Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Angel Sims here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. And before we get started, I'd like to welcome Shane Bevilacqua. I'm not sure I'm saying, is that right? Bevilacqua and, um, Chad Baron, um, To the commission, so welcome. And also Kevin, who's moved up from being an alternate to being a regular member. And Tracy Mouncey, who is a new alternate for the board. So welcome. So next we will have our pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic So we have the minutes from, uh, last month's meeting, August meeting. Uh, do I have a, any discussion or do I have a motion to approve?

Chad Baron motion to approve the minutes.

Cindy Jana. I'm also second.

Motion is second to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. And, uh, Next on the agenda is, well, we have the order of the agenda that was presented by staff, and there's two cases that we need to vote to continue.

Right, these were advertised, so we would need a motion to continue them to October 7th.

And that is...

LDCU 2026-3 and LDCU 2026-11 are both requested to be continued until October 7th.

Okay. Do I have a motion to continue those items?

Angel Sims is so moved. Sandy Jenim also has a second.

Motion is seconded to approve the continuance. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. Okay. The next, we will ask our attorney to give us the procedures for our meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Land Development Case Planner will introduce the case today 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, if the recommendation of the Office of Land Development is for approval, and three, if 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 3 review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding 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 the right. A party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter. Please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the Board of County Commissioners prior to that de novo hearing. If one party withdraws their appeal and another party failed to file an appeal, there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the Board of County Commissioners. The application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal. Please further be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application. And they must waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Regarding level four reviews, pursuant to section 907 of the Land Development Code, the Planning Commission's decision is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date. Regarding ex parte communication, the Planning Commission receives numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the Commission regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized oppositions, and the public may request the commission to disclose any ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communications or site visits. Unless a commission member recuses 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 for 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. This applies to all cases, so if you believe you may speak today, please be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide to the Planning Commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

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?

Do I have a motion?

Angel Sims, so moved. Cindy Genomaso, second.

Motion second to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Thank you. Thank you.

Secondly, if we have any experts of the applicants, you may tender them at this time or you may wait until your case is called. And finally, the Planning Commission must review quasi-judicial land use cases. Quasi-judicial means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner. The Commission's review is limited to two areas, consistency and compatibility. Regarding consistency, the Commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. The staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria, as well as a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria. regarding compatibility, the Commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. The Commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing, both written and oral. By law, the only evidence the Commission may consider is competent, substantial evidence, which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The following items are competent substantial evidence, evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria, staff reports, and staff presentations. Citizen testimony may be competent substantial evidence so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding the subjective matters that do not require expertise, such as aesthetic and compatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear, or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development criteria are not competent substantial evidence. For example, fear that the project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic, engineering, drainage, wetland impacts, school and utility capacity, light and noise pollution, or the application's impact on property values, citizen testimony is not competent substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. That concludes my comments. Thank you.

Thank you. So with that, we'll proceed with our agenda. We have no old business, so under new business, their first case, item number one, staff, would you introduce that, please?

Yes, good morning. Shonda Bennett with the Land Development Division. The first case is for the, where'd it go? I saw it there it is Sorry about that. First case is a little different than what you normally hear with the title of LDCU. It's a conditional use number, but this request is for the board planning commission to provide comments. You don't have to provide comments, but this is a request for the planning commission to consider historical resources design guidelines that were approved by the historical commission last year. And that's based on a huge effort by Mertis Young, the historic preservation manager here to my left, and her staff, Shannon Graham, research and genealogical historian there on the second row. So their offices are in the historical museum, the old courthouse. But for the record, I do need to say we have a staff report provided in the backup documentation, an actual law from 1937, and I'll get into that in a moment. The actual preservation ordinance, we call it the Certified Local Government Ordinance. The guidelines themselves, historical marker guidelines, and the comprehensive plan and land development code policies and regulations. out of our documents that you review on a regular basis. And in terms of advertising, an advertisement in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun was provided on August 19th, and no response was received. Some of you were here when the preservation ordinance came through the Planning Commission in 2023, and that was required to have an action by the Planning Commission. But this is not necessarily required for the Planning Commission to take action, just provide comments. So to give those of you who weren't here then a little background, the state legislature approved an act in 1937. And I don't think there's many of these for many jurisdictions across the state that required historic preservation for Polk County. They have to do it. It's a mandate. They have to do this. And it directed that they have to have a historical commission. That historical commission meets about four to five times a year. And part of their purpose is to be advisory to the Board of County Commissioners and to staff. And they also collect, arrange, record, and preserve historical stories of Polk County. One item on bullet two here, I just love the way that the state statute talks about this. They procure preserved narratives on early pioneers and their exploits, perils, privations, and achievements. I'm sure it's not in the Land Development Code, so I think it's kind of a fun little historical word that we have to use in state law. They also gather information on Native American tribes and also data on soldiers, schools, and churches, and they have a lot of data on that in the historical library on the second floor in the historical courthouse. There was amendment in 2011 to the state law, so it's actually still in modern times memory or consideration of the state legislature. It broadened their responsibility for the genealogical library, although I think they'd had that before 2011, and promote and solicit donations to historical content and funding. There is no special millage rate or anything like that that provides funding to the historical staff and what they do. The ordinance was approved in 2023 by the Board of County Commissioners, and it gave the Historical Commission a different title as well as what they've had for a while. And it's basically a procedures ordinance. It says how you proceed to go have a property be designated as a historical site, a district, or a structure. And it's only owner-requested. This is not about anything that the Board of County Commissioners will put on a piece of property unless the property owner wants it. It's not something we're going to do as a county-initiated type item. Some of the benefits of the CLG program, which made this really helpful for us to pursue it, it provides partnerships and free training for staff in the Historical Commission. I've actually benefited from some of that training. Grants that they do not require matching funds. from the local government, prioritization of natural disasters. MERTIS will get a phone call directly from the state if we have a hurricane that comes through, trying to find out, well, what's going on and what kind of assistance can we give you up front versus other jurisdictions who don't have this kind of an ordinance. The commission gets to review recommendations for the National Register of Historic Places where they weren't necessarily part of that review process prior. Something that gets into a little bit about what you all do as a planning commission, structures that get the designation of historical site can receive variances from the substantial improvement requirements if they're in a floodplain. So they may not have to raise the buildings up out of the floodplain. They might want to, but if they do, it can also change the historical nature of the structure. So that allows them to have some variance out of that requirement. And the board also has the ability of a property tax exemption for that. I haven't started researching that or thinking about that yet because staff is still developing the program. But it's something on the list that we'll be able to consider in future years. This just provides a setup of what the ordinance has, the Historical Resources Board, the database, how to designate sites, how to de-designate sites, and what the regulation, if they change that structure after it's been designated, and then penalties for violation, and then codification in the Code of Ordinances. So this is not in the Land Development Code, but it's in our separate Code of Ordinances. Then after that was done, the team under Mertes, we engaged the Inspire Placemaking Collective who's helped us with our comprehensive plan update to develop the design guidelines and that's part of your backup material. And that was approved by the SORCO Commission on May last year. And this is just a table of contents for what those design guidelines have. Talks about all different forms of historic preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, relocation, and demolition. So there's lots of things the historical guidelines go into, and Mertes will talk about that a little bit. Just to show you that we have some regulations in the Conference of Plan and Land Development Code that if a site is impacted by land development that's got its rural designation, they've got to make sure they maintain it according to whatever adopted procedures are for that particular site. We do have a historic resources map. It's hard to see some of those points, but the points in red are they're listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The blue is they're potentially eligible, meaning they're over 50 years old. And then the yellow ones are that it has an historical marker. The Historical Commission has always had a program for marking properties as historical with a marker, which is different than actually have the Board of County Commissioners designating it as an historical site. So this is about the Board of County Commissioners involvement in designating something historical. And again, this is just a request for your comments. The board is scheduled to hear this on October 20th, and Mertes is going to now provide a presentation to help you think about what you might offer us as comments.

Thank you, Shonda. Good morning. I'm Mertis Young. I serve as the Historic Preservation Manager for the county. I am positioned at the Historic Courthouse, which is across the street, and I invite you all to come and visit us sometime and immerse yourself in Polk County history and a little civics lesson. So my purpose in... Addressing you this morning addressing the Commission this morning is to kind of give you the who and how The process is accomplished specific to the guidelines because that's a purpose of this discussion The guidelines are a tool in the preservation toolbox to help us Organize the process when these items come before us for consideration for designation so So, Polk Preservation. And I'm going to really, really work at staying on script here because we are storytellers and I'll get off on a rabbit hole. So, I'm going to stick to the script and try to move through this very quickly. And so, at first, I just want to tell you on the who. The Historical Commission is a nine-member board that is appointed by the Polk County Board of County Commission. And all of this might seem new to you. It's not new, as Shonda pointed out. The Historical Commission was established by state statute in 1937. The county has been, by legislation, instructed to preserve the history of Polk County and make that history available to the public. So these folks meet, join, make sure that I'm doing just that, and they also help to regulate this process. And they also serve as advisory board to the board of County missioners on issues of preservation. So also part of the WHO is the Polk County History Center. That's the staff of the History Center. I act as the liaison between the Historical Commission and the board. We meet regularly and we discuss these items on a regular basis. So I just wanted to also give you a really quick overview of also the WHO. This is the History Center. And the four categories there, the four programs, clarify for you how this work is accomplished. The certified local government and the bullet points there show you how we accomplish that work. The education program is established by the guidelines from the statute achieving that regulation or the mandate to present this information to the public. The collection, that's all the artifacts, papers, documents, maps, et cetera, et cetera, that we preserve that tell the story of Polk County. The research and genealogy library met Shannon. our research and genealogy historian. They are the people who do the research to support all those other initiatives. So that's the who it gets done and what we're doing. The preservation ordinance is the foundation of all the historic preservation in the county that passed, as we said, in December 2023. It's the only form of legal protection for historic sites within the county. and it outlines the process of designating a site as historic and preserves sites once they are designated. The Certified Local Government Program, the best way for me to describe that, that is the collaboration between the federal government, the Department of Interior, the state, the Division of Historical Resources, and local county. So what that says for you all to have comfort in knowing that since the 1960s, the Department of Interior established these guidelines and regulations, and we're following a well-established and very successful program.

So...

How it applies, the ordinance provides the legal protections, and it's just really important for me to explain that it is only in the unincorporated areas of Polk County. The county obviously only has jurisdiction on those properties that are not within the city limits. The cities manage the historic preservation within their own boundaries. The local, the process, this is just, you know, this is our, okay, we had to put the process in place. This is how it happens. I think the important thing here for us to pay attention to on this slide is it starts, the recognition program starts, it starts again from land owner request. Before we had the process in place, Almost the first day I arrived, 16 years ago, I started getting phone calls from people who were interested in preservation. This process gives us a methodology to answer those requests for preservation. And for this presentation, in the designation process in the preservation program, it is the guidelines, you know, how we do this. You know, that's what this is about. So that's what this slide represents for us. The eligibility is established, and as I said, it's property owner, and the local designation process, we just went through that. It is passed by the Historical Resources Advisory Board. Just a little bit of explanation on that. The Historical Resources Advisory Board is the board that was established in 1937 by statute that is the Polk County Historical Commission. It serves in both capacities. There is specific criteria for designation. So we help the property owner work through establishing that criteria for designation, presenting that to the historical commission that moves up to the board. Then the eligibility, you can see from this, how properties, how they become eligible for designation. This slide is, again, just the process. It's for us how we go through the steps in getting this done. Again, beginning from an interest from the public. We don't reach out to the public. The public reaches to us. We just provide the steps, the process, and the methodology to accomplish the designation. So the guidelines are a very specific tool used in preserving Polk's places, peoples, and stories. Again, it's a process, a very strategic process, following state and federal guidelines to accomplish that 1937 state statute. Thank you very much for your attention. Shonda will take the program from here.

Thank you. So I don't have anything other than just to ask if you had any comments or questions and anything that you'd wish us to communicate with the Board of County Commissioners. You don't have to. No pressure. This is really to give you an opportunity and appreciate everyone listening because I think this is really important information, not just for the Planning Commission, but for everybody in the room, too.

So you don't need any action from us? No, sir. Okay. So I have a question. So if I have a house that would qualify, and I may, I don't know, and I'm not sure I want to submit it. I live in a 100-year-old arts and crafts bungalow in Bartow. It's in the city, so it was not in the county. but if I were to qualify my house under this program, does that mean the guidelines would provide design standards if I wanted to do any changes to my house based upon the era that it was built? Is that in a nutshell what this does? Okay.

I thought that's only apply.

If it was designated historical based on your, but I would have to apply for designation and you'd review it to make sure it's qualified and all that. And if it did, then in the future, if I did anything to my house, I'm sort of volunteering to say, okay, I'll follow your guidelines.

Yes.

And if I didn't want to follow your guidelines and I'd have to say, well then take me off the list.

Correct.

Okay.

That's correct. And, um, Mertis and Shannon would be involved in reviewing that, taking that to the historical commission or historical resources advisory board in that, that capacity, and then actually going to the board of County commissioners.

And right now the map that you show this with the stars, only those red stars are the ones in the County that are now qualified or on the list.

There's actually been no properties given this historical designation yet under the ordinance. This is just...

This is listed structures, okay. Structures listed under... I'm surprised that there's not more than that.

Well, I would agree. And a lot of the information that you see in the staff reports that we provide you comes from the State Resources Office, the State Bureau of Historic Resources. They actually don't designate sites historic. They just provide a recording opportunity or inventory. So we communicate with them, do you have any sites that where someone claims it's historical and then they provide it to us. It doesn't mean that it's been verified by somebody or the state or the federal government or Murdis or Shannon. It's just somebody says, I think I have an historical structure or site or district. I'm giving it to you. They have to have an application. There's lots of documentation they have to provide. I'm sure most of it, if not all of it, really is historical, and that's the information that we provide to you. But with this ordinance and these guidelines, we'll be able, once people start asking for the designation and receive it, we'll actually be able to start telling you cases that you see if a structure on that property has actually been designated by the Board of County Commissioners as a historic. And that changes your conversation. It might change what you're considering in terms of alterations to the land or if it's a plan development or comprehensive plan amendment.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions of staff? Yes, sir, I have one.

You stated that there's county and then there's also the city. The city is responsible for their own historic. Is there a way to get an overlay where it shows both? Because sometimes city lines kind of weave in and out and you would think maybe they were in the city, but maybe they're in the county and then designate it as a city structure. So like on this map right here, these are all county areas, correct?

Those are unincorporated properties.

Correct, which is what the Board of County Commissioners would see.

Right.

But then within the cities, they have their own.

Actually, only two do, Auburndale and Lakeland.

Okay.

But the only two of all the cities in the county that have their own historic preservation ordinance.

So my question is, is that would there be able to be a map? So for example, I'm from Auburndale. I know of a couple different structures that aren't on this map because they're within the city of Auburndale. But if I were to say, hey, there's this place, now I would be able to see that's within city limits of Auburndale. Just a suggestion.

I'm sure they do on their websites.

Okay.

I think we might have it wrong if we start maintaining data on their historic structures and their sites. I know I was on Lakelands yesterday and they have maps and all kinds of different pages on their websites for their historical districts and structures.

Okay. Any other questions, comments?

I just want to weigh in and say thank you very much. You've done an outstanding job. The presentation was great. I learned a lot just in this little bit, and I think it's a great thing you guys have done. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, the next case we have is number two, LDCPAS 202614. Staff?

Yes, that's a land use change, and Tyler Daniels is the case planner.

Good morning, Tyler. Good morning. Tyler Daniels, Land Development. This is LDCPAS 202614, the Knight Station CPA. This is a small-scale amendment to change the future land use designation on a half an acre from residential low to commercial enclave. The site is at 3135 Knight Station Road on the north side of the road, just west of North Galloway Road in the city of Lakeland. Again, it is on half an acre. You can see the building here and the paved lot. This is a current future land use map. The site is currently residential low R01 and the surrounding areas as well. This is the proposed future land use with the commercial enclave. Here's the context area. You can see the other commercial enclave sites in the vicinity and the respective distances there. Some photographs of the site. You can see the single-story structure and the frontage on Knight Station Road. Staff finds the impact assessment meets the concurrency standards for the area. Poverty appraiser records the building as constructed in 1974 as a retail store with a paved parking lot. The parcel was originally zoned as C2 prior to the adoption of the comp plan. and has been operating commercially since. Staff finds this meets the criteria for a mapping error. And this is an area from 1980. And the original zoning there you can see is C2. So the existing and continuous commercial use since 1974, the surrounding designations of commercial enclaves in the respective distances, the prior zoning to C2, prior to the adoption of the comp plan, staff finds it compatible with the surrounding area since it's been developed and staff recommends approval. And I stand for questions. Any questions of staff?

