Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Bye.

back to you to adopt the final order and you'll take action on that. Okay.

So those cases that are continued, those will be re-advertised?

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 take the place of re-advertising. We'll take formal action today.

We have a time and date certain. That is all I have for the work session.

Thank you.

But we will... Robert Beltran.

Here.

Cindy Janamasso. Here. Merle Bishop.

Here.

Mike Hickman.

Here.

Angel Sims. Here. Linda Schultz. Here. Kevin Updike.

I'm here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. Next we will stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. So we have our minutes before us, and hopefully you've looked over those. Are there any questions or comments about the minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve. So moved.

Second.

Motion and second to approve. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Staff had given us some revisions to the published agenda. I believe the agenda before us is correct considering those, so I don't need any action on the agenda since it's the one, do I?

We need an action to continue the three items for the date certain that are listed in the agenda, yes.

So we need, can 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. LDCCU 2026-3 is continued to June the 3rd. And LDCPAL 2026-3 is continued to July the 8th.

Mr. Chairman, move to approve the continuations as presented.

Second.

Motion and second to approve. All in favor, 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 or 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. 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 dire 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?

So move. Second. Motion is second. All in favor of second by saying aye. Aye.

Thank you. Secondly, if we have any experts of applicants, then you may tender them at this time or you may wait until your case is called. 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. Do we need a staff? Are you going to present something on that?

I just want to say a few words.

Okay.

Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. LDCU-2025-37, the Tempe Circle Duplex Final Order is 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.

We need a motion to approve that.

I move to approve ratification.

Second. Motion second to 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 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 advert was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on April 22nd. Staff submits the staff report and application for the record. The subject property. Subject property is located in northeast part of the county, just north of the city of Davenport and Haines City. It takes access off of Holly Hill Road. It's a 30-foot access. 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 to that the site was recently changed to institutional to by the board just yesterday and This is the site plan. It's not going to use the whole site. This is a 125 million gallon or 1.25 million gallon water tank and water production facility as well as a blending of the Polk County Regional Water Cooperative water from the southeast well filled 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 close-up view. You notice that it is abutting several subdivisions, two within the Del Webb community of Ridgewood Lakes. Polk County Utilities has done a brilliant public outreach with the Ridgewood Lakes folks and the abutting subdivisions to explain 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 this will use a portion of the site and the rest of the site, the use of it hasn't been determined as of yet. If there's anything in it that requires a conditional use within or approval or planning commission approval within the institutional two district, it will come back to you. Otherwise, this will probably be the only thing that comes to you on this site. This is the site area. One of the good things about it is that there's buffering and screening on all the nearby or adjacent residential developments, and then this project will add even more buffering and screening on top of that. So there's a good amount of separation. The one development has a stormwater pond, plus there'll be an additional 50-foot setback for all the structures. This is the access that will be improved. And it goes, it's screened from all the other developments along the route. This is essentially what it's going to look like. This is an example of a similar size facility at Ronald Reagan Parkway just south of Champions Gate. And as you can see, it's very subtle. It's a low volume use. It just kind of sits there. 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 two type of use, so it's very subtle. Staff recommends approval. It's essential for providing future water source to the Northeast Regional Utility Service Area. The abutting residential sites 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 recommend approval, submit this presentation for the record, and stand for questions.

Any questions of staff? Is anyone here from Poconi Utilities to speak or do they need to?

If you have questions, Hunter is here to answer them if you have any.

Okay. Any questions of Poconi Utilities?

Mr. Chair, I'm going to abstain from this. The firm I work for is the engineer of record on it.

Okay. So noted. I'll open this up for public comment. Is anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to the commission for discussion and a motion, please.

Mr. Chairman, move to approve LDCU-2026-6 in its entirety. Second. Motion second to approve. Roll call, please.

Cindy Janamasso, approve. 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.

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 21, 2026. Three boards were posted on April 16, 2026. Legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on April 22, 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 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 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 a 2023 contextual aerial. The site is located in the 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 Parrish Road 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 were improved with residential dwellings. The vacant parcels are owned by the 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 the map would look like after if the land use was granted. These are pictures of Keller Road looking north and south. These are pictures of the site looking from Keller Road. This is the northern portion. This is the southern portion. Both of them show a couple of the houses there. The site has been historically residential in nature. 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 of staff? So, in essence, this is correcting a mapping error.

To a certain extent, yes. because it was never in a mine plan.

Well, I knew when the mapping was done of phosphate mining, it was anticipated that there would be situations like this. In fact, 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 ARR.

Right, and then we would quickly have to come back with 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 plans In the future months, there'll be some large-scale ones coming up.

I'll open this up for public comment. Is anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this, in favor or in opposition to this? If you'd 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 reside in this area? I do, sir. Okay.

My question is why is the county looking at doing this now and what is the ultimate outcome of doing this?

I could answer that, but I'll refer to staff. Sure.

Okay. Under phosphate mining, residential is not an applicable use. Okay. 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 opportunities – Potential that a bank would go, your residential house isn't allowable 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. This should have no effect 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, 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. 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.

Right.

That's what I'm trying to recognize. If I may, Shonda Bennett with Polk County. The Board of County Commissioners directed us to do this kind of amendment. There's a couple that applied for a land use change in the South Fort Meade mine. 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.

You should have never been five state mine in the first place.

And then one of the issues, too, is there's an application fee if you come in 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 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 the staff had, I guess, had the time and the resources, they could have identified them all. So they knew 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 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 and a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move the motion to approve.

Second. Motion is seconded. Approved. Roll call, please.

Robert Beltran.

For the motion.

Cindy Giannamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Evan Updike. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you.

The next case is the same type of request, LDCPA S 2025-13, Mount Pisgah Road Phosphate Mining to Agricultural Residential Rule. The staff report, ordinance, and application are submitted for the record, and Robert Bolden is the case planner.

Mr. Chair, move to expedite. Second. To expedite a second. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in opposition to this case? Seeing none, I believe this does qualify as expedited. We do have a motion and a second. So I'll ask all in favor of that to signify by saying aye. Aye. So we will expedite.

