groups or in one group. We'll see how we go. But we're scheduled to get done with the committee the end of June, give or take. We took three hours on the Polk Green policies alone last week, so I'm not sure. And then once we get to the wetlands and some of the more overlay districts, it might slow down a bit too. So we'll see how we go. But I have been giving some of the items, especially at the bottom of that table, there's some things we haven't changed at all, not substantive changes. There are typos or clarity or taking out organizations that no longer exist. I didn't see the need to waste the committee's time to go over line by line by line. So we gave them those documents and asked them if you wanted to comment. You can ask us during the meeting. If not, we're not going to waste your time. So some of that would be the same for you. You might not have to worry about paying attention to it. Okay, thank you. Thank you. There's nothing else. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor of signify to say an aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Condit.