So in essence, this is an oops. It seems so, yeah. The C2 looked like it probably encompassed a little bit more than just this parcel.

No, I just highlighted that so you could see it. It is just that small square.

Okay, it was just the parcel.

Yeah, I just highlighted it bigger so you could see it.

So I'm assuming that was probably a zone change back in the early 70s to build a store. I'm surprised it's existed there this long without having problems. Yeah.

I actually think it's original.

Really? Okay.

Because I don't see the parentheses.

Yeah, you're right. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

Move to approve, Kevin.

Second, Cindy.

Roll call, please.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Kevin Updike. Chad Barron.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. Merle Bishop. For the motion.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. Do we have anybody here? Always the applicant here. Yes, come forward, please. I'm sorry. I'm jumping ahead.

Good morning, Tom Woodridge with TDW Land Planning here representing the property owner.

I was not upset with the direction it was headed, but there are protocols to follow.

Tyler did a great job presenting all the facts. I don't have much more to add, a presentation ready to go. But in light of the longer agenda today, I'll just say we meet the criteria for CE as a map error. It's been there forever. My client invested in the property several years ago and is looking for a new concept. There's a cafe currently in place called Jonah Bell's. They had coffee and pastries and acai bowls and things like that. and the concept has moved on to something else. And as you do that in business, you want to have a little bit more certainty. And when you seek funding or seek approvals, or even if you want to sell it down the line, if you can't explain it, look on the map, it's red, and the red is commercial. If you have to tell a story, that creates nervousness from the buyer or a lender. So best to take care of this now, and now is the time to do this. So I'll answer any questions you have regarding that.

Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none. Do we have anyone in the audience in support of this application? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none now, we'll ask for the motion again.

Thank you. Motion to approve, Kevin.

Second, Cindy.

Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Chad Barron. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Cindy Giannamasso. For the motion. Shane. For the motion. Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay. Next case.

Next case is LDCPA-S-2026-9, Lake Marin Creek's Conference Plan Amendment that's tied to LDCT-2026-6, which is a text amendment to Land Development Code, and Robert Bolton is the case planner.

Good morning. I'm searching for... There we go. My apologies. Good morning. Good morning. Robert Bolton with Land Development presenting the two requests, LDCPAS 2026-9, a Future Land Use Map and Text Amendment from Development of Regional Impact to Leisure Recreation with a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Section 2.135, Parcel-Specific Future Land Use Map Amendment with Conditions to Reference. The subject site has development conditions, part of the Land Development Code Tax Amendment LDCT 2026-6 to Appendix E, adding limitation to uses within this LR district. These two cases will be heard together, just to make sure y'all are aware, and they will take separate actions. For the record, 114 mailers were sent to area property owners on August 17th. Two boards were posted on August 14th. Legal ad was published in the Lakeland-Winter Haven Sun on August 19th. No responses from the public have been received. Staff report, ordinance, application, impact assessment, as well as other application documents are submitted into the record. These are level four reviews. LDCPS 2026-9 will be heard by the County Commission on October 20th. The staff report for LDCT 2026 is actually missing the first reading date that will get changed, but the first reading by the board will be on October 6th, and the adoption hearing would be the same date, October 20th, as the CPA. Okay. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and staff recommends approval. The subject site is located on the west side of Lake Marion, east side of Lake Marion Creek Drive, north of Marigold Avenue, and south of Pine Street in Point Siena area. This is a 2023 context aerial. The site is located on the western side of Point Siena, and on the east side of Lake Marion. This is a closer view of the site. To the east of the site is the Lake Marion Creek Middle School. Southeast of the site is a development called Lake Marion Golf Resort. It's an attached housing and condominium development, even though there's no golf, it has the name of golf in its name. Further south are vacant wetlands. This is Lake Marion. To the north are conservation lands purchased by Polk County and will be opening in the near future as Bellini Preserves. There's also another tract of land, vacant scrub land owned by Lake Marion Preserves LLC. The site highlighted in this light green is encumbered by a conservation easement held by Conservation Florida. Conservation Florida has been working with the applicant on this application on access through the easement area to the area that can be developed. A letter from Conservation Florida was included in the file and they have responded that they are in agreement on the access path that they've decided on. Any future development within this area would be subject to the terms of the conservation easement. This is the original plan for uses within the Poinciana pre-DRI. The portion of the site It's outlined here in yellow. This tan part is covered by the current conservation easement. It was originally planned for multifamily. This area, you can see in the green, was slated as open space. This represents the existing land use. All this hatched area is the DRI area. The Lake Marion Creek Middle School was changed to institutional for the school. This ROS recreation open space is owned between state and federal agencies. This is what the map would look like with the land use changed. This hatching here is not going to show up on any data viewer. It's just for reference as to what part of it has this conservation easement on it. Both comprehensive plan and land development code text amendments provide safeguards for this site. The comprehensive plan provides for recognition of the existing conservation easement, ensuring that any potential future development applications are aware of the encumbrance. The LDC Text Amendment provides for limitations to the allowable uses in Table 2.2 of the Land Development Code and for the proposed prohibited uses. These two tables represent the proposed allowable use for the site over here in the green. with the reddish table indicating the prohibited uses that are currently allowed in Table 2.2. These will be for the entirety of the leisure recreation site. The picture on the left is the subject site from the eastern side of Lake Marion Creek. The picture on the right is from the subject site looking toward Lake Marion Creek Middle School. This is Lake Marion Creek looking north and south from the site. The site is serviced by a full array of public services and is not anticipated to have any negative impact. Toho Water will provide both water and sewer for the site. The subject to request are a future land use map and text amendment, LDCPAS 2026-9, from DRI to Leisure Recreation, with comp plan text to reference the subject site as has development conditions as part of land development code text amendment, LDCT 2026 dash six to appendix E limiting the allowable uses within the leisure recreation district. The combined request is the land use change and the related LDCT text with limitations of use within the site are consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and land development code. I submit this presentation for the record. Staff recommends approval on LDCPAS 2026-9 and LDCT 2026-6. These do require separate actions. With that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff?

I have a question. I see bars, lounges, and taverns as an option to put across the street from a school.

What they're proposing is a community center. So for the residents of Point Sienna. So if we sort of exclude that, it may limit their uses. This is currently owned by the Association of Point Sienna Villages, basically their HOA entity.

I'm just, I didn't, like nightclubs, dance halls, bars, lounges, and taverns across from a school, I didn't know we did that.

If this is a community center, it gives them the ability to provide entertainment, recreation uses as deemed appropriate by the association.

Is there a distance requirement for...

Yes, there are, and they would be subject to all the distance for the alcohol, for... All of that. I'm sorry.

I believe it's longer. It's farther than these two parcels are apart. So they'd most likely be subjected to have to go through a variance to that separation to the land use here.

So if they had to go through a variance, I'm assuming that I may be wrong. You correct me that they you would be able to place conditions on the use to say, OK, all this is all we want to do. We don't want to do a bar or tavern. We just want to be able to, I guess, serve alcohol or whatever as part of the community center. You would be able to limit it to that if they applied for a variance?

Yes, for variances, the land use hearing officer would hear that case, and they are able to put conditions such as time, restrictions. Okay, right.

But for our purposes, if I vote for this, I'm going to look at people and say, yes, I voted to put bars, taverns, lounges, and nightclubs across the street from a middle school.

I think it's a general category that without, we wouldn't be able to have the type of community center activities, but there is the... the alcohol separation from a school. So by voting to approve this application, you wouldn't be waiving anything that's in the alcohol and school distance separation requirement. You'd have to come in for a variance to do that.

Are we sure? I mean, I don't know what the distance is. I don't know. I mean, it would maybe be helpful for us to know that. And while you're looking that up... I'll ask if the applicant is present. Yes. Come forward, please state your name and address.

Natasha Lunsford with KPM Franklin, um, 6,300 Hazeltine national drive suite 18 or suite one, one eight Orlando, Florida, three, two, eight, two, two. Um, Alison Williams is not able to be present. She is the applicant for this project. Um, hi.

Okay, just for clarification, do you represent Poinsettia?

KPM Franklin, and then the Poinsettia is the landowner, correct?

Okay. So you would be the one, I'm just not sure how your corporation or whatever relates to the use that's mentioned for the... The center.

Was your firm retained by the property owner to represent them in this application? We're representing them, yes.

Okay, okay, okay. I got you. I'm okay. Yes.

Do you have any questions?

No, does anybody have any questions? Yes.

I mean, you've heard kind of the conversation. I just, I'm not okay voting for something where it's like, oh, let's put a bar across the street from middle school.

Yes, there is no intentions of having like a bar by typical standards of a bar. It is 100% a community center. The intended use is to be outside of school operational times as well. because it is going to be an amenity to the Point Siena community overall. So most uses will be in the evenings, after school hours, and or on the weekends. But no, there's no intent to put a bar there. It is strictly a community center.

And I know how badly Point Siena needs community centers. I'm stuck on this one. Understood. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who speak in favor of this application? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring this back to the commission and looking at staff to see if you have... Beer and wine is 500.

Liquor is 1,000 feet. I don't have a measurement tool here to... come up with that.

I don't know if anybody else has a... Looks like Shonda might be working on getting a measurement. Are we able to pull it up on Google Maps?

Sorry to remember, the alcohol separation rules were just changed and it's not been put in the unit code yet. The range is correct. The unit measurement used to be property line to property line. Now I believe it's doorstep to doorstep. Just for clarity, I think she's looking this up here.

And again, they're going to have to file for a variance if they want to have a bar or a nightclub. That's correct.

If they're within right that distance.

Right. Correct. If we exclude it and anything is deemed that it would be that, they can't get a variance to get it because we've prohibited it. It gives them the flexibility. Okay.

But if they had a community center and they wanted to serve alcoholic beverages, they would have to get a variance if they're within the distance. Yes, sir.

It looks like it's over 1,000 feet just on their property between where I'm estimating their door entrance would be to their property line. But you're able to recommend changes to the text, by the way. I mean, you don't have to adopt it as presented.

Are you able to make a motion just for community center?

Well, it's for the request. You couldn't limit it to just the community center. The request is to, as I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, staff, is to amend the future land use of the comprehensive plan for leisure recreation.

That is the CPAS 2026 plan. Nine, I believe is the number. Yes, nine. That is the land use change. LDCT 2026-6, the second one within that ordinance is where we have the... the prohibited items. It's on page, the allowable and prohibited uses is on page 385 of your packet of what is allowed and prohibited. And I think what Shonda's saying is if, to make a change, if you're wanting to exclude something, that type thing, is that what I'm understanding correctly, Shonda? Yeah.

It would be possible to recommend striking any of the uses that are listed in the text amendment?

As allowable.

As allowable within this particular Leisure Recreation District?

Yes.

Can you pull up the screen where you had the uses? There we go. Yeah, that one.

So if we got rid of the idea of a true bar, lounge, or tavern, it wouldn't preclude a restaurant from, say, serving beer, wine, or liquor, but they would... They wouldn't need to apply because they're 1,000 feet out as a restaurant, correct? Okay. And like the nightclubs and dance halls, I mean, that's not, I said that, but you can have a teen dance hall in there. I don't know. Bars, lounges, and taverns directly across the street from a school for me is a hard thing to say yes to.

Potentially another option could also be a condition that the sale of alcohol can only occur as accessory to events hosted and conducted on any of the facilities on site. So it narrows how, but I don't know.

Do we condition a map amendment, though?

Or are you talking about for the text? It would be something you'd put in the Land Development Code text amendment case. In the text amendment only?

Yes. Okay.

Yes.

Gotcha.

Interesting.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, so the first motion we need is whether or not to approve the land use change.

Which is the LDCPS case, yes, 2026-9.

And then in the text amendment, we can make a change to the allowable uses.

Could make a change to the text.

Yes.

That's in that ordinance, yes.

So to have a motion on the comprehensive plan amendment.

Again, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a map amendment and a text, because the text of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is that there's an appendix in the Comprehensive Plan that says cases that have conditions in land development code. We have to list those out. So this is not just a map amendment. It's a text amendment stating that this case, this property, has conditions in Appendix C of the Land Development Code. I'm sorry?

We would need to approve the land use amendment so it has the leisure rec designation and then approve the text amendment, which could include a change to the allowable uses. That would apply to the land use designation that was just previously approved. Clear as mud.

Clear as mud.

It's a different way of doing conditions, but because it's a conference plan amendment, it's not straightforward like a conditional use like a plan development.

Right.

So the board, if it was their pleasure, could have a motion to approve the application with a change to the, because you're saying there's a text component of this, of LDC PAS 2026-9, Right.

Yes. And that text is just saying that this case has conditions of approval in the land development code. Okay. This establishes the authority to place the conditions, if you will.

That's what that text is for. That's what the text is for. So that text does not get into the prohibited and permitted uses that is in this next case. Right. Okay. So by approving, if the board decided to approve this case, they would not be approving the, uh, proposed allowable uses and proposed prohibited uses. That'll come in the next case.

So let me, let me take the liberty of asking the applicant and, and maybe this is unfair to put you on the spot like this. Would your, uh, do you think your client would be opposed to removing the use of bars, lounges and taverns as an allowable use?

I do not know for sure if they're still able to serve alcohol outside of that zone. being that if it were considered a restaurant, I guess we could, I don't think they would be, but again, I don't know.

We have not had that specific conversation. I anticipate that was your answer.

And then the restaurant would have to have food, I think is that going to be the, and so one of the suggestions by staff was rather than remove that you, and again, this is for the next case, just to clarify, but rather than remove that use, there could be conditions placed on that use now. similar to if it were within the Separation distance requirement like a land use hearing officer may place conditions This Commission could do that as well But again for the next case Okay Any more questions or do I have a motion for this for the approval of the land use I

Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDC PAS-2026-9.

Did you call for the public hearing, Commissioner Bishop?

I thought you did.

I'm just making sure. We might as well ask again.

Well, I'll ask again. Is anyone in the audience to speak for or against this request? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commissioner. We have a motion to approve. I'm looking for a second.

Cindy Genomaso, second.

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

Angel Sims. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Chad Barron. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Cindy Genomaso. For the motion. Shane B.

For the motion. Okay, next we need to consider approval of the Texas Amendment, which includes the proposed allowable uses within the leisure recreation that we just recommended approval of.

Okay, here's where I'm at. I'm not going to vote yes on something that could eventually put a full-on bar across the street from a school. So that's where I am.

Well, then I would suggest, I'll defer to the attorney here, but I would suggest then we make a motion with the additional of striking bars, lounges, and taverns from the table of proposed allowable uses. Correct? Correct. Yes. Okay. So if that is what the maker of the motion would like to do, then that's my suggestion. And we would vote on a motion that would strike that use as allowable use.

I will move for that. So just to clarify, the motion is to approve the application, but by also striking the use of bars, lounges, and taverns from the acceptable uses.

Before we go there, let me ask staff just for clarification. So they would still be able to do liquor sales as part of a restaurant, just like any restaurant would be able to do, but they wouldn't be able to have a standalone bar, right?

You could just make the alcohol use an accessory to the community center.

I'm not familiar with all of the alcohol permits you get because we don't issue those, but I think there's ways of certain permits you get when it's related to an event. That's how some of our event facilities in the rural part of the county are able to sell alcohol.

Okay, this is going to the county commission, right?

Yes.

For consideration. So that could be our recommendation if that's a problem. I'm just suggesting that if that's a problem for the applicant... then they can make that appeal to the Board of County Commissioners and say, look, we really want to have a bar as part of our use. But our recommendation would exclude that. If that's the maker of the motion and it's approved.

Yes. So moved. I move to approve. I've got to look up the number. Where is it? Ah, I lost it. Docket number LDCT 2026-6 with the striking of the potential use of bars, taverns, and nightclubs.

Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second?

Chad Barron, second. Okay.

It's bars, lounges, and taverns, just to be clear. Nightclubs is different. Thank you.

Roll call, please.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Chad Barron.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Shane B.

For the motion.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you. Did you understand what I said? I mean, if that's a problem for your client, then they still have an opportunity to state their case to the Board of County Commissioners.

Yeah. I don't think they have intentions of any bars or lodges, so thank you.

I hope not, but anyway.

Someone else could.

Yeah. Right, right. Okay, next case.

The next two cases will be presented together, LDCPAS 2026-6 and LDCT 2026-13 related to Eloise Main Street Corridor, and Mark Bennett is the case planner.