Good morning. Robert Bolton with Land Development. Presenting LDCPAS 2025-13, the Mount Pisgah 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. This subject is southeast of Fort Meade, off of Mount Pisgah Road. This is a closer area of it, just west of the Peace River. These parcels are accessed. Green is their access. It is owned by one of the property owners. The properties don't actually front on it, but it is basically an access fee easement. This is what the property looks like, the land use. This is what 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 the presentation into the record and stand for any questions.

Any questions? If not, any discussion or entertain a motion?

Move to approve LDC PAS 2026-13. Second. Motion is seconded. Approved. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion.

Cindy Giannamasso. 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, please.

Yes, the next case is, again, very similar. It's small-scale. LDCPA 2026-4, Conference Plan Amendment from Phosphate Mining to Agricultural Residential Rule. The staff report, ordinance, and application are submitted for the record, and Aaliyah and Gleema is the case planner.

Mr. Chair, move to expedite. Second. Motion to second to expedite. Is there anyone in the audience to speak regarding this case? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission. This does qualify for expedited procedure. Any further discussion, or I'll ask for a roll call. No, I will ask for, yeah, to expedite. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, expedite.

Good morning. Aliyah Nglima with Land Development presenting number five on the agenda, LDC PAS 2026-4, the Fort Grove CPA. This is a county-initiated future land use map amendment to change the land use designation from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rural. The subject property is south of Hutchins Road, west of Old Bowling Green Road, southwest of the city of Fort Meade 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 Sun 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, any further discussion, I'll entertain a motion regarding this case.

Move to approve LDC PAS 2026-4. Second. Motion to approve and second. Roll call, please.

Robert Beltran.

For the motion.

Cindy Giannamasso. 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, LDCPA-S2026-7, 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 Aaliyah Englema is the case planner.

Good morning, Aliyah Nglima with Land Development presenting number six on the agenda, LDC PAS 2026-7, the Premier Parking CPA. This is a future land use map amendment to change the land 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 Auburndale in Section 14, Township 28, Range 25. On April 21st, 13 mailers were sent to area property owners. Three signs were posted on April 21st. An illegal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on April 22nd with no response from the public. So record 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, a 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 land 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 in 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. With that, I'll open it up for public comment. Is anyone to speak in favor of this application? Well, let me back up. I'm getting ahead of myself. Is the applicant present? Well, would you come forward, please? State your name and address. Were you sworn in? I guess we're all of y'all sworn in. Okay.

I'm Zach Thornton, the civil engineer of record, Madrid CPWG, 5001 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida.

Do you have anything to add to what Steph has said or any?

No, I think she said it well. I expect approval. I think it's a good area for industrial use, so.

Any questions from the board to the applicant? Okay, thank you. Seeing no questions, I'll 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'd come forward, please.

State your name and address. Where you sworn in?

Caroline Wang. We're located adjacent across the street to the property.

Okay.

Good morning. I have two concerns, two parts. The first is the purpose of the BPC-2 to industrial. Because to my understanding, the BPC-2 already allows the parking purpose. And the second is there's no... Widened lane and there's no turn lane to the property and that the record highway is already very busy Highway and my concern is is the parking if they have? They use the oversized the trailer until because that will require extended time to go in and out and that's the impact of the traffic to the record highway and those might Okay, I'll I'll defer to I'll call the applicant back up to 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 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 city. Um, we're moving to industrials to allow, uh, allow the use to be a storage yard, um, Right now he has a potential tenant that's going to store just modular classrooms on the site instead of doing the semi-truck parking, which would decrease the actual demand on the property. And a turn lane would not be warranted for either uses at this time.

OK. I should have asked this when the opposition was up. But let me ask, if you would mind coming forward, please, again. Sorry. Tell me where you live. You own the property across the street, or you reside in this area?

No, it's a commercial property, 5615 Rock Highway, across the street.

Okay.

Yeah. And I guess I was an opposing... The approval, but those are the facts impact to our property.

I just wanted to be clear as to your property in relationship to the...

Right, that's why I have the notifications.

So is your property, is there anything on your property now? Is it being used?

No, we're building our own warehouse, so there'll be traffic coming in and out.

All right, thank you. So I'll close the public comment portion and bring it back to the commission for discussion and a motion.

I've got a quick question for staff. Yes. Staff, is there a traffic study that will be required by this change at all?

It will be a minor traffic study.

So there will be one that will be done at level two?

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, move to approve LDCPAS 2026-7 in its entirety.

Second. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please.

Robert Beltran.

For the motion.

Cindy Giannamasso. 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.

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. LDC PAS 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 Center on April 22nd. No response from the public. Staff does recommend approval. Shonda went through the items being submitted for the record. And this is a level four review. And the Board of 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 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 aerials of the site. No impacts are anticipated on public services or facilities. It meets the location criteria for industrial and our comprehensive plan. It does have direct access to an arterial road via Cozart Road. It's next to two railroads. We consider it to be compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan. And with that, I'll stand for any questions and ask that the presentation be put in the public record. Thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Good morning, Commissioner Steve Sloan with Sloan Engineering Group, 150 South Woodlawn Avenue. We appreciate working with staff. We agree with the recommendation and happy to be here to say good morning to everyone and stand for any questions if you have any.

Thank you. I have a motion.

Move to approve LDCD 2026-2. Second.

Motion second 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.

Next case is a text amendment to the comprehensive plan LDCPA L2026-2 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. 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. redevelopment section and land use element. And 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 Eloise. There's a need identified to have a modified comp plan to create a designation that would promote development and 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 the 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 along collector urban roads and existing development areas. 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 agency plan or an urban infill plan or some similar document. The intent is to make sure that any development that does reoccur or occur in this land use category fits the applicable redevelopment plan. 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 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 would be protected under vested rights and nonconformity provisions that exist in our land development code. These policies require that new regulations be created in our land development code that are context sensitive, promote urban oriented design, encourage safe pedestrian bicycle movement, and provide flexibility and creativity in site and building layout. The intent is to promote redevelopment and revitalization in these areas, infrastructure impacts, We anticipate this would remove some barriers to development or redevelopment by allowing flexibility in site design. A provision that requires frontage roads, shared access, ingress-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. You'll see the second bullet here specifically contains the reference to a main street. that revitalization plan shall contain commercial uses oriented towards town center main street or placed in 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 Consistent with the comp plan land development code. With that, I'll ask that the 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? It seems very limited and you talked about Juanita 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?