Good morning. Mr. Chairman, move to expedite.

I have a motion to expedite. I'll ask, is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition to this case in Eloise? Seeing none, it does qualify for an expedited procedure. Do I have a second to expedite?

Cindy Jenimasa, second.

All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, we'll expedite. Okay. You didn't expect that, did you?

I've worked on this thing for over a year. I've been waiting so long to present this. Now that it's expedited, I will give a brief summary of what's going on here. The first slide here explains our notice requirements. We are submitting to the record the staff report application impact assessment statement and these slides. The small scale comprehensive plan amendment is a level, well, both actions are a level four review. The MAP amendment will be heard on October 6th. The first reading of the text amendment will be on the 15th, and then the second reading and adoption would be on October 6th for the text amendment. Um, this map shows location of Eloise. Uh, you can see in the blue there, the, the gist of the change is the change, uh, just under 26 acres from residential low to main street corridor, community activity center and institutional plus change the text of the comprehensive plan. And then the LDC text amendment, um, to establish permitted conditional prohibited uses in the proposed Main Street corridor and additional development standards Here's the site This is a current this is proposed CAC institutional the institutional is proposed to recognize an organization knows the freedom tour and which provides social services and assists the county in disaster relief. The rest of the designation was proposed as a main street corridor to reflect and allow for redevelopment activities along Snively Avenue. Again, I'll zoom through these real quick. Eloise is in a CRA. We had a lot of community engagement on this project. various maps, but you see what the final result is. The text amendment outlines the proposed permitted and conditional uses and additional development standards for multifamily as certain design requirements and signage limitations. Let's see. Impact assessment. Because it's a redevelopment area, we really weren't anticipating any new additional impacts. Justification for approval, the proposed institutional community activity center designations reflect existing uses. Main Street corridor allows for a change in uses, provides potential entitlements for property owners to redevelop their property. These uses are compatible, and the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I'll stand for any questions. Thank you.

Any questions of staff? So this is county initiated? Yes. So I asked previously, but in abundance of caution, I'll ask again anyone in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition to this. Seeing none, does the commission have any discussion or a motion?

presentation be brief be brilliant be gone that's where i learned move to approve ldcpas 2026-6 in its entirety chad baron second

Motion second to approve. Roll call, please.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Chad Barron.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Cindy Genomaso. Oh, for the motion. Shane B. For the motion.

Thank you. Okay, next case is the text amendment.

Anything to add? No, sir.

Okay. Again, anyone speak in favor or opposition to the text amendment? Seeing none, do I have a motion?

Did we need a motion to expedite this one as well, I assume? Or you presented them together, so I guess it would be the same.

Okay, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, move to approve LDCT 2026-13 in its entirety.

Angel Sims, second.

Parole call, please.

Angel Sims for the motion. Kevin update for the motion. Chad Barron for the motion. Brooke Agnini for the motion. Merle Bishop for the motion. Cindy Jenna Masso for the motion. Shane B for the motion. Motion passes. Thank you.

Next two cases again will be presented by Mark Bennett, the case planner. Uh, and that is LDCPAL 2025-7 and LDCT 2025-15. Okay. Good morning. Um,

Hold on, we've got a lot to cover with these two cases here. The original request, well, first of all, let me go through the notice items here. 49 mailers were sent out on July 17th, and then the same number of mailers were also sent out on August 17th. Given the large size of the site, we had to put a lot of boards out. So 29 boards were posted in July. And I want to acknowledge the help of the staff. Shonda, Tyler, Leah, Robert, and Kyle all helped put boards out. So thank you. Legal ads were published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on July 21st and August 17th. These requests were continued at the last Planning Commission meeting. As far as response from the public, we did get a petition against with 536 signatures, 13 emails. One email, right, of support, and two expressing concerns. Staff recommends approval. We're submitting to the record the staff report, application, impact assessment in these slides. These cases are a level four review, and they will be presented before the Board of County Commissioners on October 6th. That'll be known as the Transmittal Hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. I'll have you look at the blue box here. The request originally contained numerous changes, and I'll go through them here. The first change was to change the development area from rural to suburban development area, and then to change property that was designated phosphate mining, agriculture, residential, rural, some industrial, and some leisure recreation. The original change was to change it to rural cluster center, 15 acres, at the 640 and 37 intersection, basically a commercial node, changed 1,200 acres to residential suburban, generally located on the western half of the property, and then industrial on the eastern half, 1,261 acres. The comprehensive plan amendment also proposed text that made reference to the land development code which was the purpose of LDCT 2025-15, that text proposed activity center plan for the rural cluster center and establishment of a buffer area between the proposed industrial and the proposed residential. The reason why it struck out, as you see there in the blue, is that we did receive a modified request from the applicant just about two weeks before the hearing. The applicant requested the following, and you see it there in the bullet points. One, remove the residential suburban request. Two, remove the suburban development area designation. Three, remove the rural cluster center proposal. at the intersection and correspondingly the activity center plan for that center. What that would mean then is that the request before you now is only for the proposed 1261 acres of industrial that is generally located at the eastern part of the site. So let me say that again, the modified request and the applicant is now only for the industrial on the eastern portion of the site.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that does not involve a development area change?

Correct.

It doesn't require, I guess what I should say, it doesn't require a development area change.

Yeah, the applicant is... withdrawing the request for the suburban development area. So you see bullet number five there, the text amendment is no longer needed. The purpose of the text amendment was to implement additional standards in the residential area, which has now been withdrawn and to implement an activity center plan, which is now being withdrawn. So bottom line up front, we don't need to hear LDCT 2025-15. And I'll look to council and say, does the board need to take formal action to withdraw? Or is that just understood? I apologize for putting you on the spot there.

No, that's fine.

So number 10?

Number 10. No. Number eight, right. Number eight. Item eight.

Can you give that number again?

The case number is LDCT 2025-15. That's the text amendment to implement certain provisions that were proposed as part of the MEMS crossing project.

So to answer your question, to leave nothing to chance, when we get to that item, we can hear a motion to accept the withdrawal. Okay. But right now we're considering the first case.

Okay. The last bullet point there is something that I want to emphasize. The 54-page staff report you got reflects the... original full proposal, the full proposal being the residential, the commercial, the industrial, the development area change, and all the proposed text changes. The request now, again, and I keep saying it so we're all crystal clear on this, the request now is just for industrial only, 1,261 acres, generally located on the eastern half of the property, and some of it is south of 640 also. So with that, I will go through my amended, modified presentation here.

Let me ask before you do that. Let me ask, is there any questions from the commission? This is where we are now.

Can I just add, because this is a level four, and it will go before the Board of County Commissioners, regardless of what the recommendation is from the Planning Commission, the staff report will be updated prior to the hearing, the first hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, to provide staff's analysis to the modified application.

Okay. And, yeah, I want to specifically mention that the staff report in front of you now, again, one, doesn't reflect the change. And we have not been able to do an analysis of only the change. So I think the board needs to decide whether or not they're comfortable with proceeding. based on the fact that you don't have a complete and accurate staff.

Let me ask this. Does that change your recommendation to us?

No. And, and if you, if you think about the effect of the request is that there is less impact because there's no more commercial proposed, no more residential proposed. So presumably, and we don't have the hard numbers, but presumably the, the impact on public services facilities, et cetera, will be less because the size has been reduced and the mixture of uses has been eliminated.

And I wanted to offer something, too, that we got the request at a time frame that it was not possible to provide you an ethically responsible staff report based on the timing that we have to turn these things around. It's not reflected in the land development code of some kind of... There's some cutoffs, but if there's a change, it doesn't say if the applicant makes a change prior to the planning commission hearing, it's got to be done so many days prior. It doesn't say that. So we... But we felt that it wouldn't have been an appropriate staff report that it would have met our standards. Normally, if it's a few months prior, we would have said, well, you can't go forward because your application is not sufficient. It doesn't reflect everything that you're making a request for. But it happens frequently that applicants make changes at the last minute. So that's why we're kind of in this awkward position.

So let me ask this. Why wouldn't the staff recommend a continuance?

I think the applicant did request that the Planning Commission hear the case today, so staff is trying to accommodate that request, but it's at the Planning Commission's discretion.

I anticipated that answer. Okay.

Question. Is everything in here relevant to what we're now talking about today?

I'll have to defer the applicant since he provided that.

This is provided from the applicant, and also we would need to make sure any opposition gets a copy, but the applicant would be able to speak to this.

Okay. I would say then proceed unless there's any.

This feels pretty convoluted to me, especially with so many people invested in this and so much public interest and interaction. It's pretty convoluted at this point. to me, but maybe I can get more of it if it keeps going.

Well, I mean, I don't want to get ahead of ourselves or myself here, but did the, you said there was a petition of opposition, right?

Just to go in order, I want to make sure. If there's a thought that the board may want to continue the case, we should address that issue first before we get into the merits in opposition to the substantive portions of the case. If there's a thought that the board may want to consider a continuance, you may also want to ask the applicant how they feel about that.

How was the petition? Did it have a statement on the petition?

I didn't see the petition, so I can't answer that.

Could you tell us what the statement is? I just wondered if the statement specifically addressed the requested industrial or the uses. I mean, I want to know, did they express their opposition to a certain aspect of this, or was it just we're opposed to all of this? Yeah. All right.

So I do want to reiterate that if there was going to be a motion to continue, that should be addressed before we get to the merits of the case.

I think Ms. Jenim also had.

Well, I was going to go with the questions, but if we have to do that first. I had a question for Mark on the moment.

And if there is no motion, I mean, if there is no desire of the board to continue, I'm not suggesting that. I just wanted to make sure that we address each matter separately.

He's not finished with his presentation. And I'm the one who started this line of discussion, I guess, because I interrupted him, which I apologize for. But I just, for clarification, before you got too far down the road with this.

And the complexity of this project. necessitates the need for everyone to be clear as to what exactly has changed and what exactly is going on now. And to clarify again, what is now being proposed is a change from phosphate mining to industrial.

Let me ask this, and maybe you can't really answer it, but how involved is your presentation?

Well, I've got rid of a lot of slides because we don't need to discuss the text amendment anymore. So it's reduced by about a third.

While we're waiting, I would say, let's just in the interest of time, go ahead and proceed with your presentation while we're waiting on the answer to the question about the petition.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. So go ahead. Here we go. Okay. I already briefed this slide. The location of the site you see on the map on the lower left, it's generally located south of Mulberry. Um, The aerial photo on the right again encompasses the entire roughly 2,500 acre site. And this is a better picture that shows the location south of Mulberry. State Road 37 is here. County Road 640. Unincorporated community of Pinedale is here. Anderson Road is located here as reference points. I'm going to show some aerial photos here. The large size of the site makes it hard to show everything, but you can get an idea, a flavor, if you will, of what the site looks like. And then the narrative at the bottom of the slide shows the direction and what it's looking at. Okay, and again, this is the same photo from before, showing the location of the site. This is the existing development area, and just to clarify again, this is not proposed for change. It will remain in a rural development area. This is the current land use map. It shows the property as phosphate mining And the four squares here were to show the rural cluster center, but that's now off the table. Here's the proposed change to the land use map. I want to focus first on the proposed change to industrial because now that's the one item that's up for consideration. It's shown in the purple. This area here and this area here along with a small strip here, these are the areas that are proposed to change from phosphate mining to industrial. The original proposal was to change this from phosphate mining to residential suburban, but that's off the table. That's no longer valid. So to summarize, the proposed change now is to consider the area in purple here, here, and then also a separate smaller parcel here from phosphate mining to industrial. That's the proposed change as it stands today. I prepped this, um, slide in originally. If you notice the case file numbers had 2025 on them. That's because we originally received this request. It was officially submitted, I think in June last year. Um, The request was much larger in size and scale, 5,400 acres, 18,000 units, 2 million square feet of commercial, 700,000 square feet of office. And with the original proposal, this would have been the third largest city in the county population, nearly 50,000. There was a lot of issues with this site. I won't go through the list. The largest one was utilities, i.e. provision of water and sewer.

So go back to that map. Show us on that map generally where we are now.

What do you mean by where we are?

Where this request is in relation to this much larger development proposal. Okay.

Yeah. The area that's only proposed for industrial... the 1,261 acres of industrial is generally located here, here, and again, a little bit over here. So that was the original proposal. The modified proposal that was submitted about the beginning of the year, again, reduced it from 5,400 to about 2,500 acres dropped the number of residential down to 240 per med by right with the potential for more, up to 3,600 through a suburban plan development. A lot of other changes that we don't need to go through. The main issue all along was utilities. How is the water and sewer going to be provided? The applicant has demonstrated that they had some water capacity. That's why we're proceeding with a recommendation of approval for the suburban development area and the residential suburban land use. However, again, that's off the table now. Impact assessment. Schools, because the residential is no longer being considered, schools would not be impacted. Likewise with parks. Presumably a lesser impact on public safety due to the removal of the residential Water and sewer are not required as it will stay in the rural development area. Transportation, the project as reviewed was going to have a significant impact. I can't tell you what the impact will be of just the industrial. Again, smaller project, lesser impact presumably on the road network. Environmental, these numbers reflect the entire site. And I do believe that there is still some floodplains and wetlands on the industrial portion of the site. Those would be addressed, of course, as part of any site plan review. Justification for approval. I'll focus on just the first bullet because that's the only item on the table now, that being the change from phosphate mining to industrial. We consider it appropriate because there are industrial uses and designations already located along State Road 37. Bear with me while I go back to the map here. This is the existing land use map. This is the proposed land use map. You see a lot of purple here, which reflects industrial, and then the lighter purple, reflects Business Park Center, which is a light industrial. Likewise, there's existing industrial designations here next to what is proposed for industrial here. Because there's existing industrial designations and or uses, especially along State Road 37, in particular, this property in here is not included in the request, but it's also industrial. Going back to the justification, Because their existing industrial uses are located along 37, we thought that the proposed industrial designation was appropriate. For that reason, we consider it compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan. So with that, I will stand for questions. Thank you very much.

Any questions of staff?

I have a couple, Mark.

Okay.

So I'm looking at Mr. Mims' presentation that he gave us. Where is the rail located for this and is it on the site for rail use or is this something that's just south or actually surrounding the site for rail?

I'll need to defer to Mr. Mims. I don't recall any rail being directly on the site. I know from a previous case review that there is rail up here in this area. Oh yeah, right around here. North Frong property, right? Yeah, so. So the best answer I can give you is I know there's rail nearby, but I don't think there is rail directly on the site. Oh.

Isn't there a rail yard south of that?

I'm sorry. I stand corrected. On this small parcel here, there are two rail lines, actually.

Are they short lines or connected to CSX? Do we know?

I thought they were connected to CSX, but I am not sure, to be honest. I don't think they're short lines.

That's interesting. Yeah. Has... Mr. Mims identified a user? I'd be curious.

I don't know, and I'll need to defer to him.

Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions? That's all I have. I was given the – it's not the actual petition, but it's the – I guess the – well, maybe it is – Anyway, it says, I'll read this. It's not that long. Dear Planning Commissioners and County Commissioners, I am writing to request the complete denial of both MEMS crossing areas, LDCT 2025-15, LDC PAL 2025-7. The proposed development would introduce a large high density residential community into a rural agricultural industrial area that does not have the land conditions or infrastructure necessary to support it safely and sustainably. Portions of the proposed development and surrounding homeowner Properties are located within FEMA Flood Zone A. Residents already experience flooding and sending water during ordinary rainfall. The property is previously phosphate mined land and uneven terrain and low-lying areas that retain water. Developing this land could worsen drainage conditions and redirect stormwater into neighboring homes, farms, pastures, and roads. The surrounding roads already carry residents, school buses, agriculture equipment, commercial vehicles, and heavy industrial uses. The proposal also raises serious concerns about water supply Roadway safety, emergency access, schools, utilities, fire rescue, law enforcement, and the cumulative effects of continued high-density development. Changing approximately 2,475 acres from rural development area to suburban development area is inconsistent with the Polk County's stated goal of preserving rural lands and directing growth towards locations where adequate infrastructure already exists. This is not... This is not opposition to responsible growth. It is a request to replace, to place growth where the land, roads, drainage, water supply, and public services can support it without harming existing residents. Please listen to the citizens who know this area and live with these conditions every day. I respectfully ask that the Polk County Planning Commission and Polk County Board of County Commissioners deny in the cases 20, 25, 15, 20, 25, 7 in their entirety. Sincerely, Katie Marshall. And it looks like there is 498 names attached to that. It's hard. I was wondering if there was some way to distinguish their opposition. But from that, you can't. It's for all of it.

Well, and to clarify, it sounds like it was based on the initial application because they mentioned residential and the larger acreage. So it does not address the reduced application.

I don't believe it can be entered as competent and substantial evidence either.

So the email itself and the reasons listed can be considered citizen testimony. The number of signatures is not relevant. Popularity polls and petitions are not competent substantial evidence. Florida law is clear on that. But as far as the issues raised, those can be given merit as layperson testimony and then, of course, anyone here today.

In the interest of time, and we may have to get other people up here to speak, but I'm going to recommend that we just move this on to the county commissioners without a recommendation because I don't know that anybody knows what's going on.

I'm going to speak for the Board of County Commissioners and think that they would like to have a recommendation from their planning commission. And to clarify, I think the reason staff went ahead and accommodated the request for today, at least to let the planning commission decide if they want to hear it or continue it, is because it's not a case, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not a case of items are changing within the application. It's simply pieces of the application are coming off. So if you considered the entire application, now what you're being asked to do is to just not consider portions, but a portion of it is the exact same, and that's the industrial. That's the 1,261 square feet of industrial. Correct.

Okay. I'll ask the applicant to come forward, please.

Good morning. Let me see. Did you have a slideshow? Yeah.

Okay.

So thank you, commissioners. My name is Tom Mims. I'm the applicant.

Name and address, please.

Yes, 439 South Florida Avenue, Lakeland 33801. I think you're going to find it's actually pretty straightforward. And that's the reason why I wanted to give you the booklet so you could actually see as we're going through the slide presentations. Where we have come from is important. So a lot of people would like you to believe that this is agricultural rule, and it's not. This is from 2000. You can see the extensive mining taking place on the west side of the site. This is 2007. You can see the extensive mining taking place on the right side, which is on the east side of this. And then I want to, how do you, do you have a, is that a laser? They can't? Okay. So if you look on this piece here, you will see basically a creek system that goes through the center that I'll explain more to you that actually bifurcates the east from the west on the site. This is 2025, so in 2017, the site was reclaimed and released from DEP. We actually did the reclamation, but the important aspect here is that The lakes you see on here aren't actually lakes. Those are permitted ERP. They're ERP uses, which means... I'm sorry. which means that you can utilize those for on-site mitigation, you can use those for stormwater retention, and you can utilize those for what we are also talking to the Water Management District about is a reservoir, which can be used for additional water management. They're very supportive of an alternative water supply system that does not address the upper Florida, as you all know. Presently on this site, we have a water use permit of 317,000 gallons a day. So we will go... So Mark mentioned this. This was the original. We've been working on this for two and a half years. So the concept originally was to try to create a Hyde Park type environment where you would have the... Commercial uses along 640, mainly at the two corners of 37 and 640 would be the main one. It's 5,200 units, but as Mark alluded to, there are water constraints and sewer constraints with the development of this size. However, I can tell you the concept is good and it was real. STANDPAC did the layout of this and it certainly had a lot of merit for the direction we wanted to go and it would have been a significant benefit to this area. However, it did propose 17,000 units. It would have been 50,000 people, 2 million square feet of commercial and 700,000 of office. We then move to this layout, which you can see in the maroon type look, that is the industrial and the residential is in the yellow. However, we wanted to modify that to just get to the industrial, and that's the reason why this is a fairly straightforward application. As you see in the staff report, and I'm going to demonstrate this in a minute, you can pretty much bifurcate between the residential and the industrial. This is the existing plan. And what is important to know is that the maroon area does not abut any type of residential whatsoever. It is abutting all phosphate mining land uses. And along 37, it is abutting actually industrial. It runs all the way along 37, and there's extensive... There's extensive industrial in the area. Somebody had mentioned about the rail yards and the rail lines. These are CSX rail lines. At the bottom right-hand corner of the purple on the map, you will see that that is a rail yard. It is very extensive. We're going to see some pictures of that in a few minutes. The rail line runs all the way from Mulberry down It goes into Mosaic and then continues on. And then in the northern corner is another rail line that also is a CSX rail line. The surrounding uses, all parcels to the east are industrial. Highway 37 is a buffer to the south, County Road 640. and to the west, phosphate mining and industrial uses. To the north, you also have phosphate mining. No portion of the property, as I stated, is adjacent to residential. In fact... The Mulberry Chamber of Commerce says this, there is a lot of hometown support for the upcoming growth in centrally located Mulberry. Although we are a small city, we have an abundance and large industry that keeps us going. So one of the things with regards to the petition, if you go back to the petitions that were asked, they even mentioned twice in the petitions and stated how much industrial uses are in this area. and that they were opposed to the residential. And we'll get into that aspect in a few minutes. The property is located south of Mulberry, as stated. I'll go through this. The areas of roads that are adjacent is basically State Road 37 and 640 and Highway 37, which are collector roads and major arterial roads. Just to give you an example, this is New Wales. This is located on phosphate mining land, which all of the property that we're talking about allows this use with a floor area ratio of 0.75, which is very high. The uses on the existing property are heavy industrial. There's no question about that, and we're about to see more. We've talked about residential. The existing land use already has industrial and commercial uses on it under PM. Live local, whether if you like it or not, allows the highest density in the county for residential uses. for affordable housing. That is already allowed on that property. So anybody opposed to residential uses, this law was passed in 2023 that allows you to put these densities, three stories high buildings, and it can go higher if there's a building within one mile that's higher than three stories. you're looking at residential uses that are the most intensive in the county, already allowed, under industrial and commercial uses, which clearly PM is industrial. Mining site, do I need water? Anywhere. The... On the site, we actually have on-site wetland mitigation areas, which are the areas that we showed you on the lake system.

Thank you.

Thanks. So the areas that we showed you on the lake system in the middle actually is an on-site mitigation area. They are not wetlands. They are used to offset any wetland impacts that you have on any property from here all the way to Tampa Bay. So that is already in existence on this property, and you can use them if any wetlands are impacted on this site as well. However, the use of those lakes... for stormwater ponds is a huge benefit for this site because most sites do not have onsite stormwater. They have to build them. This is a major stormwater pond system if we choose to go that route, or we will probably do a combination of a reservoir and stormwater ponds. Y'all probably read a few days ago in the paper, where Polk County won a settlement agreement with Tampa Bay Water on 12 million gallons of water a day coming out of the Alify River. That's going to come out of this point very close to this location. And I will probably be able to show you on a different map, but pretty much every wetland that appears to be a wetland on here is either a part of our wetland mitigation bank or part of an ERP permit that allows us to actually fill that lake if we want to fill it. So we can go in there and fill these areas if we chose to do that. We're not going to do that because we want to use it for other uses, but that is an allowable use pretty much on every lake you see there. They're all within the ERP or the wetland mitigation bank. We talk about the history of this area. This area has been mined for 100 years. This property, even though you saw it mined in 2020, had been mined multiple times for that. Since 1914, these buildings and other buildings like it in the area have been built. And this one is located north of this site. And has recently, in the 2000s, been in operation. Same with this one. All of these structures show you just how intensive the industrial uses are in this area. This is Mosaic's Fosse Pond, which is located also north of the site along Anderson Road. Same. The piece to the west of here, this is north of the site along Anderson Road. You can see the rail line that runs the perimeter here as well. This is Mosaic's phosphogypsum stacked to the south as well. This is just north of this site along Anderson Road. This is a sand mine area. This is adjacent to our property, and this commission recently, or in the past three or four years, voted to allow a salvage yard to go adjacent to our property as well as a conditional use on the east side of the property along 37th. This is the intersection of 37th and 640th. By the way, let me go back. That northwest corner, not where the red truck is, but the one in front of him, that is also zoned industrial. This corner parcel right here is zoned industrial, and our property that we're requesting a change for is directly behind this piece. This is Tico Solar Farm. You can see they have multiple solar farms in the area. This is another one that is just north of the site that they've recently completed. The extensive rail lines you can see as well in the area. This is the rail yard that is on 37. You can see it right there on 37. This is the one that is right on 640, just closer to where we are. And that piece right there is approximately 130 acres, and that is zoned industrial as well, just to the south of us. This is the new Wales plant. That property line abuts our property to the southwest of our site. So this will give you an idea of just how many residents we've added here in Bolt County. And this gives an opportunity to bring jobs. As you can see, the Central Florida Region Planning Council has been very supportive of industrial uses and getting bigger uses to the area. Right here, they need market-ready industrial and manufacturing sites. Um, the, they also say that, uh, for the, this site here is 2160 acres and, um, it's, it is contiguous with, it has the roads, it has the utility. There's a large transmission line that runs right through the center of this piece of property. It has stormwater systems in place. It has buffers. Um, Mulberry in industrial development it talks about the city's direct access to State Road 630 and 37 is a critical economic asset Mulberry everything there's state from their Their own website from the chambers website talks about bringing industry to this area and for rightfully so this area is heavy industrial and You can look at the uses. This is very important because it shows you just how similar the industrial and PM land uses are. You saw the mosaic plant. You can build on this site right now the most intensive industrial uses in the code. It goes right down and compares them. So you can see... how similar they are. The Polk County, because of phosphate mining, is moving away, although Mosaic's plant will be there forever, is moving away from the PM land use and trying to get other uses for those sites. This is a natural transition to that. As you can see, it continues on. It's not just one or two uses that are similar. It is almost the entire list. that are identical uses within the code. And these are allowed right now today, even on the suburban areas that are directly behind any residential house that they were complaining about. But behind their houses also, you can put the live local and have extensive, dense, dense, dense housing under the Live Local Act. This shows some financial benefits as well as the benefits for Southern Polk County surrounding compatible uses. If you look at the compatibility, it says compatibility states that the land shall be developed so that the adjacent uses are compatible with each other pursuant to the requirements of other policies in the future land use element so that one or more of the following provisions are accomplished. A, there have been provisions made which buffer incompatible from dissimilar uses. The land use change we're seeking today is from PM to industrial. Those are similar uses. And it says, one or more, incompatible uses are made to be more compatible to each other through limiting intensity and scale of the other intensive uses. This is inapplicable since the adjacent uses have the same intensity. And then C, uses are transitioned through the gradual scaling of different land use activities through the use of innovative development techniques, such as a plan unit development. This is not applicable because the adjacent uses are the same and very similar. If you go to the comprehensive plan on compatibility, it states under 4.4, a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over the time that no uses or conditions are unduly negative impact directly or indirectly by another use or condition. The uses being proposed have been on this site long before any homes were in the area. It's been mined in the homes, if any, to the north of the site that were there. Most of these were built for mining towns. They were mining communities that the actual mining industry built and put there to be used for their workers. That's clearly the case towards Anderson and 676, which is north of this area. You can see that... The IMC processing chemical plant remnants, these are sites along 37. I'm going to move through them pretty quick. This is north of the site on 37. 37 is highly industrial. One other thing I wanted to bring to your attention was if you go to the staff report, because I do think that the staff report is broken up between the industrial uses. And you go to page 26, you will see that the use that we're changing to Because of the 7.75 FAR that is allowed under PM, you actually see a reduction in average annual daily trips that are allowable for this land use of PM go from 148,922 per day to 49,686. And it's because of the FAR, you're allowed greater densities in use of the property under PM. If you go over to maximum allowable use of square footage, it almost cuts in half. It goes from 41 million square feet under the existing land use to 27 million square feet under the industrial. So it's almost half of the amount. of the two. And you see water consumption between phosphate mining is actually, if it were completely built out to the maximum capacity, which I can tell you with industrial, that's just not the case. We have a lot of experience with industrial. You don't typically see that. However, south of us, Mosaics actually has a permit for 18 million gallons a day or some number. So you see that the water use has actually decreased. So I would say that the uses from industrial to PM actually are decreasing and less intensive or the same. They're certainly less intensive in what you can build, but they are less intensive in, um, traffic, water consumption, sewer consumption, et cetera. Um, I think this is a clear, if you looked around the county for a site for industrial, I don't think you'd find one better than this site for that kind of use. And regardless of what the neighbors want with regards to not having residential, the law that got passed is a game changer on that. And I, It's unfortunate to me that that did pass, but it did. However, it is applicable, and you can have the most intensive residential uses on this site already. So I'm open for questions if you all have any.

Mr. Chair, I have two things I wanted to clarify. First, I think there was a lot of testimony by the applicant appreciated that might be considered opinion, which can be considered if the witness is qualified as an expert. However, if the witness is not qualified as an expert, then opinion testimony, as I said in my opening comments, aren't competent substantial evidence. So if the Commission wants to consider the applicants testimony There may be a motion or consideration of whether the applicant is qualified an applicant may want to speak to that Yeah, would I submitted my resume?

To y'all with regards to that To give you an idea. I have over 35 years of of land use change experience before this board, before the city of Lakeland, before Mulberry, extensive. I've testified in circuit court on land use applications of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan as well as the Land Development Code. When it comes to uses, it's gone from land use applications, and I have been here testifying, many of y'all have seen me here before, for industrial, commercial, residential. In addition to that... I own a company called the Alifai River Wetland Mitigation Bank. We are actually the largest wetland mitigation bank in the Hillsborough County, Alifai River Basin, which goes to Tampa Bay. I have extensive experience with regard to the environmental issues that are associated with wetland plants, wetland resources, hydrology, this entire area. we saw through and actually helped design the reclamation of that site and how we permitted those ponds and those areas to be utilized for wetland mitigation impacts, for stormwater, in our ERP application. So this is a site that has been planned for a very long time to achieve the big city that we once proposed, those retention areas would work fantastic for that use as well. So I would say that I'm a licensed contractor. I have extensive experience with construction. We have done thousands of acres and reclamation of these types of sites that deal with the hydrology aspect of things and that's Our company, not just as a landowner, but our company has done them. So I would say and put forth in the resume, as you can see, that I definitely have experience with both planning and on the environmental resource issues.

Is there an interest in accepting his resume and his testimony as an expert witness? I need a motion.

It sounds like an expert to me. I'll make a motion to accept him as an expert witness.

Do I have a second?

Second. Broken.

Aye. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Okay. You're an expert. Okay.

And the only other item I wanted to clarify, I think there's a statement by the applicant that the Florida statute, the Live Local Act, which for the county's purposes is Florida statute 125.01055, applies to phosphate mining, the county's phosphate mining land use designation. The statute, it applies to commercial, industrial, or mixed use. So while the phosphate mining and industrial uses may be similar, The statute does not mention live local applying to phosphate mining.

As I recall, and you may want to clarify this, but I believe it says industrial uses in the statute versus industrial. So phosphate mining clearly is an industrial type use.

I'll read the exact statute just so we're all clear. A county must authorize, and again, we're not here to consider multifamily, but I just want to clarify. A county must authorize multifamily and mixed-use residential as allowable uses in any area zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed-use.

I agree with that. Okay.

Thank you. And that's all my comments. Thank you for indulging me.

Yes, I'm open for questions.

Okay, thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Seeing none, I'll open the hearing up and ask, is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone? Okay, I'm fixing to ask for that next. Anyone opposed to this application? And yes, if you would come forward, please. And while he's coming forward, I would just reiterate that the... application the applicant has requested that his application be amended to include only a portion of the original request and that is for the industrial only. Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. Name and address. And were you sworn in? What was that, sir? Were you sworn in? Yes, sir. Okay.

Name and address.

My name is Anthony Childs. My address is Bluff Road, Mulberry, Florida.

Okay.

My biggest question is he keeps saying the Live Live Local 2023 Act. So basically, if he does it industrial, he can build whatever he wants on his houses on his land. Am I right? Yes.

You are correct from the standpoint of the statute that was passed known as the Live Local Act that does allow for residential development provided that at least 40%, I believe, does qualify for affordable housing.

Yes, sir, my only question is what he's proposing to build. I have zero problems about development. My biggest problem is what he's proposing to build, what I saw, is it's twice the size of Mulberry, it's twice the size of Fort Meade, the two nearest towns to us. We have one ambulance in the area. And, I mean, what can we do? The traffic is horrible. We have a two-lane road, so we're going to build all this stuff on a two-lane road that goes from 640 to 37. What I understand, and what I understand, what my research is, it's about 28,000 cars a day now. before we build this. I have no problem about building, planning, because I know we always have to develop, but my biggest issue is we have to do it before, we have to build a foundation before we can build a roof, or it will all come tumbling down. I mean, because they all say about the water issue, And I know like city of Marbury is like 800,000 and the water issue for Fort Meade is like 700 ish thousand. They denied a data center because it would put them close to their, to their point of water. So, and they want 1.5 to 2.5 million gallons of water a day. I mean, What can we do?