This came about primarily, as I mentioned, El Luis and Juanita. Internally, among staff, we talked about Long Combe Road. There would potentially be areas there. I've often thought also that perhaps areas Long Haven Dale would be potential areas. Those are existing developed areas that are seeing redevelopment occurring.

There's already a redevelopment plans in those areas or they just have to be formed in the future maybe. Because I thought that was the other criteria you had mentioned.

Yeah. The comp plan lists currently like 35 different areas that are redevelopment districts. So that would be the starting point to identify those. Then redevelopment plans would have to be formed and then they could apply this. Right.

Okay. Thank you.

Is this... 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 the potential for taking away certain rights and uses and the 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. OK.

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 application by staff? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment portion, bring it back to the board for any further discussion and a motion.

Move to approve LDCD 2026-3.

Second.

Motion and second 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. Thank you. Next case. These two have to go together.

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 call this Avenue Q since it was a different road. The request is to go from Business Park Center 1 to Business Park Center 2 on approximately one acre. We submit the staff report and application for the record along with the ordinance. This site is located at 1453 42nd Street Northwest, south of Avenue Q, west of 42nd Street Northwest, east of Ricker Highway. south of Auburndale, 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. 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've received no opposition. 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 Inwood, which is an area that is served by two cities as far as utilities are concerned. Auburndale and Winter Haven all 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. After the land development code was adopted, it became BPC1. 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 seeking to 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 mixture of different land uses to the south is very industrial. This is old castle concrete and asphalt products. There is a residential subdivision immediately to the west that is actually BPC 1 currently. Another and a BPC 2 property here is the Lake Wales a ridge wildlife environmental area that's managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. The corridor along 42nd Street is a mixture of industrial and commercial uses. We even have 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. This would recognize this site as BPC2 and allow the applicant to continue on their pursuit of an auto body repair business. This is the site today. 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. We went with the Avenue Q. This is the intersection of Avenue Q and 42nd Street. 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. So there is some mitigating uses. There are some things on this property that will need to be 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 screened. The vehicle repair, of course, is required by the code to be conducted inside an enclosed structure. With that, I submit this presentation for the record and stand for questions.

Any questions of staff? Seeing none, is the applicant present? Nope?

I guess not.

I assume they knew about this and were notified.

Yes. Yes. Okay. Now they copy the staff report.

Okay. Anyone 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 a motion. What's your pleasure?

Mr. Chairman, move to approve LDCD 2026-S2 in its entirety.

Second.

Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please.

Robert Beltran.

For the motion.

Cindy Giannamasso. 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, please.

Our next case is an applicant-initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code, case number LDCT 2026-2, titled the Firearms Range Access. There was a legal ad published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on April 22nd. We submit the staff report, application, and ordinance for the record. This is a text amendment to Chapter 3, Conditional Uses, Section 303, Criteria of Conditional Uses, for high-intensity recreation to allow access via easement for only firearms ranges.

Let me interrupt you real quick. The slide says LDCT 2026-2. Oops.

Sorry.

Which was, I just want to make sure you got the, it looks like the picture's right, but I just want to make sure you got the right case up there. I have the wrong case.

Yeah, this one was continued, right?

Yeah, fire, we had number 10 on the docket, fire, LDCT 2026-3, firearms range access. I had that one crossed out. Was I incorrect?

That was incorrect. That was the, a different firearms range on a different road. was the one that was continued. This is a text amendment. That one was a conditional use.

So it is LDCT 2026-3?

Yes, this is LDCT 2026-3. Okay. What the applicant is requesting is that firearms be treated differently under high-intensity recreation is a number of recreational uses that have lots of people or have some form 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 Stadium lighting and the large crowds probably need direct access to a paved public road Firearms ranges are a little different 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 possibility that that rounds go into the public road and You can see where high-intensity recreation is a level three review in these categories, agriculture through residential high in the PM area. They are administrative approval, level one review, and tourist commercial, leisure rec, institutional one, institutional two, and recreation open space. Typically, if there was an issue with the access needing to have more frontage through the conditional use process, we could condition a particular firearms range request. The others two would go administratively. This text amendment is also very limited. There's still a requirement for sufficient 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 the one we have that's been on ESPN on Highway 640. This would be for a little more casual and limited activity. We looked at all different types of jurisdictions and how they treated firearms uses. Most of them were conditional. 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 change to our rules. It gives a little more flexibility for the small firearms ranges. It also serves a greater public safety aspect to it in that we get these firearms ranges farther away from the public road just in case rounds go beyond the berms and things of that nature. It's limited to the number of occupants and 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.

Is there 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, you know, Tenerock and Hilochi areas and Flaming Era Boy Scout Camp, for example, is more than a half mile on an unpaved road with greater intensity, we could argue, The intent has always been to provide public safety access sufficient for police, fire, and EMS to obtain access when necessary. These are limited access areas with groups. We have small groups 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. 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 minor modification to the land development context It still supports the land development code and comprehensive plan policies 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.

Okay. And No more than 50 daily attendees. Is that new?

That's what we're suggesting. When we worked with staff, we proposed this concept to that draft, and we agree that probably that's a good threshold to maintain the frequency of traffic that could be below a concerning level.

Okay. Any questions that I've got? Anyone? I'll open up the hearing for public comment. Anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 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, like the Ranchero situation.

Old Grade Road is one of those land sale type of, I don't want to say a subdivision, an unrecorded subdivision. It's also in the Green Swamp. Two things that we are not permitted to allow access via easement through. It would be limited to areas that were not land sale lots or platted right of paper plats where you would be going on public right of ways that were unopened and unmaintained. This would be limited to just recreational uses. I said before, The districts it would go in, in the case of agricultural residential rural areas, all the residential areas in 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 LDCT 2026-3.

Second.

Motion second 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, please.

LDCU 2026-4, Highland City Employment Center cap. This is a request to expand the commercial limitation of the retail cap beyond the 30% allowed in the US 98 Selected Area Plan Employment Center. Andrew Gohoski is the case planner, and we submit the staff report and application for the record.

Good morning. Andrew Grohowski with Land Development presenting LDCU 2026-4. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to exceed the 30% cap for retail and commercial uses within an employment center land use district in the U.S. 98 selected area plan. Policy 2.131-Q4 of the comprehensive plan limits development of commercial and retail uses to 30% 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 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-thru 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. An illegal 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 U.S. 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 Frazier 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-thru restaurants, one dental office, and one vehicle service establishment. The uses will be located between an existing drive-thru restaurant to the north and a daycare facility currently under construction to the south. According to Table 4.12 of the LDC, drive-thru restaurants are a 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 3rd Street SE. 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 two review process. Under this request, the commercial and retail allowance will be permitted in the entire ECX district. given the proximity to the fort frazier trail additional development requirements such as raised crosswalks and sidewalk connections are required and shown on the plans according to ldc section 401.04k 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 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 other landscape buffers or 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 two 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 3rd 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-thrus within close walking distance nearby. The location is ideal for these uses as the businesses will have visibility off 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 aerial 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 current restriction is 30%.

That's correct.

What is the request? What is the new percentage with this development?

It would be 100%. So the entire district would allow for retail or commercial development.

Any questions? No? I have a quick question.

Is this the right lane use for this then? I mean, If we're going to give the exception, go from 30 to 100, is there a better lane use designation for this?

So the vehicle service mechanical use, as I mentioned previously, it was TCX. That actually doesn't allow vehicle service mechanical. So ECX is permitted as a C2 in ECX. Considering that the US Highway 98 intersection has TCX or ECX, ECX would be the most likely land use designation.

Yeah, so looking at the 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 you would apply there.

The parcel was changed to 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 back from the road. So Employment Center provided the most flexibility. But not perfect.

Right. Mr. Chair. Yes. So what use would they have currently if they didn't get this additional 70%? I mean, 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-thru restaurants would be allowed, but as a level three. So they would still have to come back to the planning commission. The medical office would be permitted as a level two. And then, again, the vehicle service isn't allowed in TCX.

Yeah, I mean, I just wonder how many vehicle service... places we need over there. There's already two just, you know, diagonally across in the Highland City, you know, Publix 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. I'm just, you know, I'm just wondering what better uses would be applicable for that property? How many tire shops or auto repair places do we need in that area?

It sounds like staff is thinking about that. Has there been any Consideration or investigation or analysis of, I mean, 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 30%? I mean, I'm just wondering if you look at the entire district, what would the percentage be? And 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 TCS I

Well, Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. The TCX area is pretty much built out with the exception of three out parcels, which we all have approved plans and potentially approvable plans that might even come to you before for other requests. The 30% pertains just to the ECX district, which is a very small, isolated district here. Okay, I got you. You can't see my screen. This is just a small one. Further to the north, there's a whole other larger ECX district where the commercial has been able to stay within that 30% cap. Okay.

We're going to need to hear from the applicant, too. They may answer a lot of this.

All right. Will the applicant come forward, please?

Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Bart Allen, land use attorney with the Peterson & Myers Law Firm. My address is 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 there. We've been working on this property for quite some time. I've been in front of you to change the land use. We've amended the code. in order to get to this place where we are today. And I want to make sure everybody is 100% clear on what it is. The 30% only applies to this five acres. By code, 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, is when you, you have to look at the contiguous acres going to ECX on the property. When we made that land, you change with that unintended consequence that was not in everybody on the windshield of everybody at the time. would have precluded any retail because the culvers that's already there 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 land development code to land where we are today. The uses are certainly market-driven. This is right on the frontage of U.S. 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 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 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 signalized ingress and egress. We appreciate all of Mr. Grohowski's work We've spent a lot of time with staff, Shonda, Eric, Mr. Ziskell working on this, and we have a favorable staff recommendation and would request favorable approval of this. And again, are there other lane use classifications in this county bag 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 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 Ms. Bennett may have even said that. It wasn't ideal, 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 worked a bit of them. There are. Thank you.

Okay, I'll open up the 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, build a comment, bring it back to the board for further discussion and a motion.

Mr. Chair, move to approve LDCU 2026-4.

Second. Motion and a second to approve. Roll call, please.

Robert Beltran.

For the motion.

Cindy Giannamasso. 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.

Good morning. Shonda Bennett with Land Development Division for the record. This is a request for the Planning Commission to consider a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, LDCPAS 2026-11, the Della Road 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 owner 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. The property is near the Lakeland Linder Airport to the west and south. It's on the south side of Medela Road and it is 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 Medela 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 Medela 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 Medela Road other than a cemetery at the southeast corner of County Line Road and Medela Road. 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 with a map was incorrect. One of the items or issues that have changed since 2020 is that the Grisham Farms Village in unincorporate, I'm sorry, in the city limits of Lakeland, due west of the site, I'll show that 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 in a 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 Publix there at the northeast corner of Pipkin and County Line Road. The uses in the city of Lakeland, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have. in the city of Lakeland adjacent to the site are residential. This is a 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 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 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 Fun 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 frontage 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. Site's 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 Alifaya Reserve are the closest recreational facilities. Sheriff EMS facilities are in decent close proximity with a variety of response times. The property is within the City of Lakeland's water and sewer service. This request for residential low at five dwelling units to the acre is a reduction in water and sewer needs. It's a reduction in average annual daily trips, but a slight increase in 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 Polk 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, 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. But then once the applicant was told about the residential designation, then they proceeded to apply for a road furnace 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% of the parcels south of Medela Road in unincorporated Polk County have a residential structure on them. About 70% of the area south of Medela Road is either designated residential low or residential suburban. So that leaves about 29% 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 Buying up all the properties to try to have a more coordinated development of the entire Business Park Center District south of Madilla Road. In terms of a little bit of land use history, 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 Road. 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 on the left-hand side on the west. And that was a bifurcated land use request due to 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. With the request from the city of Lakeland, we did get this map that's part of your attachment or an exhibit in the staff report. 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 in relationship to the airport. Sorry, I thought it had the other map here. You can see some of this cone-shaped red lines that come off of this runway. If you saw them here, the parcel would not be included 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 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 avocation easement procedure. 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 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 2020 and today. And again, it had 78 units, 78 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 in 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 to ask a question. 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 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 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... So if the other properties came in and said, well, 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 me.