I don't have any answers for you. I just wanted to get your comments, and I appreciate your...

I mean, for simple fact, I mean, I have zero issue about building, but we need to do something with the road because it's a two-lane highway. And by DOT standards, it says an average two-lane highway is... as 10,000 to 15,000 people a day, roughly. And what I'm seeing is 25,000 to 30,000 people a day travel that road. Now we're putting another city out there traveling the same road, and we have one ambulance for all this. We have... We have fire engines, but we only have one ambulance for the whole community. And then our nearest ambulance would have to come from Modelo or Barco. I mean, I understand we just have to do something. I have no problem about building, but there has to be some kind of give and take. Okay, thank you. You can't just, I guess you'll get 16, 15 more seconds, and there has to be some kind of give or take. I mean, I just don't understand. I'm done. Have a good day. Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition?

Mr. Chair, while they're coming up, if I could clarify one thing, because it is a little confusing, so I just want to make sure we understand. So the legislature has said, and it preempts the county, if the property was to be zoned industrial, the legislature has already determined that affordable housing and the criteria that they have in the statute is compatible. So that's nothing the Planning Commission can consider in making their recommendation as to this application. The only thing the Planning Commission is able to consider is is whether the industrial uses that we have, because the application is to change to industrial, is whether the industrial uses are appropriate in this area. We can't consider whether affordable housing would be appropriate because the legislature has already taken that out of the county's hands.

Is it affordable housing for Polk County?

No, sorry, your public comment portion is over.

Yes, ma'am.

Hey, my name's Crystal Tim, and I live in Pinedale area, and I did not get no mail at all from these companies. I flood out there.

Could you give us your address, please?

Yes, 310 Lime Street, Mulberry, Florida, 33860. Okay, thank you. We flood out there like crazy. It is agricultural out there. On 37 and 640, we have cow fields. We have wild animals. We have endangered animals out there that he did not even speak of. He don't speak of the traffic, how bad it is. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon, I wait out there three times at the green light just to turn left because we don't have no turn signal. We have a turn lane, but we don't have a turn light. We are terrible with the traffic, the watering out there, and he don't even talk about the agricultural out there. And we don't know what he is planning on the building, if it's going to affect our animals or not, if it's going to affect my chickens, my cows, my sheep, my neighbor's goats, anything. We are not for this. And I did sign that petition. And there was 539 people that signed it within three days online. We are not for it. And he can say whatever he wants to say, but us residential people was there before they decided to do whatever they're trying to do. We have been there. We are the ones that live there. I would recommend all y'all to drive out there at 4 and 5 in the afternoon. Drive by there. Look at the stuff. And then he's over here talking about the false faith mind. What about the chip stacks? What are they going to do? How's it going to affect us? Do they know?

That's not part of this application.

We've already been affected by this, and this is phosphate mine that he's over here trying to take, phosphate land. That's phosphate water that's all on that screen that he showed. All of it's contaminated. All of it. I am done.

Thank you. Anyone else speak in opposition?

Good afternoon.

Were you sworn in?

Yes, I am. Okay. My name is Katie Marshall. I live off Anderson Road. My address is 3375 Anderson Road. I have prepared a speech, but now since this has kind of changed, I'm just going to kind of shoot from the hip here. However, I do live off Anderson Road and would be directly affected by these areas now. I know that his map now shows that it's changed significantly. However, this hearing was previously postponed because of problems with the original notices. I was specifically told these cases would be re-advertised and a second set of mail notices would be sent. Yet, as of yesterday, I have still not received them. Neither has some of our neighbors. So that should concern every single one of you. Public notice is not a technicality. It is required so affected citizens can know what their government is trying to consider and have the opportunity to participate before decisions are made. And now the cases are changing. So we don't really have all of the information at all, which I think was why we, to your words, Ms. Sims, is very convoluted. I think it does need to give time for our citizens to be a little bit more educated as to what he is proposing. Most of our citizens, I would say, we're not going to stop all growth. I could sit here and tell you right now that it's... Stopping all growth, especially in Florida, I don't see that ever happening. I think responsible growth is what we need to be, is our goal. At this point, I could not really tell you what's being proposed other than just it being changed to industrial. Yes, we do live around industrial. I grew up in this area. I have been around the phosphate mining. I've had families who've worked for them. And we deal with the phosphate mine traffic every day. I hear the phosphate mines running when I wake up in the morning. I mean, but at this point in time, I did choose to live there. However... One of the larger concerns, especially living off Anderson Road, is the flood plains and the wetlands, which I would like to submit for record, which I did send to Ms. Lisa, and thank you so much for all of your help with this. I don't know who I can give this to, but I do have some photos of our property. We do get inundated with flood water, not just during hurricanes, but throughout just our rainy season. we have a very, very valid concern as to what's going to happen with all this growth. It may change now that it's just industrial, but I would like to have some more information as to what does this look like for our future? What is this going to impact us? To me, a lot of this stuff that's in front of us right now is kind of hypothetical because there's not an actual plan in place now that it's changed. I would need more information to be able to communicate a little bit better as to how this now would affect us compared to my preferred speech from all month long. I do appreciate you all taking the time to listen. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else to speak in opposition to this request? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Oh, the applicant has a chance to respond. Yes, please.

Thank you. So to answer some of the questions with regards to traffic, a traffic study has been done to determine that that is not an issue at this time. As you go through – and this is not just on this project. This is on any project y'all are dealing with that's any kind of large scale – that as you go through – If your traffic study doesn't work, then you may have to make, as a developer, improvements to that roads or infrastructure. For example, on one of the first plans, the city concept that we were talking about, over time, a large portion of 37 would have been converted to a four-lane road. When you're talking 50,000 people, it will increase the need for road infrastructure. However, that's not the case here. We are definitely below any thresholds. As I stated earlier, the level of traffic that is allowable under the existing land use is significantly more than the allowable land use under industrial for traffic. You heard testimony about you wake up in the morning and you hear the industrial activity and noise around you. That is the area. That is what is out there today. So I think that with regards to the agricultural, there are cows on our property. But it's always been phosphate mining. It's always for 100 years. That is what this property has been. And it's had heavy industrial uses throughout that time period. So I stand for any questions that y'all may have.

Any questions of the applicant?

I'm just sitting here curious, and are there any plans of what you're going to do now that the residential city concept is off the table?

No. So we will seek for industrial, like we're probably going to put a road through the center on the west side, on the east side, and sell like we sell on other parcels that we have, five, ten acre tracks for small industrial type uses. That's... That's your main, we find that there's a sweet spot out there for those five acre small mom and pop type operations that want their welding and they want their different industrial uses.

And that's the sort of things that you're wanting to put in?

That's what we're planning to put there.

And then the other land that's now off the table that we're not talking about, is there any thoughts on that down the road?

You know, we don't really have a specific thought on that right now. I don't have a specific thought on that. It just would stay the same.

I have a follow-up on that. Question. So you're planning on dividing it into five-acre industrial sites?

Five to ten, but yet then at the same time, you could get somebody that wants, like we just sold down on, matter of fact, I was curious, y'all have a hearing before y'all on a cement project? thing coming up. We sold a parcel that's 30 acres right south of us for cement plant. I don't know if it's that one.

Well, 30 acres is a little bit different than five acre industrial sites.

I'm saying it will vary. I mean, we're not limiting it to five to 10. I'm just saying that that's a sweet spot, that that is where we find that we're selling the most of industrial uses. South of this location on Jamerson Road, we have one to three acres of And we're selling a lot of them. But we do occasionally sell one that's 30 acres. So we would sell a larger tract. It's just that's where we find the market. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So I got a question of staff, and I don't have, since I don't have the code in front of me, have you seen his handout that shows the comparison of uses between the PM and the industrial? Yeah, okay. Do you agree with that?

Yes and no. The comprehensive plan policy for phosphate mining says other uses ancillary to phosphate mining. So the list that you see with the checks have to be phosphate mining related to be permitted. But changing it to industrial allows uses that have no tie to phosphate mining. For example, you're going to hear a case later this year that Mosaic is proposing for a pipe extrusion plant, but they're changing it to industrial, but they don't have to, at least for a timeline. So those uses that you see have to be related to phosphate mining for them to be developed. That's a policy in the conference.

That's what I thought. Yes. Because, I mean, the follow-up question would be, well, why do you need to change it to industrial if you could already do all these uses?

It gives them a wider market. Wider market, yes.

Right.

Yes.

And, Mr. Bishop, just to follow up, Exhibit 9 of the staff report, page 53, contains a list of uses by level of review for industrial. Okay. And then page 54... It contains a list of uses for phosphate mining. The so what of that is generally more uses are allowed in industrial than in phosphate mining.

Okay. Any other comments or questions? Do we have a motion?

I want to ask staff or our attorney about the second notification that went out. Some people were saying that that didn't.

Yeah.

Can we find out about that?

I don't personally have any.

I meant to ask staff that too. Is there any, was there, there was a problem with notification, which was the reason it was continued initially. And we still heard some comments about notification. Just wonder if you have any response to that.

Yeah, as far as notice, I pulled this slide up to sort of summarize it. We did send mailers out in July for the August hearing.

And what was the distance of that, the distance that mailers go out? Oh, 500. Okay.

Yeah, 500.

I know typically you can go further than that, but the requirement is 500 feet.

Right. Right. The reason for the continuance was that the legal ad that went in the paper did not have the required map. Okay. That was the reason why there's a defect in notice, and that's why it was continued for notice was subsequently put in the paper.

Was there additional mail notice sent out?

Yes. Okay. We also mailed out 49 mailers on August 17th. Okay.

I also think that there's three, and I think Ms. Howard has mentioned this in previous hearings, there's three forms of advertisement so that one of them reaches the public. I was one of the staff members that posted the signs on

Anderson yeah at this time staff is not aware of any deficiencies with notice And we believe all the requirements have been met Okay, thank you

I'm not ready to make a motion yet. I'm just going to explain kind of where I'm thinking. I really wish that there had been time and communication between the applicant and the community because we had community members coming up talking about things as if it was still part of this application. I see it much more clearly than I did when all of this first started. And I'm honestly still a little torn on how to vote on this because on the one hand, we have a property owner who has a massive piece of property that anybody who lives out there knew was not going to stay that. You know, this is going to change. So, you know, I don't know. Do we want to talk about any opinions? I'm still kind of tossed up.

Well, I'll just say this because I have had experience in dealing with phosphate mine property, and phosphate mining, in my mind, has always been considered a temporary use. I mean, you mine it, and there's multiple examples in Polk County where phosphate mine has changed to other uses. even residential uses, recreation uses, environmental uses, industrial, commercial, you name it. There's multiple places, particularly South Lake. Most of that property on South Florida Avenue, when you get south of Shepherd Road, even Imperial Lakes and Christina, that was all mined. All that property south of Shepherd Road, all that commercial was formerly mined. So to say that it's always gonna be phosphate mining is just not realistic. So from the standpoint of this is located some distance from existing development, but that's not to say that it can't develop. And so my, I guess, opinion is that probably one of the better uses of industrial land, if it can support it, is probably industrial because that's what we've seen. You go from 60 between Bartow and Mulberry, most of that property that we see industrial development on was formerly mined. So it's a matter of is this in the right location? I think the use is appropriate. Is it the right location? And I'm not sure I have a strong opinion on that. I mean, I think the use is, my opinion is the use is appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, and also we need to keep in mind, we're making a recommendation to the board of our county commissioners here. And all of us can go attend that meeting as well and make our comments. But in the interest of time, Mr. Mims did a great job of explaining what exactly he was doing. I was confused at the beginning, but I'm no more confused now. And I'd like to make a motion to approve LDPD 2026-12 in its entirety.

For the residential, as amended by the applicant. As amended by the applicant. Yes, sir.

I think that's the wrong number.

Yes, it's the wrong number.

No, it's number seven.

LDCPA-L 2025-7.

That's the correct number.

And just to clarify, that's just for a change from phosphate mining to industrial?

Right, land use change only.

Yes. So all clear.

I'll second that.

Okay, motion and second to approve the amended application. Roll call, please.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Chad Barron.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Shane Bevilacqua. I'm going to say that.

Bevilacqua.

Bevilacqua. There you go. For the motion. Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay. Now we need action on the corresponding text amendment, LDCT 2025-15. As previously mentioned, staff... recognizes that because of the change in the request, this is no longer needed.

So we're making a motion. I'm looking for a motion to withdraw. Please. Motion to accept the withdrawal. Motion to accept the withdrawal.

Go ahead. I'll make a motion to accept the withdrawal of LDCT 2025-15. Angel Sims, second.

Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Okay. Okay. All right. Next case. Thank you. All right.

Next on the agenda, number nine is LDPD 2026-12. This is a plan development request for 178 townhome units in northeastern Polk County. Kyle Rogas is your planner.

Apologies. Sorry for the wait.

If we can hold up just a second.

Can we just a minute? Yeah, absolutely. I need time as well. Okay.

Shane, I promise I'm going to get this right. Is that Italian? It is. I should be able to say it then.

I know, and I'm very embarrassed at this moment.

Well,

Okay.

Proceed. All right. Good morning. Kyle Rogeswit, Land Development, presenting LVPD 2026-12, the San Myron Plan Development. The applicant is requesting a plan development approval for 178 multifamily townhome units and approximately 29.18 acres. The request includes increased density and reduction rear setback in a residential low one future land use district. On August 17th, 183 mailers were sent to area property owners. Three boards were posted on the property. August 17th, a legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun. On August 19th, staff has received no response from the public. Staff finds the request is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. The subject site is located on the south side of Sandmine Road, north of Deanstill Road, south of Sandmine Road. east of Commonwealth Avenue, west of US 27, section 14, township 25, range 26. The subject site is located in the residential low one future land use district in the transit supportive development area. There is a small portion of the site within the core future land use district and its underlying rural development area isolated to the southwest corner of the site. The density limit in the residential low one district in the north U.S. 27 selected area plan is up to eight dwelling units per acre by achieving at least 20 bonus points without plan development process. The plan development you have today's approval is not required for purposes of density, rather for the unit type and setbacks.

I'm sorry, say that again. I misunderstood you.