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 was not there in 2020. And it's evidence that this area south of Medela Road is 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 the letter writer, 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 that they applied for a pre-app back in 2020, asking for the 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. They're 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 make the change. So when I figured out what's going on here, I sent another letter to all the property owners asking the same question, 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.

Marla, um, 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. 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 airport there. But it would be very appropriate for low density residential in that whole strip. And there are these There's about 10 little strips that are all owned by, they were inherited by individual family members, and 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 address it in any manner. 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 your 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, part of the Morgan Creek subdivision, it's within the flight path of the airport. But not the properties due south of Medela. It's this little block going north. That's not in. But this development is. That subdivision is in Lakeland? That's in the city of Lakeland.

I mean, I had all 10 properties under contract, all 10. which was pretty difficult because they were spread all over the country, you know, to turn it into residential use, and the city shut it down. So I think it's going to go that direction anyhow, and I think we should...

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. 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. I feel bad for everybody involved. It's been a struggle. Just trying to find the right path for everybody moving forward.

Okay. Yes. If we were to approve this, it's going to place additional restrictions on the adjacent properties. Is that it?

That's correct, just like this one did here.

There's no way to waive 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 land use that impacts your neighbor.

They could come in for a variance, I guess.

No.

No?

Not to the 50-foot compatibility.

Okay. But that's assuming they... They don't go residential themselves.

That's correct. I guess I'd argue that 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.

Which was our struggle back in 2020. That was part of the concern. It's their property.

They get to. Yeah. I mean, within the rules, right?

Yeah. It's tough. Yeah.

That's what I'm struggling with. Okay.

Let's have the applicant come up. Is the applicant present? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Oh. Yes. Are you the applicant? Yes. Come forward, please. Were you sworn in? Okay.

Hi, I'm Anieli Sagado, 5210 White Acre Lane, Lakeland, Florida, 33811. 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 a business that I was planning on doing to residential. I do appreciate the county staff for helping me identify that issue 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 their properties. So 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. 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 setback is also going to affect me. because there's already a home right next to my property on the east side. So 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. Again, in regards to the letter that 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, 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 time goes, everything changes, and that's exactly what's happening. Not to mention, 4414 Medulla Road, the land use change was approved from business to residential. There's a home that was built there back in 2021. Photograph number four, in regards to step backs, I just said that. 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, she's concerned about the possible airport expansion and whether or not I'm gonna be able to stay there. That is our concern and we have considered that. Letters were sent out to all the neighbors in the area. Yes, three or four of them call back against my request. They're all from the same family, so it's like one family against the entire neighborhood. Not to mention that her backyard becomes a campsite where hundreds of RVs park there. So isn't that also a concern? And again, is it a violation of the land use? Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? No. Okay. Is there anyone to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition? Yes, ma'am. Is that your name and address, and were you sworn in? Yes, sir. Okay.

My name is Jamie Collins, and I live at 4444 Medela 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, we moved out there in the 80s and changed it to business. Nobody voted on that. Nobody requested it. It was just done. And we accepted it. And we've been asking from the beginning to keep it, if you're going to 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 gonna wanna 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. 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 you all promised us then it would be left alone. And it's not being left alone.

Okay, thank you. Ma'am, is that your... Is that your little tiny home on the 1.04 acres?

The property straight back.

Yeah.

And then all my husband died. So they sold it.

I gotcha. 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. Bonafide 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 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 it stays Business Park Center, what could go there now? Could you have farm animals on a Business Park Center? Yes.

Yes, you could warehouse distribution, commercial vehicle parking, offices.

Commercial vehicle parking, so that could turn into a parking lot right next door.

Yes, which in fact the applicant, that was one of the original applications she had made before she was told it was RL. 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 is not legal.

We're trying to finalize it.

The map was changed on the viewer 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.

Yes. And all the staff members that communicated with the applicant, it's not realistic or expected that a permit technician from the billing 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 map's correct. So I don't fault any staff member from that miscommunication.

Yes, question. Chandra, 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. Is there or is there not restrictions if she chose to use it for a business?

So the home here- Granted, I didn't go out and measure this or survey it, but from an aerial photograph, I did the 50-foot compatibility zone. It doesn't appear that that goes onto her property, but I could be wrong. But the side setback is 20 feet. 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. But... I don't see 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 was when she first bought the property, a business park, some business park use, correct? Without any impacts or setbacks from the adjacent parcels?

From the compatibility zone, yes.

In the compatibility zone. Correct. I mean, I can't speak to... In reverse, if we changed it, we would impact the adjacent Brussels.

Yes, that setback would be increased. Correct. Right. Right. I can't speak to a fully engineered site plan, of course.

I understand. I understand. 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. Are they homestead or how does that work?

I didn't verify whether it was homestead or not, but Ms. Collins who spoke previously, that's the home there. The parcels, these other larger parcels east and west of the site are vacant. 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 structure that probably was residential. Perhaps that's a well house kind of a structure there. And then after this land use was changed prior to COVID-19, 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. And these two were post-COVID. Wait. I'm sorry. Pre-COVID. But the house was built 2020-ish, give or take.

Okay. 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? Yeah.

That one was done. The property owner had an issue with bank financing and needed it split that way.

So when was that? Was that changed fairly recently?

2018.

Okay. So there's other changes in this area that sort of impacted the PPC district?

I think at least when you look at it from a macro standpoint, it certainly started a trend going in residential. And then the Grisham Farms furthered that trend. Right.

I can tell you 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 to residential since then. I understand the... And 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, It made sense, but the city's not going to let that happen on their property. They don't want anything out there. That's just the way they are. Again, to me, that would be the best use of the property, and I think you're going to see everything else go that direction.

No, ma'am. We're not going to take any more public comment. Any other discussion, questions? Okay, I'll ask for a motion.

I move to approve LDCPAS 2026-11.

And a second, okay. Roll call, please.

Robert Beltran.

I'm against the motion.

Cindy Janamasso. 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.

Do we have a new motion?

I move to deny the motion or the recommendation as presented.

I have a second.

Second.

Motion second to deny. Roll call, please.

Robert Beltran.

For the motion.

Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Mike Kickman.

Against the motion.

Angel Sims. Against 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 small-scale comp plan amendment at level four, and it will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

On May 19th.

On May 19th. Yes. Okay, thank you.

Our next case is LDPD 2026-2. It is a request for a 400 unit single family detached home plan development on 151 acres. The and application are submitted for the record.

Kyle Rogas is the case planner. Good morning. Kyle Rogas with Land Development presenting LDPD 2026-2, the Pulte-Cruz Lake Subdivision Plan Development. The applicant 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 Winner. 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 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, in 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 support 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 increase density. While the majority of the site is within the urban growth area, a portion is partially within the transit support of 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 a 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 consist of Tremont Phase 1 and 2, Hartford Estates Phase 2, Highlands Creek Phase 2, 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 is 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 6,000 square feet. The proposal includes the reduction of principal structure side setbacks from 10 feet to 5 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 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 Cruz 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 Cruz Lakewood 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 2 and 4 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-foot-wide Type C landscape buffer along all roadway frontages. Per Table 3.4A and 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 link's 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 two 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 capacity for water and wastewater. Public system improvements associated with the subdivision include a sanitary sewer network, one public lift station, and approximately 2,600 linear feet of six-inch sanitary force main along McCall Road. Provide us an aerial view of the subject site as it relates to the Trama and Cruz Lake Woods subdivision. If approved for the requested PD, the items listed on the screen will need to be reviewed by staff during level two 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 Cruz Lake Drive. and staff finds this plan is compatible with the surrounding uses. There is 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? Seeing none, would the applicant come forward, please?

Good morning, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Bart Allen. I'm a lane use attorney with the Peterson & Myers Law Firm. My address is 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. I'm here this morning on behalf of the applicant, Pulte Holmes. And if you'll give me just one second, it 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 making sure that the record's clear, I want to just touch on a few things. Before I get into the meat of the presentation, I want to introduce a few folks. I got Mr. Jeff Deason. He's the Vice President of Land Acquisition and Development from Pulte Homes. He's here 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 J.P. Wilson. Not sure I know the other one's name, but we got a number of our team here as well from the civil side. And then finally, also from Kim Lee 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 Deason. 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 P.E. as an expert witness with 24 years of multidiscipline engineering design on all various kinds of projects here in Polk County, as well as throughout Central Florida, doing environmental, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering permitting. And then 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 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 told us. Motion and second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

All right. Thank you. 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 questions, themes too much, but I think it's important that we really kind of, again, you know, focus in on where we are in the county, what's going on in this area. And this is really a pie piece that's bordered by Florida Avenue, Highway 37 to the west, Polk 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 further to the southeast along US 98. This area over time, I mean, you've seen a tremendous amount of growth in this area. And it's not just single family residential. You've got multifamily, you've had town homes, you've got commercial. There's four, probably no less than four publics on this screen, on this image right here. Whether it's, you know, you have seen this area grow and extend south and Bartow moving from the south to the north into this Highland City area. So this is 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 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 given you an overview of all the 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 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 get some feedback. And that's why you see some of the additional buffering and the additional standards 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 3 review, very consistent, satisfies all the criteria of Chapter 9 of your Land Development Code, specifically Section 906, which defines how a Level 3 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 I'm going to touch on, and I know Ms. 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 an acre in residential low. Regardless of what sub-district it is, it still allows you to get up to five dwelling units an 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 load 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. We are 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, requests 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 residential unit. Again, we're satisfying all of those requirements through the PD plan with our various amenities. This is the open space. Again, very similar to the same one that Mr. Rogas presented. 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 are designed with curvilinear features and things like that. We haven't included that 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 the stormwater ponds to meet those standards. So this project is 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 her up 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 Cruise Lake Drive. And then as you move in, you see open space amenities kind of working throughout the project. This is an example of an amenity center that Pulte has built and other projects. Again, pool, cabana, recreation space for the residents there. You can see tot lots, dog parks, some areas that look like cornhole there. So a nice amenity that the residents of the community can use as well as some additional parking and things like that. So this is what you would see in what I would call 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 the land development code criteria as it relates to achieving consistency with your land development code. So we're now consistent with our comprehensive plan. We're consistent with the land 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 what that gets to is really what your code definition and 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 kind of a paraphrase of what compatibility is. And you can see that demonstrated on the large regional scale right here on this map. multifamily, townhomes, 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 is being proposed here today. You have the Cruz 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, Touchstone, I believe it was 550 single-family homes with lot sizes ranging 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 Wynn Meadows. Wynn Meadows is effectively built out at this point. Wynn 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 no 40s, 50s, and 60-foot lots within that subdivision. And that is effectively built out. But what that tells you is, as you can see, there's a multitude and a range of densities. And this project, when you look at it as a whole, is consistent with the developments immediately on our boundaries, as well as the general region for the area. Zooming in, this exhibit is a little bit challenging to see on this scale, but this is getting into the area in the northeast corner adjacent to Criswood Lane. And at the community meeting, Mr. Deeson and some of the folks over there had a conversation, and that's where 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 they knew that they were committed to those, but also that we were going to implement them at level two. Some of those 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 as part of what they've committed to as 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 as a condition. moving the amenity center to the west side of the Boulevard where conversations that were had at some of those community meetings, as well as making the 25 foot buffer all the way around the project, um, was, um, things that were discussed and you see those as part of conditions of approval looking very on a micro, uh, on 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 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. Rogas 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, that's not a tremendous change in lot size between the two boundaries. So our 50-foot lots are internal to the site. And again, I just want to point it out. I know Mr. Rogas already said this. There is this highland enhancement parcel that was discussed. that was created as part of the Tremont plat 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 the applicant's property owner. It is being conveyed, but it's not being used 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 is just there. It's an additional 20-foot strip that runs basically the north is left on this. Basically, there's a 20-foot strip that will run the entire boundary with Tremont that will remain untouched. Again, on top of the 25-foot buffer, then you've got an additional 20-foot strip that's going to 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 McCall Rd had right away that ran South on Cruise Lake Drive and was probably being set aside at some point for McCall Rd to continue on to the South of the along this boundary. But the right away this this area that right away was vacated by the Board of County Commissioners at some time, so the McCall Rd 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. Just kind of getting to the bulk and the scale. Again, a single-family, potentially two-story product garage with a golf cart garage attached to it. Could be a boat, I guess. Nice-looking project. But when you... one of 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 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, it's not dissimilar. This is a 60-foot product for Pulte. which you would typically see on the boundary, and this is on the Tremont side. There's not visibly a significant difference between the two development types. And again, you can see, because it was residential against residential, that there's no buffering on the backside. We are committed to doing that, and we will be installing the buffer on our side of the property line. Another conversation that I think is worth having, 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 projects at this time. We are here. We're at the 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 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, finaling the major traffic study that is ongoing. It is active, it is ongoing. We met with Polk County TPO last week and discussed the current preliminary analysis. Traffic studies tend to take a couple iterations to become final. There will be environmental research resource permits, 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 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 Traymont site functions and where their emergency discharge from adjacent stormwater ponds are and where those are located. I was looking, I was researching their permit a little bit in preparation of this hearing for today, and I noticed, it made me laugh, it was Kimley Horn designed Traymont, 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 Kimley Horn here with us today, so I thought it was, I just found some irony in all of that. I thought that was a little fun tidbit. Utility capacities, utility will have to be connected, all of those kinds of things. There's multiple ways to provide utilities to the site, and those will all be identified during level two. Just to highlight a few of the road network conversations. Again, traffic studies are ongoing. Our primary access is where McCall, the northern extension of McCall reaches the southern, the southern extent of McCall reaches our northern boundary. But you can see there's been improvements. The hardline yellow lines are in place. I drove them last week. You can now travel all the way from Lakeland Highlands through Tremont out into Wind Meadows, get out to 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 going on at US 98 and Parkway. That will be signalized this year. So you can see you've got a multitude of ways to get in and out. So you've got four or five different ways to get to signalized 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. I asked Kimley Horn to prepare a sidewalk exhibit. You basically have a fully connected sidewalk network from Lakeland Highlands all the way down to the project entrance. There are a couple brief hiatuses immediately to the east at Cruisewood Lake. That does not have sidewalks. Highland Club, where it has road frontage, will be implementing additional road right-of-way dedications as well as sidewalk. connectivity in those areas Yarbrough Lane as it has been 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 you hear sometimes as it relates to 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, Telephone poles will be removed. Pulte is working with Lakeland Electric to actually put those lines underground. We will be eliminating a number of those points of potential conflict as part of this project, which again is just another benefit to the road network. School concurrency is another issue. We have a non-binding letter. Recognize that it's non-binding at this point. You have to reevaluate it through the level two process, and that's intentional. 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 wanna lock up your capacities until you get to the stage that you know the project is actually gonna come online. That's why we don't do that today. There's a reason behind it. It's not to kick the can down the road But it is also possible that a project doesn't develop for some time. We've seen that happen before, right? A project get approved and then not move forward. So that is the purpose of why we don't 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. So kind of bringing it all back. 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 meet concurrency when we get to that at level two, assuming a favorable vote and an approval of this project. And with that, we would request a favorable vote this morning. I have my team here. I've got Pulte here. We'll answer any questions that you may have. And I promise if I ask for a few minutes of rebuttal, 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, appreciate your time. And I want to answer any questions you have. Thank you.

Any questions of the applicant?

I do. OK. 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 on this project, Bart. And you indicated that you did engage the community, which is awesome. What type of response did you get when you engaged the community? I'm assuming these letters of opposition came from these same people. Help me out just a little bit on this one.

So in the packet online, as of this morning, or when I last looked at it, there was 14-ish emails that were a 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. At that time, that project did include the thought of maybe doing some 40-foot lots and other things within it. Those have all been eliminated. So Majority of those emails, I'm not suggesting that there's not folks here to speak in opposition, Commissioner John Amaso, but I think that's important to point out. A lot of those emails go back to November. I did not attend. the community meeting. 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. There was some very engaging conversations. And I think it's really important that 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 efforts that Mr. Deason and Pulte with the community, I mean, they've reached out to all sides. Anybody that was willing to communicate with them, they have reached out and followed up with them to the point that we actually have a letter of non-objection from a group that is adjacent to us on the Cruz Woods Lane. And I can give you a copy of that. And I appreciate Ms. Graham. I think she said she was coming. There she is. Ms. Graham, who is an attorney that represents a group of those folks, not everybody. I'm not suggesting she represents everybody. but she represents a small little group of folks out there, and she did. We were able to get a letter of non-objection so long as we continued to commit to certain things, and I can provide you a copy of that if you'd like to see it. I think it's important, and I think it shows that Pulte has gone a long way to try to find a middle ground, and I think that's important.

Thank you.

Yes. Art, 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?

I believe we are under the new stormwater rules, Commissioner.

So treatment and quality.

Treatment and quality. That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

And I think we also, by condition, are doing 100-year stormwater ponds as well.

Thank you.

And here's another. There's a couple extra copies of that one.

Any other questions? Nope. Okay, I'll open up the public comment portion.

I need to make, Mr. Deeson wanted me to make something clear on the record because 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 you know what the net density is for that portion on the north end that's next to cruise lake woods don't know off the top of my head, but I promise I'll ask my engineer to do some math because I can't do that math. All right.

Okay, I'll open up the public comment portion and ask, is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? All right. 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, affirm 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 weren't sworn in.

Raise your right hand, yes. Thank you. Do you swear, affirm 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.

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. Six minutes, but it's not six minutes.

All right. Okay.

And I have a PowerPoint. Can somebody help me?

Sorry.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Sue, I need your name and address.

I will. I will. I will. You already know me. Okay. My name is Sue Nelson. I live at 2920 Cruz 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 tracts 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 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 feet wide. The road is now closer to the utility poles. Fixed object crashes account for 21.1% 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 timeframe. Why the huge discrepancy? This is very serious. Policy 3.203 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 consistent 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 Cordek, concerning the faulty crash data in the roadway network database, which honestly I greatly appreciated. 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.

I'm all limit you to three minutes

And here's the corresponding 71-page deeply researched report citing all your statutes and ordinances that it's inconsistent with.

I think we have that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, while we get set up here, just curious, are any of these folks being deemed expert witnesses? Is that being proposed?

The answer is no, not without resumes. They're not. Thank you, sir. OK, go ahead.

So first, I just want to be clear that this is why I believe fails your own criteria. This was previously, as was mentioned, The market tells us that there's an incompatibility. Earlier than Tremont, overlooking that property, facing and joining his development, the property median in my neighborhood is twice what theirs is going to be. They're clearly not compatible. The market says there's a 2x difference in price. The McCall Road, as they mentioned, is teeny tiny. It's not even large enough to be in the road's database. no one's done a cumulative study on that and the schools if you take out the little porta potty buildings they're at a hundred percent capacity and have been for years we know that so for for each of these four required findings the 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 is 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, uh, is that the roads are not sufficient. There's been numerous accidents there. Uh, interestingly enough, a baseball umpire from Rochester, New York, where we're from, who lives on cruise like road, his head is his fence, tear it out, tear 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 uh, 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 that. 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 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. Yeah. And the, and the roads that are, shown on these maps, they show them as straight. Those roads go like that through Cruise Lake Road. And 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 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 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. Pulte took down the names, email addresses, and I think the addresses 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 Cruz Lake, and it's something I'm very concerned about as far as flooding this. Additionally, there are a number of 100-year oak trees along the whole beginning, the north part of this along Cruz 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 and 11 different neighborhoods along Cruz 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 Cruz 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 six-foot burn with an additional six-foot fence, and that's along the Cruz Woods Lane. So you're gonna have a 12-foot blight fence across this whole thing that is inconsistent with all the other neighborhoods that you drive along Cruz Lake Boulevard. The thing I wanna know is why is consideration given to the four or five homes along Cruz 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 you'd like to come forward. Oh, I'm sorry, Bart. We got one more. Yes, ma'am.

Tracy Parker, 6720 Cruisewood Lane. I just wanted to clarify something that they said. Cruisewood Lane is not a subdivision. And on your aerial view, 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.

OK, now I'll give the applicant 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 has under construction or not, this traffic study is incorporating those projects and those trips, and I want them to give you a little expert testimony on that.

Thanks.

Hi, Manny Rodriguez, professional engineer, number license 94548, Kimley Horn. Yeah, so as Brent mentioned, we included all the vested 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. 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 a the capacity when we analyze them like the road meets the actual capacity 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 Cruz Lake Road, 2.5 miles from Lake Highlands to Cruz Lake Drive, there are roughly, or at least reported within the last five years, 30 crashes, of which 14 resulted in none injury, 15 in an injury. There was one serious injury and then zero fatal crashes. the most frequent crash type was rear end. And to actually compare apples to apples, 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 Cruz Lake Drive Road, it'll 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. 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 out of our driveway in McCall. So it'll be a little bit widening. So there will be a dedicated right turn lane and 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. Anything else?

Thank you. Can I ask a quick follow-up to what you just said? Yes. 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 a – an idea of what the ingress-negress 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 Kluswick Road.

Right. I'm just asking from the closest emergency stations or things like that.

Would you look at that?

No, 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 of the 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, maybe a berm on one side and 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... how it compares within, and I'll just 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 of 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 uses. I mean, that's why you put in Birmingham. 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, 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, This 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 this site. There's 50-foot lots immediately adjacent on the other side of Cruise Lake Drive. There's 40-foot lots on Yarborough. I'm sorry, I said Cruise Lake Drive. I meant to say Yarborough. My bad. I misspoke again. On the east side of Yarborough Lane, there's 50s and 60s. There's 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, 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 anyway, that was the answer to your question.

Thanks for figuring that out. Yep, no problem.

No, that's Kimley 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 Amaso, 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 into the cruise lake drive as development has occurred on the south side of cruise a drive additional right away for the most part has been dedicated to bring cruise a 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. Alligood. 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. 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 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 The 18, 19 feet that was being discussed was McCall only, which is going north. Cruise Lake Drive is 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 a 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, 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 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. 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. I feel like 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 approve. Roll call, please.

Robert Beltran.

For the motion.

Cindy Giannamasso. 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 LDCT 2026-8, Eric Peterson from the Land Development Division. This is a text amendment to the Land Development Code, 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 Con are no words from the public in response The case will be heard on June 2nd of 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 go in in all different ways. locations that 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. 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. 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 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. 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'll still be subject to the 50-foot compatibility with regards to a budding 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. 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-through standards. if there is a drive-through 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 and second approved. Roll call, please.

Robert Beltran.

For the motion.

Cindy Giannamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Mike Hickman. Oh, he's gone. Angel Sims. For the motion. Lindy Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes.

Thank you. Ms. Bennett, Comp Planning.

Good afternoon, Shawna Bennett, 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 appraisal report amendments or it was a change made by the committee. In this particular element, you've heard this before, that the biggest comment here was private utilities in terms, especially wastewater. And that's really how the county got in the utilities business is shrinking 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 and 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 a 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 is 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. Well, I guess it's better than giving it to you a week before the planning commission for the whole comp plan update. Oh, 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 a one per acre. We had to analyze the distance of those septic tanks to the nearest wastewater treatment facility regardless of utility service area. Estimate the cost 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 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. 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 tough, and that's because of these basin management action plans to reduce nitrate loading in the county. 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. There's no amendments to the table. I think I threatened the committee, don't change that table. Not going to change that table. 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.

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. Never mind. I got to read the instructions better. My bad.

Well, you were probably reading the text. I was reading the text. 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 if 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 timeframe, 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. There 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, they're 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 gonna 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 signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you.