The planned development you have today is not for the increased density. It's already allowed within the future land use district in the north U.S. 27 selected area plan, that 0 to 8 dwelling unit. Okay, thank you. So while the majority of the site is within the transit supportive development area, a portion is within the rural development area to the west. From a public investment standpoint, urban services Urban level services are expected and available at this location. This property was originally part of the required open space for PUD 9904 when density was limited to four units per acre and 50% open space was required. In 2001, the North US Highway 27 Selected Area Plan was amended and development in the residential low districts were permitted to achieve up to eight dwelling units per acre with only 30% open space. In 2018, PD 1801 requested to remove the property from PD 9904 and approve development in its place. PD 1801 was planned for 184 short-term rental townhomes and associated amenities. On February 7, 2018, the case was heard before the Planning Commission with staff recommendation of approval with conditions. The Planning Commission denied the case with a 6-1 vote. This request will remove the property from PUD 9904 once again and improve a new development in its place. The proposed development will contain a residential townhome development consisting of 178 units. This request is less than the previously heard case, lowering the overall density of the site, and it is important to note that short-term rentals are not a part of this request. Two of the abutting developments are multifamily townhomes, the same as the proposed, with similar densities as well. The Green Bay mine borders the western side of the proposed development, but there will be no mining activity nearby as there is a significant amount of land under a conservation easement held by the state of Florida that provides much distance between mining activities and the residents. While the subject property abuts the Highlands Reserve Single Family Subdivision for nearly a half mile, only a quarter of that abuts residences. The number of residential units directly abutting the subject site is 22 units, identified as lots 31 through 52. It will be these units here off of New Hampton Road. Here is the site plan for the record. The total density proposed is 7.46 dwelling units per acre with mixed units that include 128 20-foot wide lots and 54 34-foot wide corner lots. The setback for the proposed development as depicted on the site plan will be front 25 feet, side 10 feet, and the reduction to the rear setback from 15 to 10 feet. The submitted site plan shows proposed Type B landscape buffers along the single family residences to the south and east of the site, along with a Type A landscape buffer along Santa Maya Road. While the request is compatible with the surrounding area, as the residential densities are very similar to what is being requested, an argument can be made for incompatibility with multifamily townhome developments abutting single-family detached units. According to the site plan, there's approximately 640 foot strip of single-family homes abutting the multifamily is anticipated to have the most incompatibilities. As part of the applicant's mitigation techniques, the required Type B landscape buffer separates the developments in addition to change in grade. Multifamily developments sit on a single grade, whereas single family developments can vary in grading. The proposed townhomes are 336 feet in height, making the development a minimum two stories high. Abutting single families, the lower grade separation from the townhome developments to the Highland Reserve will offset any incompatibilities with differentiating structure heights. It has been mentioned previously that only 22 single family homes directly abut the subject site. However, of these 22 homes, only 11 single family homes along that 664-foot boundary will abut townhomes at a ratio of two to one. These townhomes are situated in development blocks with no greater than six units wide without separation. This design condenses the townhomes, leaving portions of the open space between the blocks, providing a break in the design. At a ratio of two to one, the single-family dwellers will have two neighbors facing their backyards, where they have enjoyed a vacant and highly vegetated property since 2001. Here's the amenity plan and open space plan submitted for the record. There are multiple type one and type two amenities ranging from tot lots to multi-use trails surrounding the stormwater retention ponds. The site has exceeded the minimum amenity requirements of 178 points. All recreation spaces will be connected by sidewalks and all lots will be within 1,300 feet walking distance to these amenities. Residential developments within the rural special protection area greater than four dwelling units per acre must provide a minimum open space set aside of no less than 40% of the total area. The submitted site plan shows 12.73 acres of open space, which equates to approximately 43.63%. The request meets the parking requirements outlined in Table 710 of the Land Development Code, and the additional parking spaces are required for developments exceeding five dwelling units per acre from Table 3.4a in Section 303 of the Land Development Code. One access point is proposed off of Sand Mine Road has been identified on the site plan. Sand Mine Road has a capacity to support 880 peak hour trips and available capacity for an additional 554 trips eastbound and 567 trips westbound before the link service level is degraded. 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. However, the portion of the 36 vehicles exiting the site during PM peak hour traveling north on US 27 will likely be the least of all travel directions since it's counter to the normal travel from residential developments. This development will be required to connect to water and sewer. The site is serviced by the northeast regional utility service area and has adequate capacity of water and wastewater. The nearest available lines to serve the proposed development is a 10-inch portable main on the northeast corner of the property, located on the south side of Sandline Road. The same 10-inch portable main will service the townhome developments to the north. A public lift station is located approximately 440 linear feet north of the property, where a 4-inch and 8-inch sewer line converge further surrounding developments. If approved for the requested PD, the items listed on the screen will need to be reviewed by staff during the level two phase. This includes flood study, species walkover, and a major traffic study. Sidewalks will be required along the frontage of the site along Santa Mina Road. And staff finds the plan is compatible with the surrounding uses. There are a number of developments to the north and northeast that have similar densities and unit types. It meets or exceeds the all-plan development standards and meets the goals and sections of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. I request that the presentation be submitted to the record, and with that, I'll stand for questions.

Any questions of staff?

I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. Those 11 houses in the back... the two-story townhouses, they're mitigating that kind of view down in the backyard with an additional buffer?

Yes, so there is a required from Section 720 of the Land Development Code, multifamily, which is how we're classifying the townhomes, does require a Type B landscape buffer when inviting single-family So they are proposing that Type B landscape buffer along this entire 664 feet boundary that abuts that Highlands Reserve development. But of that 664 feet, you only have 11 homes along this southern boundary that will be directly having neighbors in their backyard. They're using the stormwater dry pond in addition to that required landscape buffer, Type B landscape buffer, to mitigate for those other 11 homes to the south.

Great, thank you. And has the school board been discussed with as to the increase on children in that area and the schools available?

The schools and listed capacity have been identified on page, if I can flip through it quick enough, on page 10 of the staff report.

Yeah, she's here. Good morning. Melissa Celestine with the school board. So yes, they did. They actually did a non-binding school concurrency letter and it does show that at this point it does have capacity. Of course, if this does get approved during the level two, they'll have to apply for the binding concurrency letter to make sure they're invested for the project. Perfect. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions?

Yes, I actually have one additional question. So those 11 homes that butt up against it, what's the grading difference between the two?

I don't have that information right now. That will be addressed during the Level 2 review when we have more of an engineered site plan review. But to that point, the multifamily developments usually sit on a single grade. So they'll have to do some grading changes to the site to accommodate for that development and how that will affect with the proposed 36-foot height. structures compared to the single family, it kind of mitigates or offsets some incompatibilities to that extent.

Any other questions? Thank you. At this time, I'll open up the hearing to the public and ask, is there anyone present to speak in favor of this application?

First, I'm sorry.

I'm getting ahead of myself again.

Is the applicant present?

Yes, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Doug Kelly. I'm a land planning manager with England, Thames, and Miller. We're ETM for short. We're in Orlando, and we are the applicant and also represent the property owner in this particular development. There's some great questions about sort of the compatibility, the distance between existing single family and our proposed project. I will say that the site design has definitely not been finalized. There's a tremendous amount of change in grade on that property, primarily because it's been altered. It's a motocross site, lots of hills and bumps. There's about a two to three foot difference in grade right now between the subdivision to our south and to our overall elevation along the property line there, but we definitely take into account concerns with single family to the south. And the building footprint that we're asking for and the setbacks are really the maximum. We don't have a product type for this site yet, so there's always a chance that the building pads will not exceed, well, it cannot exceed the maximum, but they will be potentially smaller. and the setbacks may actually increase, but we just don't have a particular product type at this time, but understand your concerns and happy to answer any other questions you might have. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?

Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. Now I'll open it up to the public. Anyone to speak in favor of the application? Seeing none. Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDPD 2026-12. Angel Sims.

Kevin Updike, second. Motion is second to approve. Roll call, please.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Chad Barron. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Shane Bevilacqua.

For the motion.

Sorry, Shane. Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay, next case.

All right, good morning. Ian Nance, Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDPD 202613, a request for 151 single family lots on approximately 58 acres in a residential low one future land use district. For the record, on August 17th, 45 mailers were sent to area property owners. On August 14th, three boards were posted. And on August 19th, a legal ad was published. Staff has received one response in opposition. The subject site is located east of Alderman Road, north and west of Swindell Road, north of I-4, and north and west of the City of Lakeland in Section 18, Township 28, Range 23. Subject parcels are approximately 133 acres, but the project area will occupy approximately 63 acres, of which 58 are upland. This is in the Itchipack-Assassin Basin, described by the county as a strained or stressed basin because of constrained stormwater outfall. The site is in proximity to I-4, the Polk Parkway, and US-92. This is near major employment areas with multiple warehousing and distribution, manufacturing, and office uses located along this I-4 corridor and down County Line Road. The future land use map is on the right. The properties are split between residential low one and agricultural residential rural, but the residential development will take place in R01 on the southern half. R01 generally requires 40,000 square foot lots and densities of one dwelling unit per acre, but given the location of this property in relation to those major roads and employment opportunities, it is mapped within a transit corridor overlay by the comprehensive plan. This overlay allows densities here to range up to 25 dwelling units per acre. What is proposed today is 151 lots with a density of 2.61 dwelling units per acre. These lots will be reduced to 6,000 square feet but maintain the R01 setbacks. Access is proposed on the Swindell and Alderman roads. The Land Development Code requires a locational eligibility score for planned developments to determine the allowable density on a property based on proximity to infrastructure and environmental impacts. Potable water and wastewater are adjacent to the site. There is access to an urban collective roadway in Swindell, and the site is near retail and major employers. The proposed density is easily achieved after evaluating these factors. The PD process also requires a minimum of 20% open space, not counting wetlands. This is achieved through wetland buffers, enhanced landscape buffers, and amenity areas, which will include passive recreation such as tot lots, dog parks, and picnic pavilions. In addition, there's anticipated to be 11 acres of stormwater facilities and five and a half acres of wetlands and surface water. The PD process also requires additional parking areas beyond the two driveway spaces required per unit. This request meets that criteria, providing an additional 16 spots. The LDC requires internal sidewalks, 25-foot garage setbacks with internal road rights of way, pedestrian safety lighting at the entrances to the site, and all lighting must be shielded or recessed. The clip on the right shows the proposed plan relative to surrounding uses. This is all single-family development surrounding the property to the east, west, and north. Most of these are larger lots there than what is proposed, and many of these were developed prior to the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. To address compatibility concerns, the applicant has proposed a 25-foot-wide Type C buffer along Alderman Road, which will provide additional separation between the proposed homes and those on the west side of Alderman. Open space and Type B landscaping is planned along the eastern property line where adjacent to larger acreage single-family residences. And the little red circles on the site plan are those additional parking areas. This is a brief impact assessment from the evaluations of available public services as detailed in the staff report. In short, capacity is available in schools, utilities, and on the surrounding roadways. Water and sewer will be provided by the City of Lakeland, and all of this points to the timeliness of this development as required by the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. A last wider view of the area. Again, there's this confluence of major roads here and nearby employment opportunities. Placing higher density development near these features is good planning. It reduces travel times for commuters and incentivizes public transit opportunities. At the top left are the tasks still to be reviewed during the level two review process. The stormwater plans are critical in this area and a major traffic study will be required to evaluate the impact of this development on the roadway network and to identify any necessary improvements. Again, staff recommends approval of this application. This is single-family housing amid single-family housing. The site plan demonstrates compatibility with surrounding properties through the layout and use of open space to buffer between larger existing lots. The application is consistent with the relevant sections of the comprehensive plan and land development code as they pertain to plan developments. And with that, I think you will stand for questions.

Any questions of staff? Was the City of Lakeland notified?

Yes, sir. And their comments should be towards the end of the staff report. I believe I incorporated them here. And I know the applicant has had conversations with the City of Lakeland, too. On page 18 of the staff report of Lakeland's comments.

Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant to come forward.

I thought it was to you. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Bart Allen. I'm a 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 Falcone Group. Before I get into my case, I wanted to just do a couple kind of housekeeping type things. One, I intend to go through most of the presentation this morning, but I do have Justin Ham with us this morning. Justin is a professional engineer with the Kimley Horn engineering firm. He's been handling the site planning and land development issues on this project. He's a professional engineer and has been admitted by this board as well as the board of county commissioner on prior occasions as an expert witness to the extent. We need Mr. Ham to speak this morning. I'd like him. tendered as an expert witness. I have copies of his resume in case anybody would like it for purposes of the record.

Do I have a motion to that effect?

I move to approve.

Okay. Motion?

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye.

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here this morning. I'm going to, we've been here for a little bit this already today, so I'm going to try and move through my slides. I tried to shorten them as much as I, as much as I possibly could, but there are a few things that I think are important that we talk about related to this, to this project. Mr. Nance has already given you the, the overview from the staff report, which I appreciate. He's done a very thorough job and you're going to see a little bit of duplication in some of my slides. Um, that's, that's become fairly common. We, we tend to touch on some of the same things, but, um, he's really laid the groundwork from the Falcon group this morning. I have Mr. Brian Williams. He's the managing director. And I'll give a little bit more background on Falcone as I go through my presentation, but he's been working with me on this project and I've been working with him as well as Kimley Horn with engineering and that's Justin Hamm. I also have Connor Lust here from Kimley Horn who's been instrumental in a lot of the document prep. And then it would be remiss if I didn't mention the Knights. Kara Knight is here with us this morning You will touch on some of the history. Remember, I've been in front of you before on this property for a different project, but it's an honor to continue to represent the Knights and get to know them more as we've worked through these projects. Real quick, this is the property. We're pretty familiar with it. Mr. Nance has given you the overview. What we're looking at here out of the 165 acres, we're looking at doing a PD on approximately 63, 58 of which are the upland areas. And this is, again, located in one of the most highly sought after areas of our county, much less central Florida. when you look at the proximity of this property to I four with the access that you have to the parkway, it's just a prime location to get in and out, um, and, and live and be able to get to Tampa or be able to get into Lakeland or Orlando. You've got great access at this location. Little history. Um, Mr. Bishop or Commissioner Bishop, we have been in communication with the City of Lakeland prior to my time and involvement with the Knight property. It was previously proposed for annexation. The City was considering business part and industrial on this piece of property, which that goes back to 2017. That application ultimately was withdrawn. There was a tremendous amount of pushback to that, which I would believe is consistent with what you saw when we came through under the couple iterations of Industrial Business Park Center back in 2023, 2024, which was ultimately not successful in front of the Board of County Commissioners. So they've even commented in the staff report that they'd like to see this as a higher intensity use, multifamily and industrial, even today in their comments relative to this. application but given this history and how much time we've had in it having I can't couldn't even begin to count how many public hearings we went through on this property at this time but it was several we've had community meetings and and there has been no desire for industrial that there's been more more along the lines communicated of a residential development and And one of the reasons it has taken us a year and a half to get back to you with a plan or with a proposed development is, again, the Knights want to be good stewards of the land. And we'll talk a little bit about more of that as we go through this project. But finding the right developer, finding the right group to bring to the table was important to the Knights and the property owners because, as you'll see, they're retaining their homestead. as part of this, so they're going to be a neighbor to this project as well, so they're going to continue to live out there, and I think that's important to recognize, but it's also important because they spent a lot of time in selecting their developer. This is the proposed request. Again, Mr. Nance has run through all the details, but we're proposing two access points, one on Swindell Road, and then one also on alderman road again to kind of make sure that traffic flows appropriately we're proposing landscaping and buffering and buffering and we're meeting all of the criteria of your land development code talk about where we are sometimes we want to talk about and get into issues that really are relevant more into the engineering design phase or more into the next stage we're at the we' re in the preliminary pd approval stage we' re approving the binding site plan we' ll talk about densities and intensities and things like that but we' re up here in this front side of the process there will be a tremendous amount of engineering that goes into this site we' re very familiar with this area very familiar with the property very familiar with the itchapacus hasa basin our engineers have spent a lot of time in this application and prior applications working through those issues. So we're very familiar with all of those considerations. At this point in the process, the major traffic study, the ERPs, the protected species reviews, all of those issues are level two issues. However, we have a good grasp on where we are with all of those issues today because of the work that's gone on in the past, but also that's gone into this application, and I'm gonna touch on a few of those as we get there. So again, what we're here today is to talk about the Binding Site Plan for the PD. Mr. Nance has touched on these issues too, but I think it's really important that we highlight this particular piece of property and where, because of where it stands and where it sits within the County, but also within the construct of our conference plan, the, the property on the left, you can see in the red highlight, that's effectively the PD that's in front of you. That's generally the boundary of the PD that's in front of you. It's entirely within the transit supportive development area. That's an area that your comp plan encourages higher intensity uses because all of the services are there. They're not coming. They're there. You have three dwelling units an acre minimum, seven dwelling units an acre max in the TSDA. And under some of the recent administrative interpretations, we're not talking about a density ask here. This isn't about going. We have to go through the PD process. I'm not I'm not putting I'm not suggesting that. But the ask for the density is really granted by virtue of the fact that we're in the TSDA, and those intensities are what we're right in line with those, but also in line with those intensities, but trying to respect the character and the feel of the existing residents and the existing community in that area that has existed for a long time. And I know I keep saying I'm going to talk a little bit more about that, but I am, and I'm excited about it. Um, this is the future land use on the right. Again, residential low within your TSDA that allows us to go up to two point, uh, goes up to seven. We're at 2.6. Um, transit corridors and centers and another overlay district that we don't talk a whole lot about, but this property, all of the property is within the transit center that is an area that the comp plan really wants something more along the lines of 12 dwelling units an acre. Now, probably doesn't make sense on this site given some of the physical constraints. You got compatibility issues and different things of that nature that you have to work through. But again, what is this map telling us? They're telling us we want to see some more intense development up in this area. We want to see that kind of growth occur here because this is where the services are. looking specifically into residential low. Um, again, just to show that we're being consistent with the comprehensive plan, showing that we're meeting those, those criteria. Residential load generally allows up to five dwelling units an acre through a plan development. We're at 2.6 based on the upland density mix of single family. Residential low has a variety of single family types, and that's what you see occurring on this piece of property. You've got some larger lots in the area. You've got some smaller lots in the area, but it's all single family. So we are sticking and we're consistent with the comprehensive plan. We're here, again, I know I talked about the TSDA and not needing to go through, not needing to evaluate density because of that. We are still evaluating consistency with the conference of plan, the land development code, and compatibility in order to ensure that this proposed development meets all those criteria. Going through your plan development process, these are the three steps, and this is out of your land development code as it relates to the standard of review. Thank you. Because we're going through the PD process and most of the folks on this board, Commissioner Bevilacqua, you're relatively new today, but there was the old PD standards where we evaluated a PD based on what's inside the development only, right? We're just putting in sidewalks and those kinds of things. I forget what year it was, but staff, the Board of County Commissioners said, hey, we want you to reevaluate how you look at PDs. And now, before you look internal, you look external because the external factors are what are going to drive what the allowable density should be on the site. So that's where you go through these three steps in your analysis. What's the location eligibility? And locational eligibility are all external forces. utilities, roads, employment centers, all of those kinds of things, parks, rec, all of the external factors that say, hey, are the services here to support the new project? And then you get scored, and we'll go through a little bit of that. Then once you determine what your potential score and your density is, then you look internal. Are we designing the project appropriately? Are we providing the appropriate amenities and open space and things like that? So that's the new criteria. I took the new off the slide because it doesn't feel as new anymore, but sometimes it's good to kind of look back on how we got here. So first, the eligibility score, and Mr. Nance went through it. There's a table in Chapter 3 of your land development code that I'm not going to go through. It's about three pages long with identifying all the different scoring points. This site, at minimum, scores 13, potentially scores up to 25 points. We erred on the side of caution and stayed on the conservative side. 13 points gets us to three and a half dwelling units an acre. We're underneath that through the PD. Again, showing that the site is appropriate for and the intensity of the site is appropriate for the location. Then looking into the internal portions of the project, 20% open space requirement of the upland areas. So we're not counting wetlands. We're not adding those acres into the calculation for open space. This site meets that. We've got 12 acres. acres of open space. We are also providing 500 square feet per lot of recreation area. When you have a lot that's, I believe it's less than 80 feet, you have to provide that, and all of our lots are under 80 feet. So we're meeting all of your open space and recreation criteria. This is just a map demonstrating compliance with your code. A couple things I want to point out on here, as you can see, the green areas are are the open space blue or stormwater and and wetland areas that we're not counting in the open space calculation the where i'm highlighting some of the buffers on this one and there's no way for me to show you where i'm pointing i don't believe but you'll note on alderman and along the rears we're proposing a type c buffer by code a 25 foot wide type c buffer by code that buffer is not required there's no landscape buffer required between this right away or single family adjacent to single family just basically by code so what you're seeing there is an enhancement over what your land development code requires already. So again providing the necessary open space for this project. Amenity standards we identify amenities And the different types, and you have to provide one point for every home. This layout provides 225 points, so we're over-amenitizing at this point with the amenity package that's in there. You get to choose. We've identified three type 2 amenities within your plan development code to choose from. And those will be identified specifically at level two. But one of the reasons why, again, we kind of got into I got into this excitement with Falcone anyway, is that when you look at the amenity plan and you look at what they're trying to do and why they've selected them, Falcone's been in the state of Florida for almost 50 years developing. This is their first time in Polk. They haven't been here, and they're a home builder too, so this isn't necessarily a lot of what we've seen in the past, if you know what I mean, and I'm not going to name any names. So this is a different... program for what's going on. And one of the reasons why Falcone was picked was because they do a lot that is of their amenities and their theming of their neighborhoods are agricultural focused, which this area has had a lot of agriculture in the past. I mean, this property has been farmed for a long time. They use that as kind of how they market and they see this as an area where that agricultural community, dare I say, agri-hood, might be an appropriate place. It's a term I learned in the comp plan committee, Commissioner Sims. So we are looking and what Falcone is proposing here is the amenities, the design of the community, the recreational opportunities will all be agriculturally focused. That will drive what the aesthetics are, the architectural features of the homes. They won't be the standard They're going to be more agricultural in nature. I mean, I'm certainly not suggesting that every house is going to have a cow or anything like that, but I'm suggesting that there will be open areas and there'll be common areas where there can be some communal, I believe the term on here is regenerative farming areas. I didn't know that until I started preparing for this hearing today, but again, showing the intention of one, bringing something new to the community, which we don't really have, haven't seen any built, but also being respectful and supportive of what's gone on in this area historically, right? So it's a nice balance. Mr. Nance provided you a similar slide to this one, but this is, again, just to purposes of the record showing that we meet all of the PD criteria satisfy or exceed all of your requirements for a project of this nature. Kind of looking forward because these questions always arise concurrency type issues level two issues really but I want to just make sure you know that people understand we're looking at them we have we have looked at utilities we will be getting utilities from the city of Lakeland they've already provided a capacity letter indicating that capacity is available for this project for for development water and sewer we have reached or requested a non-binding School concurrency letter, which again, this is just a snapshot on July 29th at 2026 for this project But there was ample capacity and all the zoned schools for this for this piece property 451 home so school capacity and that's what you heard. Mr. Nance say as well We've looked at drainage Drainage again is a significant issue out here We're well aware of that There's a condition of approval that relates to requiring us to treat this as if it's a closed basin, although it's not a closed basin, but we're going to treat it that way. Commit to 100-year stormwater ponds. We have evaluated the site. We can meet those requirements. It will be an interconnected series of stormwater ponds that will be permitted through the county's process as well as the water management district's process. to ensure that there's no increase in volume or flow rate. I mean, those are two different things, right? How much water you're putting off the site between pre-development and post-development and volume, but also how fast it's going off the site. So it's not affecting downstream. We can't affect downstream or upstream drainage issues. So we will be going through that rigorous modeling and design. using 100-year storms as the modeled event. Again, that's above and beyond some of the code requirements, which is why it's a condition of approval. We've looked at traffic. We've had a major traffic study commissioned. That has been completed by Kimley Horn as well. The methodology has been complete. All the updated traffic counts are done. We've finalized our review. There's always some back and forth before the traffic study gets 100% locked in stone finalized. We're not quite to that point yet, but we've evaluated the site. We believe that the two access points work. You're looking at 62% of the trips going in and out on Swindell Road, 38% on Alderman, using that four-way stop. So we believe that the segments... will function without any improvements that we aren't already required to make. There'll be right-of-way dedication along Alderman Road. There's going to be improvements along Alderman Road to increase pavement on our frontage, things of that nature. I'm not suggesting that there's not going to be anything done. I'm just suggesting that there's no failing intersections. There's no failing segments based on the traffic study. The one issue, and I'm proposing a condition that I would to be included if there is a favorable recommendation or approval this morning. There are some constraints if you will on the frontage of Swindell Road we acknowledge that. we will work through again those issues on how that design whether it' s a type two or a type three or some sort of version of a modified type two type three intersection get worked out and get identified at your level two process with your engineering. Those are really detailed analysis and require very detailed engineering that just isn't done at this stage. What I'm proposing is that this condition that would allow some flexibility, for instance, let's say various hypotheticals, we need to modify your typical type two or type three. We can do that. under your code today. If we need to shift the swindell access a little to the left or to the right we can do that generally today under the code but if I needed to come back and add another access point on alderman or eliminate an access point in its entirety that would require an additional public hearing. We're trying to add a condition in that would allow some flexibility knowing that we've got some engineering to do because what at the end of the day Falcone wants to make sure that whatever's designed and whatever's constructed and implemented works for their project, but also make sure that they're not creating any safety issues for existing users of the road, whether it's residents on Alderman Road or just truck traffic coming up and down Swindell. I would request that this condition be included with an approval if that is the pleasure of the board. So with that, I'm going to kind of wrap up. You've heard this morning that this project meets or exceeds all of your provisions of your competency plan, your land development code. You have a finding of compatibility. They have gone above and beyond on landscaping and buffering that isn't otherwise required by the code to even go further on the compatibility issue. You've got a developer who's looking to bring a project to the community that's similar or complementary to an agricultural area of the past. And so with that, we would request a favorable vote on LDPD 2026-13 this morning. We'll stand for any questions and would request a few minutes of rebuttal at the end.

Any questions of the applicant?

I have a couple comments. So, Bart, once again, thank you for the educational. and informational PowerPoints that you do. I love them. It helps me up here.

I appreciate that.

Also, thank you to the Knight family for listening to not only the community, but to the commission on the change from last to now. That's super nice, and it says a lot for the owner of the property. And did you say the Falcone...

developer they're new in polk county that we knew in polk county they've been in florida and they're florida based they've been around for about 50 years they do a variety of of developments single family they've done some mixed use hot they've actually got some high rise type stuff too down in south florida so they're kind of they're involved in a variety of different uses which i think is why you're seeing something a little different coming to the table well welcome to them and that's that's i just had comments thank you

I got a question of staff. Have you seen, have you had a chance to look at his proposed condition? Are you okay with it?

Yes, sir. We've discussed this with the county engineer, too, on the heels of this preliminary traffic study. Yes, sir. Okay.

And that's included in our motion today.

Well, it will be if we, the maker of the motion will need to include that.

Correct. It's not in the staff report. It needs to be additioned.

Whoever makes the motion will need to include that. Okay. Thank you. So I'll open up the public hearing and ask, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Are you in favor?

My name is Edward Leonard, 805 Giant Oak Road. We live behind the proposed development. I'd like to know, will Alderman Road be widened? What type of... It says type C buffer. We don't know what type buffer that is along Alderman. And also... At the intersection of Alderman and Swindell, would that be widened? Because now it's very small and it's very tight. And we live in a closed community. So there's only one way out, one way in, one way out of Giant Oak. And there's about 19 units back there. And so we're adding a lot of traffic with this new development. I'm not against it because I was here when they were going to put a warehouse here. So that, that was a large fight. And plus if they're bigger homes, that makes my home look better. But those are things that I want to know because we all live there and we all got to come out every day and we got to go back in every day. So those are the things, if the developer can answer those questions, and what type of buffer that he's gonna put along Alderman Road so that we'll all know. Is it a berm? Are there trees? What are they gonna put along that road so that we as people that live back there, we wanna be comfortable too. So all these houses they're gonna build, don't have anything against that, but we also wanna be comfortable with this whole development.

Okay. I'll, I'll, um, ask the applicant when he comes back up to address that. I'm sure he's made note of your, your questions. Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else to speak in favor? Anyone speak in opposition to this request? You come forward, please. Name and address. And I assume you were sworn in.

Yes, I have two handouts. If someone could pass them around. My name is Dee Allen. I address 5030 Alderman Road in Lakeland, and I have been sworn. And I have no objection to the plan to develop this parcel into single-family homes, but I object to the lot size. They're listing a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, which is 0.13 acres. And we're rural one, and so that would equate to seven units in one acre, which is very incompatible with the feeling of the surrounding areas. One of the main reasons people move outside the city limits is so they can have a slightly bigger lot, and so this sort of negates that and also doesn't mesh with the properties that are there. So the map that's coming around is a map that I took from, page 21 of the staff report, but I added some text to it, and it shows that the existing Alderman Road lots are mainly one acre lots, and directly north of the project is the Country Classic Farms, that's to the northwest, and that's a horse owners community, and they have lovely homes with lots of two, five, and eight acres. And there's also a new development that was more recently approved, and I don't even think the work is complete there, on a street called Apple Cork, and it's shown on the map northeast of the Swindell site. Well, the Apple Cork site is about the same size as the Swindell project, but it has all one-quarter acre lots. So it has 107 lots instead of 150 lots, and... I don't really have an objection to this project if they would go to increase the lot size to a quarter acre because that is beginning to be more compatible with what's around it. And it seems like the primary reason they got to such a big density, though, was this transit-supported development area. And page 9 of your staff report says it contributes to greater demand for higher urban densities. Well, this isn't an urban area. It's not even in the city limits. And then it goes on to say that the Swindell property is divided by that overlay, so it's not completely even in it. So then the staff report says that there's a sidewalk located along the south side of Swindell Road with connectivity to a mass transit stop that's about a mile away. But that's deceiving, because if you look at the picture that I sent around, that's Swindell Road in an area that's not affected by this road widening or the project itself. And you can see that... Much of the route, if you were walking to a bus stop, you'd have to walk through this area, and it's got steep sides, lots of vegetation. So I'm through, but I would approve this if you would increase to a quarter acre minimum lot size.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Come forward, please.

Hi, my name is Cassandra Starner. I live at 5016 Alderman Road. As I stand here before you to advocate for myself, my children, and my neighbors, I hope you guys truly hear what we all have gathered here to say in regards to the construction by Alderman Road. proposed is the 151 single-family homes in what is now a cow pasture filled with beautiful live oaks, sandhill cranes, bats, and other wildlife and fauna, something my toddler and newborn enjoy walking down to and viewing on a daily basis. Not only would the construction of this complex decimate the beautiful nature that we have there, a large concern of mine is the fact that we already flood being in an AE flood zone. I have submitted photos via email for reference of the flooding conditions experienced in our area. In the proposed construction, we do see their attempt to mitigate any flooding by digging retention ponds as well as other drainage measures. However, if these homes are built up higher than the existing property already stands, they won't have to fear the flooding. The water will run down into our neighborhoods and into our homes. And unless the infrastructure in our neighborhood is also corrected and accounted for, we will be the ones paying for the consequences of this new build. I'm no engineer, obviously, but I know when you cover the land in concrete and cement, water has to find somewhere else to go. This is not something that we want to see happen and not an area we really want to see developed. Secondly the amount of traffic that will increase is going to be Exponential on our road that really isn't designed to handle that and I know they were talking about addressing some of those issues I would be curious to see What their solution is for that? Sorry I lost my spot Taking into account the natural wildlife that live out there in our fairly undeveloped area, the increase of traffic also means an increase in roadkill and damage to vehicles as well. You can't just push nature out and expect it to go somewhere else when everywhere else is getting torn down just as quickly. I'm no public speaker, but ultimately I'm here and we are here to shut down the proposal for development. We choose to live outside the city for a reason and the city keeps creeping closer with every year. Eventually there will be nowhere else to develop and that scares me. I want a future where my kids can bring their children to see the giant oats and the bats and the sandhill cranes and beautiful nature that surrounds us. not more homes, not more concrete, and certainly not a state that has been completely developed. With all that being said, if for some reason you do choose to move forward with the development of the area, I would ask that you take these things into consideration. We would like to see homes that have between one and maybe five acres of land per lot, not less than a third of an acre as proposed, as this leaves the area feeling more open and natural. I did have a little bit more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak? Were you sworn in?

Yes, sir, I was. David Leffler, 4455 Swindell Road, Lakeland, Florida. Fifth generation Floridian, third generation on my family property, which is 660 feet on my northwest corner to their highest southeast corner. And I did not receive a letter. I have pictures of the sign that was placed. I just want you to know only one sign was on Swindell Road. and it was actually facing Alderman Road going south, right? So unless you're coming from a dead end road of Alderman South where the construction companies are, that's the only way you're going to see that sign. I went by it for three days before I realized it was to the left of me. And I couldn't see it. My uncle pointed out to me that sign was put up as far as I know on Friday the 21st. So we're at what, at 20 days? No, excuse me, the 13th. We're around 20 days of us being here today. I had a whole bunch of stuff written down. I've listened to a lot of people come up to you and talk, and I'm just coming to you now from the heart. I want you to understand there is a lot of flooding in that area, right? A lot of our neighbors could not be here today. My mother takes care of my stepfather, a Vietnam veteran, so she's a full-time caregiver. They could not be here. They live on the same property. My uncle could not be here today. He just had knee surgery. He could not be here today. I've got several neighbors that are at work and a cousin that lives on the same property of our 20-acre block that we live on. He couldn't be here today because of work. So a lot of people wanted to be here. A lot of these people did not get these letters or see the sign because maybe they only go towards Lakeland. They don't go towards Plant City. 100% of that traffic will come out on Swindell Road at that small intersection of Alderman Road. It's a dead-end road, as was mentioned before, going north, right? So when they're coming out south, it don't matter how many entry exits you have, if it's on Swindell or Alderman, it's all got to come to Swindell. I can tell you firsthand, got pictures and videos to show you the accidents at Clark Road and Swindell Road. Even though they put the rumble strips in, we still have accidents. And Polk County never used to put rumble strips in at intersections like that. I've got pictures and videos that can document the flooding from the last three storms, 2021, 2023, and Milton, of course, in 2024, from my home. Through the 90-degree curves of Swindell Road going west towards County Line Road, almost 90% of that road was underwater for days. If I went south, or excuse me, north, but going towards Walker Road where another development has been taking place, that road was completely underwater all the way to Knights Griffin Road. If you took a left or excuse me, a right on Bella Vista to go east towards Lakeland, all of that road was underwater. And Milton, again, was a heavy storm. But my point to that is, is the Walker Road ballpark, which is right across from the former dairy that is now 100 and something homes being built. I go there almost every other day to go walking and the ground is saturated with water just from the recent three rains that we've had. I check my rain gauges daily and I'm looking at about an inch to a half inch every two or three days. I can see the bank of those retention ponds a good foot and a half, and now they're already up to the grass level. It was dirt. Now it's grass. So the rainwater definitely affects us. I had a lot more written down. I'll just say we're passionate about where we live. We care. I heard these people earlier. Somebody needs to come out and look at this. Take a walk with us and see the area. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else wishes to speak? Yes, ma'am.

My name is Brenda Jimenez, and my address is 5011 Alderman Road. And I just want to add to the gentleman's comments in regards to the traffic. There's so many wrecks out there. There is. At the stop sign at Swindell and Alderman, daily, every day, people run through that. They don't even stop. They slow down. They do a rolling stop. They go. There's... That's why they put those road things to stop people because nobody goes up and down that road stops at that road. But what I'm really wanting to know, and I don't know if Falcon Group is aware, but the Knights have... such low all of our property out there floods again i want to add to that they have big culvert pipes running from their property onto the back of our property across the county frontage road into the back where they had sold the property now it's just not our house i am right next to the knights property and when it hurricanes or rain or anything these culvert pipes are just gushing water and they say they have an agreement with the county i have not seen that agreement or contract And I don't know if anybody else on giant Oak road down there has seen any contract where, where they have those culvert pipes. So Falcon group, do you aware of the flooding that the pipes, are you going to stop them? Are the pipes going to be dug up? Are we going to have more flooding from the neighborhood property going in there that we can't even live there? The water comes all the way up to my garage door. And we're built up like five cement blocks, pounds of so much dirt and sand and everything brought in. So I just want Falcon Group to know, and if you guys are a no, and I would like to know who I can contact with the county to see if they really do have a contract with you guys. So if the night property is flooding the county and the county's flooding me, I don't have a contract with the county. So something may can be done in regards to that. If someone can contact me or get me the information, I'd appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishes to speak? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant if he would come back and address some of the concerns and questions that we've been given.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of things I want to touch on, and I'm going to try to hit the issues hopefully in order, but if I miss something and you feel like I need to address it further, please let me know. As it relates to the first gentleman relative to Alderman Road and buffering and things like that, we'll be bringing it up to the county standard. We'll be dedicating the necessary right-of-way on our side of the property to the extent we control it to bring that right-of-way up and be making any improvements that are required by the county. If there are deficiencies, they will be rectified. So you're looking at, for a collector road, 40 feet from center line as far as right-of-way. So if there's any deficiencies when we go out and survey, we'll... we'll mitigate those as well as come in and do some resurfacing, um, and reconstruction as required by your engineering department. Um, those are again, level two issues, um, not necessarily things that we go out and design and identify and, and address as specifically today. The type C landscape buffer is defined by your land development code. Um, Candidly, I don't remember every specific detail of it. However, I know it's a mixture of trees, understory and overstory trees, as well as shrubs planted, and that's defined on every 100-foot section. So every 100 feet, you have to have a certain number of overstory trees and a certain number of understory trees and things like that. But again, so we'll be implementing that. That will be part of the site development. There you go. Four canopy trees. every hundred feet, five understory trees every hundred feet and 20 shrubs every hundred feet. If a fence is implemented, you can do some additional, you can reduce some of those plantings. Um, but at this time we haven't made any decisions on whether or not there's going to be any fencing involved. Um, so that's, we'll go by your lane development code. Thank you for pulling that up, Ian. Um, Let's see, what else do we have? The density issue relative to seven dwelling units an acre based on the 6,000 square foot lot size. We calculate density on the gross for a reason, because if you only look at the lot size, you discount all the other land within the subdivision that is used to support those lots. Stormwater ponds, roads, amenity centers, all of the extra parking, all of that stuff comes into play to support the lot. So you can't take a lot size and divide it into acres. You can't take 6,000 into 43,560 and say it's seven. You have to account for all of the other activity, all the other use of the land. We're at 2.6 dwelling units an acre. The Apple Cork project that is quarter acre lots was originally 50 foot lots. It was permitted, approved via PD by this board as well as through by the board of county commissioners is 50 foot lots. The reason why that is now quarter acre lots is because of the inability to get sewer there. And because you couldn't have sewer you had to go on septic therefore it is all on Entirely on septic tank lots that that is why we have sewer and water and sewer available I showed you all the utility lines. We will be forced to connect to that To those lines and make those in extensions and connections. So that's a big difference between the Walker Road Apple cork project as well Drainage, Mr. Nance, I don't know if I can switch it or not. I hate this. I don't like this. We'll have control. If you can go to my part.

I guess that would be one of my biggest concerns because you mentioned it when anybody says it gets you. I can't say it. It's past Sasa. I automatically think of all of the horror stories years ago when people were just inundated.

We were very familiar with the Chupacabana basin. A lot of the and a lot of the development that has occurred out there. has occurred prior to, and you've heard Mr. Nance say it too, prior to comprehensive planning, prior to today's standards, prior to water management district standards, no stormwater ponds, things of that nature. If you look at the, and you, Mr. Nance, you had an exhibit that showed the floodplain. I didn't put that in my PowerPoint. Yeah, that one's fine. You can see the flood zone area. A lot of these homes, existing homes, are almost entirely, if not entirely, in the flood zone. So the fact that there is flooding that's occurring out there is a naturally occurring phenomenon. This property can't fix that issue for other people. Just can't. Whether this property develops or not, there is potential for flooding in the area. I mean, that's just a fact. I don't disagree. You know, our property owner, the Knights have owned this property for a hundred years. They recognize that there's flooding and drainage issues out in this area. But if you look at this map, the majority of what is being proposed is not in a flood zone. It's outside that flood zone will be, working to make sure that those areas that are developed do not have off-site impacts. From a drainage perspective to the residents on the west side of Alderman, the way the site naturally drains today, as you can see the drainage surface water ditch that runs through the site, that will remain unchanged. It will continue to drain to the north so the site doesn't drain to the west. It drains to the north into the Itchipac, Assassin Creek Basin. And as I mentioned, we have a condition that requires us to model this and do stormwater studies to the 100-year storm, treat our project as if it's a closed basin, make sure that there's no discharge volumetric in volume and in flow rate as how quickly it leaves the site. We have to accept water onto our site, model that too. We have to make sure that this site does not have any effects upstream or downstream. And that's all part of the engineering and design and permitting process with the county, with your engineering folks, as well as water management district. But again, that doesn't come until later down the way. We fully recognize that. We've done everything we can at this point to recognize it and address it through conditions so that we ensure that we address it when we get to design and permitting. So we have heard them loud and clear. We recognize you all have concerns, and we've done the best we can to address them to the extent we can today. I think this is a good project. Again, lot size is different. Single family and single family, they're basically the same thing. Lot sizes can vary. This property around us is residential low. As you move to the other side of the folks on the west side of Alderman Road, you get into industrial properties. As you move further west into Plant City, you're going to have a signalized intersection at County Line Road. In Swindell, you're going to have industrial and commercial development there. The property on the immediate south side of this property, on the other side of Swindell Road, is cleared and being developed as industrial today. This area is urbanizing. It is developing. Being urban doesn't necessarily mean you're in a municipal limit. It's what's going on around you. So while we are not asking for it to be in the city limits, this is an urban area. One of the constraints that has on this piece of property, if you look in this bottom right corner, of the site, you see how it's got a little notch there and we have just, it's kind of limited our frontage on Swindell road. That's a stormwater pond. That stormwater pond is a result of a taking from the DOT. So that's a DOT stormwater pond. So we're having to work around all these different issues and we can get through it, but we need, we have to get to the engineering design stage. So you've got a lot of different things kind of going on in this area, but this is an ideal area. That's what your conference will plan again. We talked about the transit supportive development area. We talked about the transit corridor and the transit center. This is where the county's comp plan has indicated development is to occur. And you've got a staff report that says we meet all of your criteria from the comprehensive plan land development code. And that is compatible. You've seen our presentation. seen what the Falcone Group is proposing. I think this is an appropriate project in the appropriate area and would request a favorable vote this morning. We'll stand for any additional questions.

Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion and a motion.

I make a motion to approve LDPD 2026-13 to include the additional conditions.

That was one condition.

I can clarify. The condition that the applicant requested was to address access management as a minor modification to the site plan as a level two review.

I'll second that motion.

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

Angel Sims. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Chad Barron.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Shane Bevilacqua.

For the motion.

Motion passes. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Next three cases will be presented together by Eric Peterson, the case planner, LDCPAL 2026-6, LDCD 2026-4, and LDCU 2026-17 for a solid waste management facility.

Just loading up the applicant slide here and I'll get us started. Three cases in one, a lot to unpack here. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. You have before you a comprehensive plan amendment request. You have before you a district change request. And you have before you a conditional use request for a solid waste management facility, as well as a power generation facility and a class three utility, both water and wastewater. All in one. 183 mailers were sent to area property owners on August 17th. 12 boards were posted on the property on August 12th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on August 17th. You have, before you submit it to the record, a number of items. They are in your access. including the staff report, the ordinances, the applications, the demonstration of need, boundary surveys, site plan traffic study, solid waste recycling research, and also the final judgment on a related case to this project. First, I want to explain why we are here. This is an institutional land use that's being requested. institutional two district because the county only allows solid waste manufacturing work solid waste related businesses to be in the institutional district solid waste recycling remanufacturing things of that nature anytime you have a business that involves a byproduct of somebody else it can fall into the solid waste category it's a fine line between manufacturing and remanufacturing. Where we determine that it's remanufacturing and required to meet the solid waste standards is when either the transport of the product or the intake to the site is at the cost of a customer. The proprietor takes in an impact fee or the people bringing the waste there are starting it, bringing it to, bearing the cost of transport. On-site, it's the same thing. They're manufacturing something with this input. After it's done, most likely a solid waste facility is going to have to dispose of some of the stuff it took in because not all of it was readily usable in the product. That might happen in manufacturing, too, because there's a lot of inputs. But those were raw inputs, or those were new inputs and not byproducts of some other manufacturing. So it's a very fine line. And that's why we're here. Keep that in mind. Site's located. south of Mulberry, west of Bartow, west of Fort Meade, near Bradley Junction, which was once an incorporated town in Polk County and disenfranchised many years ago as the phosphate mining industry changed over time. The site is just south of 640. This site has, to the north, or actually part of the site, this is an overall site that has approval for a landfill, Class 1 landfill, also a Class 3 landfill. Also, everything that's being requested today, they're asking to do some of those things that they were approved for in a new location on the site. Why? Because it works out better. This site right here has much more frontage. This portion of the project, these things are approved right here, but they have to come out on 640. It's a long distance to 640. It's about a mile. This site lends itself to easier access. It's a road that can bear higher volumes. A lot of different reasons. And one big one is that there's all these other industrial facility or land uses nearby where manufacturing can be done. And the applicant owns a good number of these properties and is marketing them to businesses that teeter on that balance between are they manufacturing or are they remanufacturing? And this gives them the option to move it to the other side of State Route 37 if it happens to fall into that solid waste category. So the request includes a change from PM to institutional, phosphate mining to institutional, and then a district change from institutional one, which is the default, to institutional two. remember again how these work together these land uses work together in much closer proximity to one another and can be interconnected here's a site plan i'm sure you can all make that out uh it's uh it's a little hard to read you have it before you can zoom in on it but i just thought i'd blow it up a little bit and make it a little easier to see on the site.

Thank you.

So the bulk of the remanufacturing activity will be on the north end. There are four access points. One thing that's key to this development and the other previous development, which you have the conditions of in the conditional use request, is this 200-foot wide buffer. Much of this buffer is in berms, large berms, some as much as 30 feet high. So there are industrial uses developing off of Jameson Road. The applicant seeks to eventually do some type of renewable energy on the site. There's a possibility of that. It's located very close to a 230 kilovolt or 230 kV line that comes into the property and crosses it. Excellent location for that. There's also the wastewater treatment plant would be located on the lowest portion of the property, so everything flows downhill to it. So that makes it a lot more better place, unlike some cities I might know that... But there's a sewage treatment plant on the top of the hill. But it's another story for another day. Other uses in the area, of course, we have the Rolling Hills subdivision. The property line is over 2,000 feet away from the nearest residence on this one in Rolling Hills. The base property line here is over 2,000 feet away from Bradley Junction. There's other things going on in the site. There's a storm debris management, which Polk County definitely needs during hurricane weather, hurricane events. So that in itself is a plus for the county. The applicant is approved to do composting of agriculturally related products already. That would be intermixed with organics processing. We have a condition of approval in the CU that deals with putrescible waste. That's anything that's breaking down. If it's not related to agriculture, which they're already permitted to, then it's got to be done in an enclosed building or an enclosed container. So that keeps it from being the next BS ranch, if anybody remembers that type of solid waste facility. So that covers that issue there. A lot of the site... is in floodplain or shown in floodplain, a lot of the site is in reclamation for wetlands and things of that nature and those will still remain or be modified along with, you know, in the confines of their permits. A lot of the site will be used for stormwater. Some of the impact assessment estimates you see through the report gives you the absolute worst case scenario. There's not that much land that can be used for buildings, for things that would create impacts. A lot of that's going to have to be used for floodplain compensation and also handling stormwater. There are conditions of approval on the prior approval and with this one that they meet the 100-year storm event on this property. It's not in a closed basin. There's a way for the water to reach the Alifaya River, but there's some constrained areas that go through Raleigh Junction where the capacity is not stellar, and so for that reason, we're requesting that it meet the 100-year as we did in the other projects. This is what the site looked like back in 2009. The Soil Conservation Service states for errant soils, which occupy a good portion of the uplands area, that they not be built on or developed until at least 20 years after their mining has ceased. It's been about 26 years, so this portion of the property is due for use. To show you some pictures alongside the site, this is looking off of 37 at several of the points along 37. Most of it is a buffer that's well vegetated. It's got live oaks. It's got all kinds of tree species. Koga grass that goes up to your armpit. Throughout the site, it'll be very hard to see what's going on in there unless you've got an opening, unless you've got an entrance. Because of the berming, because of the vegetation that's there, it's 200 feet. It's not going to be disturbed. Once you get to the top of the berms, you can see into the site. You see it's fairly flat and it's a good buildable area there. And you see how much you have to overcome as a passerby to look into the site. So it'll be well buffered from any residential or passerby traffic. I showed you a picture here and I showed you a picture there. I'm going to walk you through some other points of the project. This is looking at some of the land inside. This is once you get inside, you see the buffer looking out towards Jamieson Road. This is looking from one of the top of the berms that bifurcates the property. The easily developable area is over here. This is the area in which there's a lot of wetland conservation and things. There's actually a wetland bank that goes on that side of the property. Much of that will remain undisturbed or will be destroyed. amended to suit whatever needs there are. This is looking again from the top of that central berm in the middle of the site development. This is looking back at the highway over again from one of the berms on site, and that has the more developable soils. This is Jameson Road. It's just the beginning, its first phase of the industrial park. That'll go there. There is a significantly... large gas line that comes through Jameson that moves natural gas through the project. So if there were any uses that needed natural gas, it's in close proximity to the site as well as the high-voltage power lines. This is the site looking back at Bradley Junction from the bottom of the site. There's that 230 kV line crossing the property looking north from the base of the site. So in summation, this significantly improves the access to these types of uses that are already approved in the conditional use as it stands. It puts them in a better location, more accessible, where they can be much more successful. It also improves those connections with the industrial districts and gives us more opportunities for finding the right fit for those types of businesses that teeter on that solid waste balance. and it is consistent with all policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. With that, I'll stand for questions.

Any questions of the staff? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant to come forward.

It's a rarity when we don't have anybody in the audience.

Where did everyone go?

Yeah, exactly. It's because Eric does such a good job. I gave my best performance. So I have a presentation, but I think Eric covered it all. So with that, I won't delay any further. But I'll give you an example of what happened and the reason why we wanted to expand this area is because we actually had an Italian company that come to us, somebody asked earlier about what size of lots you typically sell, and I had mentioned up to 40 acres. We lost a sale from an Italian company that was wanting to come to Polk County to relocate to convert Freon AC free on from used units that they would be acquiring and convert it back to so it could be reused because that falls under the the recycling side of things. So that's that's one of the reasons why this is such an important elements because Polk County does miss out on having recycling type uses, which is important to all of us. without having these kind of land use changes. So with that, I'll stand for questions and be glad to answer any. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?

Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing and ask is there anybody to speak in favor or opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDC PAL-2026-6. I have a motion.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

All right. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please.

You don't know what you're going to...

He's trying to push the button. Yes, approved.

Cindy Giannamasso, for the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Chad Barron.

For the motion.

Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Motion passes.

And I need a motion for the next one.

I'll just keep it rolling. I move to approve LDCD-2026-4. Second.

Kevin. Motion second to approve. Roll call, please.

Shane Bevilacqua. For the motion. Cindy Giannamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Chad Barron. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims.