Name: Planning Commission on 2026-09-02 9:00 AM
Uploaded: 2026-09-02T00:00:00Z
Duration: 4 h 14 min 34 s
Description: This property was originally part of the required open space for PUD99904 when Density was limited to 4 units per acre and 50% open space was required.

[0:23] We have a quorum. Thank you. And before we get started, I'd like to welcome Shane Beblocqua. I'm not sure what I'm saying. Is that right? Beblocqua.

[0:37] And Chad Barron, two of the commission. So welcome. And also Kevin, who's moved up from being an alternate to being a regular member. And Tracy Mountsey, who is a new alternate with the board. So welcome.

[0:52] So, next we will have our approach, our pledge allegiance.

[1:09] So,

[1:24] we have the minutes from last month's meeting, August meeting, do I have any discussion?

[1:34] Or do I have a motion to approve?

[1:36] Mr. Chair.

[1:37] Another.

[1:37] Chad BeFF in motion to approve.

[1:39] Detinance.

[1:40] Miss Cindy Jenom also second.

[1:42] Motion Si게 to prove all the favour

[1:43] significant by bus in.

[1:45] Hi.

[1:50] Then.

[1:52] Cool.

[1:52] And next on the agenda is.

[1:57] peut us the.

[2:00] Order the agenda.

[2:01] was presented with staff and there's

[2:03] two cases that we need to vote to

[2:06] continue.

[2:08] All right.

[2:08] These were advertised so we

[2:10] who are coming from brown they

[2:10] I think that's the same.

[2:11] I think that's the same.

[2:12] So, October 7th.

[2:14] And that is.

[2:17] I'll leave the year 2026-3 and I'll leave the year 2026-11.

[2:22] I've both requested to be continued to talk to over 7.

[2:25] Okay.

[2:26] If you'll have a motion to continue those items.

[2:28] Angels and this is so moved.

[2:31] Sandy, General, so second.

[2:33] Motion second to approve the good tiduance.

[2:36] All in favor of seeing the Faber C9.

[2:40] Okay, the next we will ask our attorney to give us the procedures for our meeting.

[2:51] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:53] The land development case plan will introduce the case today and disclose any responses to the notification,

[2:59] which were not already provided to the planning commission in their packets.

[3:03] The case plan will then present their staff report and recommendation.

[3:06] Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in.

[3:12] The applicant and others in support are opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak.

[3:17] The applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony.

[3:21] The planning commission will then discuss the case and vote on the matter.

[3:25] Expedited hearing procedures may be used by the planning commission under the following circumstances.

[3:30] One, if there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing.

[3:34] Two, if the recommendation of the Office of Land Development is for approval

[3:38] and three, if all of the Commission members present, wish to use this procedure.

[3:42] With regards to level three reviews,

[3:45] pursuant to Section 906 of the Polk County Land Development Code,

[3:48] the Planning Commission may approve the applicant's request, deny the applicant's request,

[3:53] or approve the request with additional conditions.

[3:56] President's Section 921 of the Land Development Code, the applicant or any substantial

[4:00] affected interest may appeal the final decision of the Planning Commission to the Board

[4:05] of County Commissioners by filing a formal application with the Land Development Division

[4:10] and paying the application fee. The appeal must be filed with the Land Development Division

[4:15] within seven calendar days of the Planning Commission hearing. The Board of County Commissioners

[4:20] shall set a date and time for a Lenovo hearing.

[4:23] If a party decides to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to any

[4:29] level three review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim

[4:33] record of the preceding is made.

[4:36] The record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing.

[4:40] Each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise

[4:45] their right of appeal in order to preserve the right.

[4:48] A party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter.

[4:56] Please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the board of...

[5:02] 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.

[5:16] Please further be advised that if a denovo application is filed with the board, to be recognized during the denovo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for denovo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application, and they must wave their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing.

[5:40] Regarding level 4 reviews, pursuant to section 907 of the Lane Development Code, the Planning

[5:46] Commission's decision is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

[5:50] The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date.

[5:54] Regarding X-parta communication, the Planning Commission receives numerous communications from

[5:59] the public.

[6:00] Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that X-parta communications have been made to

[6:06] the members of the Commission regarding the matter.

[6:08] During the hearing, the applicant, organized oppositions and the public may request the commission to disclose any expartate communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communications or site visits.

[6:24] Unless the commission member refuses themselves, here she has a term 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.

[6:37] Mr. Chair, would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases?

[6:41] Yes, please.

[6:42] Thank you.

[6:42] 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.

[6:51] This applies to all cases, so if you believe you may speak today, please be sworn in.

[6:56] Do you swear from the testimony and evidence you provide to the planning commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[7:03] Thank you.

[7:03] maybe seated. I'll now go over some housekeeping items before we get started. First, we need

[7:10] to admit the counties land planners as expert witnesses. They have all been accepted as experts

[7:15] in the past. However, if you would like to wardear any of them as to their background or expertise

[7:20] then you may do so at this time. Without any opposition to their admission, please have a motion

[7:27] to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning.

[7:31] Do I have motion?

[7:33] In Joseph's Senate.

[7:35] Cindy Janamosa's second.

[7:36] Motion's second to approve.

[7:39] All of the favor, say hello to say aye.

[7:42] Both things aye.

[7:43] Thank you.

[7:44] Thank you.

[7:45] Secondly, if we have any experts of the applicants,

[7:47] you may tender them at this time, or you may wait until your case is called.

[7:53] And finally, the planning commission must review quasi-judicial land use cases.

[7:58] Quasi judicial means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific

[8:04] land development application in a fair and impartial manner.

[8:08] The Commission's review is limited to two areas, consistency and compatibility.

[8:14] Regarding consistency, the Commission must determine whether the application is consistent

[8:18] with both the Comprehensive Plan and the land development code.

[8:22] The staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the

[8:29] as well as a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria.

[8:35] Regarding compatibility, the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with a surrounding area.

[8:41] The commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing both written and oral.

[8:47] By law, the only evidence the commission may consider is competent, substantial evidence, which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material

[8:56] that a reasonable mind would accept is adequate to support

[9:00] a conclusion.

[9:01] The following items are competent substantial evidence.

[9:05] Evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria,

[9:09] staff reports, and staff presentations.

[9:11] Citizen testimony may be competent substantial evidence,

[9:15] so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding

[9:19] the subjective matters that do not require expertise,

[9:22] such as aesthetic and compatibility of a project

[9:25] with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical,

[9:33] speculative, based on fear, or consists of generalized statements that do not address the

[9:38] land development criteria are not competent substantial evidence. For example, fear that the

[9:44] project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent substantial evidence. Lastly,

[9:50] When expertise is required for technical issues like traffic, engineering, drainage, wetland impacts, school and utility capacity, light and noise.

[10:10] So we hope you and there we hope so.

[10:12] Thank you.

[10:16] So we'll proceed with the agenda.

[10:20] We have the結 kind of number 1 staff, would you introduce that, please?

[10:28] Yes,

[10:33] good morning.

[10:34] Sean, dependent on the development division.

[10:35] The first case is for the critical.

[10:53] I thought,

[10:59] sorry about that.

[11:00] First case is a little different than what you normally hear with a title of LDCU.

[11:07] It's a conditional use number, but this request is for the board.

[11:11] Planning Commission to provide comments.

[11:13] You don't have to provide comments, but this is for every request for the planning commission

[11:18] to consider historical resources design guidelines

[11:21] that were approved by the Historical Commission last year.

[11:26] And that's based on a huge effort

[11:28] by Marty Cyan, the Historic Preservation Manager here

[11:31] to my left and her staff, she had a grand research

[11:34] in genealogical historian there on the second row.

[11:37] So their offices are in the Historical Museum.

[11:41] Old Courthouse.

[11:43] But for the record, I need to do need to say,

[11:45] we have a staff report provided in the backup document

[11:49] an actual law from 1937, and I'll get into that in a moment.

[11:53] The actual preservation ordinance, we call it the certified local government ordinance.

[11:58] Some of the guidelines themselves, the historical marker guidelines, and the comprehensive plan and

[12:02] development policies and regulations out of our documents that you review on a regular basis.

[12:08] And in terms of advertising and advertisement in the Lakeland,

[12:12] what our havens done was provided on August 19th, and no response was received.

[12:17] Some of you were here when the preservation ordinance came through with the Planning Commission in 2023, and that was required to have an action by the Planning Commission.

[12:26] But this is not necessarily required for the Planning Commission to take action, just provide comments.

[12:33] So to give those of you who weren't here then, a little background.

[12:37] The state legislature approved an act in 1937, and I don't think there's many of these

[12:43] for many jurisdictions across the state that required a historic preservation for Pope

[12:47] County.

[12:48] They have to do it.

[12:49] It's a mandate.

[12:49] They have to do this.

[12:51] And it directed that they have to have a historical commission, that a historical commission

[12:56] meets about four to five times a year, and part of their purpose is to be advised to reach

[13:01] to the Board of County Commissioners and to staff.

[13:03] And they also collect a range, record, and preserve historical stories of Polk County.

[13:10] One item on bullet two here, I just love the way that the state statute talks about this.

[13:15] They procure preserved narratives on early pioneers in their exploits, perils, privations, and achievements.

[13:22] Privations, I'm sure, is not in the land of Velma Codes, so I think it's kind of a fun little historical word that we have to use in state law.

[13:29] They also gather information on Native American tribes,

[13:34] relits, and also data on soldiers, schools, and churches.

[13:37] And they have a lot of data on that in their circle library,

[13:40] on the second floor in these circle courthops.

[13:43] There was a amendment in 2011 to the state law,

[13:46] so it's actually still in modern times memory

[13:48] or consideration of the state legislature.

[13:52] It brought in their responsibility for the genealogical library,

[13:55] although I think they'd had that before 2011.

[13:57] and promote and solicit donations to historical content and funding.

[14:02] There is no special milliliter or anything like that that provides funding to the

[14:08] historical staff and what they do.

[14:11] The ordinance was approved in 2023 by the Board of Town commissioners and it gave the

[14:17] historical commission a different title as well as what they've had for a while and it's

[14:23] But basically procedures, ordinance that says how you proceed to go have a property be designated

[14:30] as a social site, a district or a structure.

[14:33] And it's only owner requested.

[14:36] This is not about anything that the Board of County Commission will put on a piece of property

[14:42] unless the property owner wants it.

[14:45] It's not something we're going to do as a county initiated type item.

[14:49] Some of the benefits of the CLG program, which made this really helpful for us to pursue

[14:54] it, it provides partnerships and free training for staff and historical commission.

[14:58] I've actually benefited from...

[15:00] Some of that training. Grants that they do not require matching funds from the local government,

[15:07] prioritization and natural disasters. Murders will get a phone call directly from the state if we

[15:12] have a hurricane that comes through, trying to find out what's going on and what kind of assistance

[15:16] can we give you up front versus other jurisdictions who don't have this kind of an ordinance. The

[15:22] commission gets to review recommendations for the National Register of Historic Places where they

[15:26] necessarily part of that review process prior. Something that gets into a little bit about what

[15:32] you all do as a planning commission. Structures that get the designation of a historical

[15:38] of historical site can receive variances from the substantial improvement requirements

[15:43] with their in a floodplain. So they may not have to raise the buildings up out of the floodplain.

[15:48] They might want to, but if they do, it can also change the historical nature of the structure.

[15:52] So that allows them to have some variants out of that requirement.

[15:56] And the board also has the ability of a property tax exemption for that.

[15:59] The board hasn't started researching that or thinking about that,

[16:03] because staff is still developing the program,

[16:06] but it's something on the list that we'll be able to consider in future years.

[16:11] This just provides a set up of what the ordinance has.

[16:16] These historical resources board, the database, how to designate sites,

[16:20] how to de-designate sites and what the regulation if they change that structure

[16:27] after it's been designated and then penalties for violation and then

[16:32] a codification in the code of ordinances. So this is not in the land development code,

[16:37] but it's in our separate code of ordinances.

[16:40] Then after that was done, the team

[16:43] under Mertis, we engage the Inspireplace Making Collective who's helped us with

[16:48] conference a plan update to develop the design guidelines, and that's part of your

[16:52] backup material, and that was approved by the Circle Commission on May last year.

[16:58] And this is just a table of contents for what those design guidelines have.

[17:03] Talks about all kinds of different forms of historic preservation, restoration,

[17:10] rehabilitation, reconstruction, relocation and demolition.

[17:12] So there's lots of things, this historical guidelines go into, and we'll talk about that a little bit.

[17:19] Just to show you that we have some regulations in the Conference of Plain and Land Development Code, that if a site is impacted by land development, that's got its role designation.

[17:28] They've got to make sure they maintain it according to whatever adopted procedures are for that particular site.

[17:34] We do have historic resources map, it's hard to see some of those points, but the points

[17:40] in red are they're listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

[17:44] The blue is their potentially eligible, meaning they're over 50 years old, and then the yellow

[17:50] ones are that it has an historical marker.

[17:53] The historical commission has always had a program for marking properties as a historical

[17:58] with a marker, which is different than actually the Board of County Commission's designated

[18:03] it, designating it as an historical site.

[18:05] So this is about the Board of County Commissioners involvement in designating something historical.

[18:12] And again, this is just a request for your comments.

[18:14] The Board is scheduled to hear this on October 20th, and Mertuses is going to now provide

[18:19] a presentation to help you think about what you might offer as this comments.

[18:28] Thank you, Shanda.

[18:30] Good morning.

[18:31] I'm Mertis Young.

[18:31] I serve as the Historic Preservation Manager for the County.

[18:34] I am positioned at the historic courthouse, which is across the street, and I invite you all to come and visit us sometime in immerse yourself in Polk County history and a little civics lesson.

[18:46] 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, the civic to the guidelines, because that's a purpose of this discussion.

[18:59] the guidelines are a tool in the preservation tool box to help us organize the process

[19:07] when these items come before us for consideration for designation.

[19:15] So, poll preservation and I'm not really really working on script here because we are

[19:20] storytellers and I'll get off on a rabbit hole so I'm going to stick to the script and try to move

[19:25] through this very quickly. And so at first, I just want to tell you, on the whom, the

[19:30] historical commission is a nine-member board that is appointed by the Polk County Board

[19:35] of County Commission. And all of this might seem new to you. It's not new. It's on the

[19:40] point it out. The historical commission was established by state statute in 1937. The county has

[19:47] been by legislation instructed to preserve the history of Polk County and make that history

[19:54] available to the public. So these folks, me, join, make sure that I'm doing

[20:00] We are doing just that and they also help and to regulate this process. And they also serve as an advisory board to the Board of County

[20:11] Commission on Issues of Preservation. So also part of the who is the public County History Center. That's the staff of the History Center.

[20:20] I act as the liaison between the Circle Commission and the Board. We meet regularly and we discuss these items on a regular basis.

[20:27] 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.

[20:40] The Certified Local Government and the bullet points there show you how we accomplish that work.

[20:44] The Education Program is established by the guidelines from the statute achieving that regulation or the mandate to present this information to the public.

[20:55] The collection, that's all the artifacts, papers, documents, maps, et cetera, et cetera,

[21:00] that we preserved that tell the story of Polk County, the research and genealogy

[21:04] library met Shannon, our research and genealogy historian.

[21:09] They are the people who do the research to support all those other initiatives.

[21:13] So that's the, the who it gets done and what we're doing, the preservation ordinance is

[21:19] the foundation of all the historic preservation in the county.

[21:22] that passed, as we said in December 2023, it's the only form of legal protection for historic

[21:29] sites within the county. And it outlines the process of designating a site as a historic

[21:36] and preserves sites once they are designated. The certificate, the certified local government

[21:41] program, the best way for me to describe that, that is the collaboration between the federal

[21:46] government, the Department of Interior, the State, the Division of Historical Resources,

[21:50] and Local County.

[21:52] So what that says for you all to have comfort in knowing that since the 1960s, the Department

[21:56] of Interior established these guidelines and regulations, and we're following a well-established

[22:02] and very successful program.

[22:08] So how to apply, as the ordinance provides the legal protections, and it's just really important

[22:13] for me to explain that it is only in the unincorporated areas of Polk County.

[22:17] The county obviously only has jurisdiction on those properties that are not within the city limits the cities manage the historic preservation of their own within their own boundaries.

[22:30] 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.

[22:38] I think the important thing here for us to pay attention to on this slide is it starts the recognition program starts.

[22:46] It starts again from land owner requests.

[22:50] Before we had the process in place,

[22:53] almost the first day I arrived 16 years ago.

[22:55] I started getting phone calls from people

[22:57] who were interested in preservation.

[22:59] This process gives us a methodology

[23:02] to answer those requests for preservation.

[23:05] And for this presentation,

[23:07] in the designation process and the preservation program,

[23:10] it is the guidelines, you know,

[23:12] how we do this?

[23:13] You know, that's what this is about.

[23:14] So that's what this slide represents for us.

[23:18] The eligibility is established, and as I said,

[23:22] it's property owner, and the local designation process,

[23:26] we just went through that.

[23:27] It is passed by the historical resources advisory board.

[23:31] Just a little bit of explanation that the historical resources

[23:34] advisory board is the board that was established in 1937

[23:38] by statute that is the Polk County Historical Commission.

[23:41] It serves in both capacities.

[23:43] There is specific criteria for designation, so we help the property owner work through

[23:49] establishing that criteria for designation, presenting that to the store commission that moves up to the board.

[23:55] Then the eligibility, you can see from this, it's, you know, how properties, how to become eligible for designation.

[24:05] This slide is, again, just the process.

[24:08] It's for us how we go through the steps that we've been

[24:11] in this done, again, beginning from the public.

[24:15] We don't reach out to the public, the public reaches us.

[24:19] We just provide the steps, the process, and the methodology

[24:22] to accomplish the designation.

[24:25] So the guidelines are a very specific tool used in preserving

[24:29] pulse places, peoples, and stories.

[24:32] Again, it's a process, a very strategic process,

[24:36] following state and federal guidelines to accomplish that 1937 state statute.

[24:43] Thank you very much for your attention.

[24:45] Shonda will take the program from here.

[24:51] Thank you.

[24:52] So I don't have anything other than just to ask if you had any comments or questions.

[24:57] And anything that you'd wish us to communicate with the Board of County Commission.

[25:00] You don't have to, no pressure. This is really to give you an opportunity and appreciate everyone listening, because I think this isn't really important information, not just for the planning commission, but for everybody in the room too.

[25:11] So you don't need any action.

[25:13] No, sirs.

[25:14] Let's say.

[25:15] So I have a question. So if I have a house that would qualify, and I may, I don't know that, and I'm not sure I want to submit it.

[25:24] live in a 100-year-old arts and crafts bungalow in Barton, I was in the city, so it was

[25:31] not in the county. But if I were to qualify my house under this program, does that mean

[25:38] the guidelines would provide design standards if I wanted to do any changes to my house,

[25:44] Yes. Based upon the era that it was built, is that in a nutshell, what this does?

[25:54] Mm-hmm. Okay. I thought that's what it was.

[25:57] But it did only apply if it was designated historical based on your...

[26:02] But I would have to apply for designation and I'd review it to make sure it's qualified and all that.

[26:08] if it did, then in the future, if I did anything to my house, I'm sort of volunteering to say,

[26:15] okay, I'll follow your guidelines. Yes. And if I didn't want to follow your guidelines,

[26:19] and I have to say, well, then take me out to the list. Correct. Okay. That's correct. And

[26:24] murders in Shannon would be involved in reviewing that, taking that to the historical commission,

[26:29] or historical resources advisory board in that capacity, and then actually going to the Board of

[26:40] Only those red stars are the ones in the county that are now qualified or on the list.

[26:47] There's actually been no properties given this historical designation yet on the ordinance.

[26:52] This is just a-

[26:54] This is just a structure.

[26:55] It's a structure.

[26:56] I'm surprised that there's not more than that.

[26:59] Well, I would agree.

[27:02] And a lot of the information you see in the staff reports that we provide you comes from the state resources.

[27:08] office, the State Bureau of Historic Resources, they actually don't designate sites historic.

[27:15] They just provide a recording opportunity or inventory.

[27:20] So we communicate with them, do you have any sites that were someone claims it's historical,

[27:25] and then they provide it to us?

[27:26] It doesn't mean that it's been verified by somebody or the state or the federal government

[27:32] or murders or Shannon.

[27:34] It's just somebody says, I think I have a historical structure or a site or district.

[27:37] I'm giving it to you, it has to have to have an application, there's lots of documentation

[27:43] they have to provide, I'm sure most of it, if not all of it really is historical, but

[27:49] and that's the information that we provide to you.

[27:52] But with this ordinance and these guidelines, we'll be able, once people start asking for the

[27:58] designation and receive it, we'll actually be able to start telling you cases that you see

[28:02] if a structure on that property has actually been designated by the Board of County Commissioners

[28:06] of historic. And that changes your conversation. It might change what you're considering in terms

[28:11] of alterations to the land or for the land development or for the land development.

[28:16] Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions or questions?

[28:20] Yes, sir. You stated that there's county and then there's also the city. The city is responsible

[28:28] for their own historic. Is there a way to get an overlay where it shows both? Because sometimes

[28:33] city lines kind of weave in and out and you would think maybe they were in the city but

[28:38] maybe they're in the county and then designate it as a city structure.

[28:47] So like on this map

[28:48] right here, these are all county areas correct. There's an incorporated property, which is

[28:54] what the Board of County Commissioners would see. But then within the cities, they have their own.

[29:00] Actually only two do, Auburndale and Lakeland. Okay. They only two of all the cities in the county

[29:05] that have their own historic preservation ordinance.

[29:08] So my question is, is that would there be able to be a map?

[29:11] So for example, I'm from Auburndale.

[29:13] I know of a couple different structures that aren't on this map

[29:16] because they're within the city of Auburndale.

[29:18] But if I were to say, hey, there's this place.

[29:22] Now I would be able to see, that's within the city limits of Auburndale.

[29:25] Just a suggestion.

[29:26] I'm sure they do on their websites.

[29:28] OK.

[29:29] I think it's, we might have it wrong if we start maintaining data

[29:34] on their historic structures in their sites.

[29:36] I know I was on winter hay,

[29:37] or Lakeland's yesterday, and they have maps,

[29:40] and all kinds of pages on their websites

[29:44] for their historical districts and structures.

[29:49] Any other questions, comments?

[29:51] I just want to wait and say thank you very much.

[29:53] You've done an outstanding job.

[29:55] The presentation was great.

[29:56] I learned a lot just in this little bit,

[29:58] and I think it's a great thing.

[30:00] You guys have done. Thank you.

[30:09] The next case we have is number 2, held the CPAS 2020-614 staff.

[30:19] Yes. That's what land use change. And Tyler, Daniels, is the case planner.

[30:26] Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Tyler Daniels Land Development.

[30:29] This is LED CPS 202614, the Knights Station CPA.

[30:35] This is a small scale, and then it's a change.

[30:37] The future land use designation on a half an acre from residential low to commercial onklift.

[30:46] The site is at 31.35, Knights Station Road on the north side of the road just west of North Galway Road in the city of Lakeland.

[31:01] Again, it is on half an acre.

[31:03] You can see the building here and the paves a lot.

[31:08] This is a current future land use map, the site is currently residential low RL1 and the surrounding areas as well.

[31:17] And this is the proposed future land use with the commercial on-clav.

[31:24] And here's the context area you can see the other commercial on-clav sites in the vicinity,

[31:32] respective distances there.

[31:36] Some photographs of the site.

[31:38] You can see the single story structure in the front to Johnization Road.

[31:48] The House staff finds the impact assessment meets the concurrency standards for the area.

[31:56] The property appraisal records the building as constructed in 1974 as a retail store with a paved parking lot.

[32:03] And the parcel was originally zoned as C2 prior to the adoption of the comp plan.

[32:07] It has been operating commercially since.

[32:10] The staff finds this meets the criteria for a mapping error.

[32:14] And this is the area for the 1980 and

[32:20] the original zoning there you can see it's C2.

[32:29] So, the existing and continuous commercial use since 1974, the surrounding designations of commercial enclaves and the respective distances,

[32:40] the prior zoning to C2, prior to the adoption of the comp plan,

[32:45] staff finds it compatible with the surrounding area since it's been developed and staff recommends approval.

[32:52] I understand for questions.

[32:54] Any questions or staff?

[32:56] So in essence, this is an oops.

[33:00] Yeah.

[33:00] Seems so, yeah.

[33:01] The C2 looked like it probably encompassed a little bit more than just this parcel.

[33:07] No, I just highlighted that so you can see it.

[33:10] Oh, it is just that small screen.

[33:12] It was just the parcel.

[33:13] Yeah, yeah, I just highlighted it bigger so you can see it

[33:17] So I'm assuming that was probably a zone change back in the 70 early 70s to to build us

[33:23] Storm I'm surprised it's existed there this long without having brawls. Yeah, I actually think it's original

[33:31] Really because I don't see the parentheses. Yeah, you're right any questions of staff

[33:40] See none do we have a motion

[33:44] move to a proof Kevin

[33:47] Second, Cindy.

[33:50] Rogue, please.

[33:52] Angel Sims.

[33:54] Fourth and I should I.

[33:58] Chad Baron.

[33:59] Fourth and I'm sorry.

[34:02] Fourth and I'm

[34:06] sorry.

[34:07] I'm sorry.

[34:08] I'm.

[34:11] Okay.

[34:12] Do we have anybody here?

[34:14] Always the applicant here.

[34:16] Yes.

[34:17] Come forward, please.

[34:17] I'm sorry.

[34:18] I'm jumping ahead.

[34:24] Good morning.

[34:25] Tom Woodrich with TWS land planning here representing the property owner, I was not upset with the

[34:30] direction it was headed there. There are protocols to follow. So, probably the great job

[34:37] presenting all the facts. I don't have much more to add. A presentation ready to go but

[34:41] in light of the longer agenda today I'll just say we meet the criteria for CE as a map error.

[34:47] It's been there forever. My client invested in the property several years ago and is looking

[34:53] to a new concept. There's a cafe currently in place called Jonah Bells. They had coffee and

[34:58] pastries and...

[35:00] Acibles 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.

[35:29] Any questions of the applicant?

[35:33] So you know, do everyone in the audience

[35:35] since order of this application?

[35:38] Anyone in opposition?

[35:42] In a now, we'll ask for the motion again.

[35:47] Thank you.

[35:50] Motion to approve, Kevin?

[35:52] Second, Cindy.

[35:53] Motion is taken to approve, roll call, please.

[35:55] Angel Sam, for the motion.

[35:57] Kevin Updite, Chad Baron, for the motion.

[36:00] For the motion.

[36:01] Murrow Bishop.

[36:02] for the motion.

[36:02] Cindy Jennamosso, for the motion, Shane, for the motion.

[36:08] Motion passes.

[36:09] Thank you.

[36:10] Okay.

[36:12] Nice case.

[36:15] Next case is LECPS-2026-9, like Mirren Creek's Conference Plan Amendment.

[36:21] That's tied to LECT-2026-6, which is a textment to line development code, and Robert

[36:28] Bolton is the case planer.

[36:32] good morning on searching for there we go my apologies good morning Robert Bolton with land

[36:43] development presenting the two requests LDCPAS 2026-9 a future land use map and text

[36:50] amendment from development of regional impact to leisure recreation with a comprehensive

[36:59] of plan text amendment 2.135 partial specific feature land use map amendment with conditions

[37:09] to reference the subject side has development conditions part of the land development code

[37:14] text amendment LDCT 2026-6 to appendix E adding limitation to uses within this LR district.

[37:23] These two cases will be heard together just to make sure y'all are aware and they will take

[37:30] separate actions.

[37:33] For the record, 114 mails were sent per area property owners on August 17th, two boards

[37:38] were posted on August 14th, legal ad was published in the Lakeowner Hayman's son on August

[37:46] 19th, no response from the public have been received.

[37:50] staff report ordinance, application, impact assessment, as well as other application documents

[37:56] are submitted and record. These are our level full reviews. LDCPS-2026-9 will be heard

[38:05] by the County Commission on October 20th. The staff report for LDCT-2026 is actually missing

[38:14] the first reading date that will get changed, but the first reading by the board will be

[38:22] on October 6th and the adoption hearing would be the same date October 20th as the CPA.

[38:30] The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan on land development code and staff recommends approval.

[38:37] The subject side is located on the west side of Lake Marion, east side of Lake Marion Creek

[38:42] Drive, north of Marigold Avenue, and south of Pine Street in Poincyan area.

[38:50] This is a 2023 context area.

[38:53] The side is located on the western side of Poincyanah and on the east side of Lake

[39:02] Marion.

[39:03] This is a closer view of the site.

[39:06] To the east of the site is the Lake Marion Creek Middle School.

[39:12] South east of the site is a development called Lake Marion Golf.

[39:19] Resort, it's an attached housing and condominium development.

[39:23] Even though there's no golf, it has the name of the golf in its name.

[39:26] Further south are vacant wetlands.

[39:32] This is Lake Marion.

[39:34] To the north are conservation lands purchased by Polk County.

[39:40] And we'll be opening in the near future as Bellini preserves.

[39:45] There's also another tracked land vacant scrub land owned by Lake Marion preserves LLC.

[39:54] The site highlighted in this light green is encumbered by a concept.

[40:00] Conservation easement held by conservation Florida. Conservation Florida has been working with the applicant

[40:06] on this application on access through the easement area to the area that can be developed.

[40:16] A letter from Conservation Florida was included in file and they have responded that they are in agreement on the access path

[40:25] that they've decided on any future development within this area would be subject to the terms

[40:33] of the conservation easement.

[40:39] This is the original plan for uses within the Coinsian or Pre-DRI.

[40:44] The portion of the site, it's outlined here in yellow.

[40:49] This tan part is covered by the current conservation easement.

[40:53] It was originally planned for multifamily.

[40:55] This area, you can see in the green, was slated as open space.

[41:07] This represents the existing land use.

[41:09] This hatched, all this hatched area is the DRI.

[41:14] The Lake Marion Creek mill school was changed to institutional for the school.

[41:21] This ROS recreation open space is owned between state and federal agencies.

[41:29] This is the, what map would look like with the land use changed.

[41:38] This hatching here is not going to show up on any data viewer.

[41:42] It's just for reference as to what part of it has this conservation easement on it.

[41:51] Both comprehensive plan and land development code text amendments provide safe guards for

[41:56] this site.

[41:56] the comprehensive plan provides for recognition of the existing conservation easement

[42:01] ensuring that any potential future development applications are aware of the

[42:06] in conference. The LDC text amendment, LDC-T-2026-6 provides for limitations to the allowable

[42:26] These two tables represent the proposed allowable use for the site over here in the green.

[42:33] With the reddish table indicating the prohibited uses that are currently allowed in table 2.2.

[42:40] These will be for the entirety of the leisure recreation site.

[42:47] The picture on the left is the subject site from the eastern side of Lake Marion Creek.

[42:52] picture on the right is from the subject site looking toward Lake Marion Creek Middle School.

[43:02] This the Lake Marion Creek looking north and south from the site, the site is serviced

[43:10] by a full array of public services and is not anticipated to have any negative impact to

[43:19] how water will provide both water and sewer for the site.

[43:25] The subject to request or a feature land use map and text amendment, LDCPAS 20206-9, from DRI to

[43:37] Bleisure Recreation, with compound text to reference the subject site as has development

[43:44] conditions as part of land development code, text amendment, LDCT 20206-6, to appendix e-limiting

[43:53] the allowable uses within the leisure recreation district.

[43:57] The combined request is the land use change

[43:59] and the related LBCT text with limitations of use

[44:04] within the site are consistent and compatible

[44:06] with the comprehensive plan land development code.

[44:09] I submit this presentation for the record.

[44:12] Staff recommends approval on LDCPS 2026-9 and LDCT2026-6.

[44:21] these do require separate actions with that all stand for questions. Any questions for staff?

[44:26] I have a question. I see bars, lounges, and taverns as an option to put across the street from

[44:32] the school? They what they're proposing is a community center. So for the residents of

[44:42] point Santa. So if we sort of exclude that, it may permit limit their uses. This is currently owned by the association or point Santa villages, basically their HOA entity.

[45:00] 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.

[45:08] If this is, you know, this is a community center. It gives them the ability to provide entertainment recreation uses as deemed appropriate by the association.

[45:22] Is there distance requirement for, yes, yes, there are, and they would be subject to all the distance.

[45:28] I don't know if they have a hall for all of that.

[45:33] I believe it's longer than these two parcels are apart.

[45:37] So they'd most likely be subjected to it,

[45:39] have to go through a variance to that separation,

[45:42] to the linear series.

[45:43] So if they had to go through a variance,

[45:48] I'm assuming that, and maybe wrong, correct me,

[45:52] that you would be able to place conditions on the use to say,

[45:57] Okay, all of this is all we want to do, you know, we don't want to do a bar or a tavern.

[46:02] We just want to be able to, I guess, serve alcohol, whatever, as part of the community,

[46:08] so that you would be able to limit it to that if they apply for variants?

[46:14] Yes, for variants is the land use hearing officer would hear that case, and they are able

[46:20] to put conditions such as time restrictions, but for our purposes, if I vote for this, I'm

[46:28] to look at people say, yes, I voted to put bars,

[46:31] taverns, lounges, and nightclubs across the street

[46:33] from a meeting.

[46:33] It's a general category that without we wouldn't be able

[46:37] to have the type of community center activities,

[46:40] but there is the alcohol separation from the school.

[46:46] So by voting to approve this application,

[46:48] you wouldn't be waving anything that's in the alcohol

[46:54] and school-distant separation requirement.

[46:57] So, I have to come in for a variance to do that.

[46:59] Oh, are we sure?

[47:00] I mean, I don't know what the distance is.

[47:03] I don't know.

[47:04] I mean, it would be maybe be helpful for us to know that.

[47:08] And while you're looking that up, I'll ask if the applicant is present.

[47:16] Yes, come forward, please.

[47:18] State your name and address.

[47:20] Natalia Lensfer with KPM Franklin,

[47:23] 60-300 Hazel teen national drive, sweet 18 or sweet 1-1-8, Orlando Florida, 3-2-8-2-2,

[47:33] Allison Williams is not able to be present. She is the applicant for this project.

[47:39] Okay, you, you disregard clarification. You represent a point Santa.

[47:44] KPM Franklin, and then the Louisiana is the land owner correct.

[47:49] Okay.

[47:51] 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, um, the center.

[48:07] What's your firm retained by the property owner, um, for to represent them in this application?

[48:13] We're representing them, yes.

[48:14] Okay. Okay. I got you.

[48:16] I'm okay.

[48:18] Yes.

[48:19] Do you have any questions?

[48:20] So what?

[48:24] No, I didn't do so many of my questions.

[48:28] I mean, you've heard the kind of the conversation.

[48:32] I just, I'm not a k-voting for something

[48:34] where he's like, oh, let's put a bar across straight

[48:36] from middle school.

[48:38] Yeah, so there is no intentions of having a bar

[48:41] by typical standards of a bar.

[48:43] It is 100% a community center.

[48:45] They use the intended use is to be outside of school

[48:48] operational times as well because it is going

[48:51] to be an amenity to the point, oh, sorry, the point

[48:56] the anti-community overall, some most uses will be in the evenings

[49:00] after school hours and or on the weekends, but no,

[49:05] there's no intent to put a bar there

[49:06] to strictly a community center that, and I know how badly

[49:10] points the anti-community centers, I'm stuck on this one.

[49:15] But I'm like understood, thank you.

[49:16] We're good, any other questions?

[49:21] Okay, thank you.

[49:23] Is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application, any one in opposition?

[49:31] Seeing none, I'll bring this back to the commission and looking at staff to see if you have beer or 500 liquor is a thousand feet.

[49:43] Okay, I don't have a measurement.

[49:44] I don't have a measurement tool here to come up with that.

[49:50] I don't have anybody else.

[49:53] It looks like Shonda might be working on getting a measurement.

[49:57] Are we able to pull it up on Google Maps?

[50:00] I'll call a separation rules for just change and it's not been put in the meeting code yet, so the range is correct. You know, the measurement is be property line, a property line. I believe it's doorstep, the doorstep is for clarity. I think she's looking up here.

[50:13] 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.

[50:19] If they're within right that distance.

[50:21] Correct. If we, if we, if we exclude it and anything is deemed that would be that, they can't get a variance to get it.

[50:30] Because we've prohibited it. It gives them the flexibility.

[50:35] But if they, if they had a community center and they wanted to serve,

[50:39] alcoholic beverages, they would have to get a variance. If there was in the distance.

[50:44] Yes, sir.

[50:44] It looks like it's over a thousand feet just on their property between where I'm estimating their door entrance would be to their property line.

[50:54] So you're able to recommend changes to the text by the way.

[50:58] I mean, you don't have to adopt it as presented.

[51:04] Are you able to make a motion just for community center?

[51:08] Well, it's for the request, no, you couldn't limit it to just the community center.

[51:16] The request is to, as I understand, correct me if I'm wrong or if staff is to amend the

[51:21] future land use of the conference plan for leisure recreation.

[51:26] That is the CPS-2026-99, I believe it's the number, yes, nine.

[51:34] That is the land use change, LDCT-2026-6, the second one within that ordinance is where we have the

[51:48] strike throughs the prohibited items. It's on page, this allowable and prohibited uses

[51:58] on page 385 of your packet of what is allowed and prohibited. Nothing was shown to

[52:07] say in as if to make a change if you're wanting to exclude something, is that type of

[52:14] that we're among staying correctly, Shanda?

[52:18] Yeah, that's where.

[52:19] So it would be possible to recommend striking any of the uses

[52:24] that are listed in the text amendment as allowable.

[52:28] As allowable, within this particular leisure recreation district.

[52:38] Yes.

[52:44] Can you pull up the screen where you have the uses?

[52:58] So if we got rid of the idea of a true bar lounge or tavern, and it wouldn't preclude

[53:06] a restaurant from serving beer wine or liquor, but they wouldn't need to apply because

[53:13] there were a thousand feet out as a restaurant, correct?

[53:17] Okay, and the night clubs and dance halls, I mean, that's not, I said that, but you

[53:22] I'm going to have a teen dance hall in there, you know, I don't know, bars, lounges, and taverns

[53:29] directly across the street from a school for me as a hard thing to say yes to.

[53:38] Essentially, another option could also be a condition that the sale of alcohol can only occur

[53:43] as accessory to events posted and conducted on any of the facilities on site.

[53:50] So it narrows

[53:52] help, but I don't know if the condition is a map amendment though or I jack a map for the

[53:58] text. It'd be something you'd put in the lendable and the code text amendment in the text amendment only.

[54:03] Yes. OK.

[54:04] Yes.

[54:05] Gotcha.

[54:06] OK.

[54:07] Thank you.

[54:08] OK.

[54:10] So the first motion we need is whether or not to approve the land use change.

[54:17] Which is LBCKS case.

[54:19] Yes.

[54:21] And then, in the text of them, we can make a change to fill ourable uses.

[54:28] Could make a change to the text?

[54:30] Yes.

[54:30] That's in that ordinance.

[54:33] So, do you have a motion on the conference of plan amendment?

[54:53] Again, the conference of plan amendment is a map amendment and a text because the text of the conference of plan amendment.

[55:00] That there's an appendix in the conference of plan that says cases that have conditions in land development code. We have to list those out, and that's. So this is not just a map amendment. It's a text amendment, stating that this case, this property has conditions in appendix e the land development code.

[55:20] I'm sorry.

[55:21] We need to approve the land use of MIMA, so it has the leisure wreck 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.

[55:52] It's a different way of doing conditions, but because it's a conference appointment, it's not straightforward, like a conditionally used like a plane developed.

[56:02] 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 the K of LDCPA S2026-9.

[56:20] Right? Yes, and that text is just saying that this case has conditions of approval in the

[56:26] land development code. That establishes the authority to place the conditions, if you

[56:32] will. That's what that text is for. That's what the text is for. So that text does not get

[56:37] into the prohibited and permitted uses that is in this next case. So by approving, if the board

[56:47] decided to approve this case, they would not be approving the proposed allowable uses and proposed prohibited uses that will come in the next case.

[56:57] So let me take a liberty of asking the applicant and maybe this is unfair to put you on a spot like this.

[57:06] Would your, uh, do you think your client would be opposed to removing the use of bars, lounges and taverns as an allowable use?

[57:18] 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.

[57:27] Right. I don't think they would be, but again, I don't know we have not had that specific conversation.

[57:32] I anticipate that was your answer.

[57:35] 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 use.

[57:44] And again, this is for the next case, just to clarify.

[57:47] But rather than remove that use, there could be conditions placed on that use now.

[57:53] Similar to if it were within the separation distance requirement, like a land use hearing officer may place conditions.

[58:02] this commission could do that as well. But again, her the next case.

[58:09] Okay.

[58:15] Any more questions or do I have a motion for this for the approval of the land use?

[58:20] Mr. Chair, I moved to approve LDC PAS-2026-9. Did you call for the public hearing?

[58:30] Commissioner Bishop.

[58:31] Thank you.

[58:33] Thank you.

[58:33] I don't think we can check.

[58:35] We're good.

[58:36] I just want to ask again.

[58:37] Well, I'll ask you.

[58:38] Is anyone in the audience to speak for or against this request?

[58:44] Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission.

[58:46] We have a motion to approve.

[58:49] I'm looking for a second.

[58:51] Steady Jenna Mossos.

[58:53] Okay.

[58:54] Motion to approve.

[58:55] And second.

[58:56] Roll call please.

[58:57] Angel Sims for the motion.

[58:59] Kevin update.

[59:00] for the motion.

[59:01] Chad Barron for the motion.

[59:02] Brooke Agneaney for the motion.

[59:04] Moral Bishop for the motion.

[59:05] Cindy Jennam also for the motion.

[59:07] Shane B.

[59:09] For the motion.

[59:13] Okay.

[59:14] Next we need to consider approval of the text agreement, which includes the proposed allowable uses

[59:23] within the leisure recreation that we just have recommended approval of.

[59:31] Okay.

[59:32] Here's where I'm at.

[59:33] I'm not going to vote, yes, on something that could eventually put a full on bar

[59:39] across the street from a school.

[59:41] So, sorry.

[59:44] Well, you make a vote, then I would suggest I'll defer to the attorney here.

[59:51] But I would suggest then we make a motion with the additional of striking.

[1:00:00] Bars, lounges and taverns from the table of proposed allowable uses,

[1:00:11] correct?

[1:00:13] So, if that is the, if that is what the maker of the motion would like to do, then that's my suggestion.

[1:00:25] And we vote on a motion that would strike that use as allowable use.

[1:00:31] I will move for that so that just to clarify the motion is to approve the application,

[1:00:37] but by also striking the use of bars, lounges, and taverns from the acceptable use.

[1:00:45] Let me before we go there, let me ask staff to just for clarification.

[1:00:50] So they would still be able to do liquor sales as part of a restaurant, just like any restaurant would be able to do.

[1:00:57] but they wouldn't have, they wouldn't be able to have a stand alone bar.

[1:01:02] Correct. You can just make the alcohol use an accessory to the community center.

[1:01:07] Well, I'm not, I'm not familiar with all of the alcohol permits you get because we don't

[1:01:15] issue those, but I think there's ways of certain permits you get when it's related to an event.

[1:01:21] That's how some of our event facilities in the rural part of the county are going to

[1:01:25] the county commission, right, for consideration.

[1:01:30] So that could be our recommendation if that's a problem.

[1:01:33] I'm just suggesting it's a problem for the applicant

[1:01:35] that they can make that appeal to the board of county commission

[1:01:38] and says, look, we really want to have a bar as part of our use.

[1:01:44] But our recommendation would exclude that.

[1:01:47] If that's the maker of the motion, then it's approved.

[1:01:54] Yes, so I move to approve.

[1:01:57] I've got to look at the number. Where is it?

[1:02:00] Huh? I lost it.

[1:02:04] Elixir.

[1:02:05] LDC-D 2026-6 with the striking of the potential use of bars taverns and

[1:02:14] night-night clips.

[1:02:17] I have a motion to over-second.

[1:02:21] Jane Beren second?

[1:02:22] It's bars lounges and taverns just to be clear night.

[1:02:25] Thank you.

[1:02:26] Thank you.

[1:02:26] All right.

[1:02:27] Rule number is.

[1:02:28] Angel Sems for the motion, Kevin update, Chad Baron for the motion for a

[1:02:34] technique, Merle Bishop, Cindy Janamoso for the motion, Shane B.

[1:02:40] For the motion. Motion passes.

[1:02:42] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:02:46] Did you understand what I said? I mean, if that's a problem for your client, then they still have an opportunity to

[1:02:54] stake their case to the Board of Commissioners.

[1:02:56] Yeah, I don't think they have intentions of any barcode.

[1:02:59] Oh, thank you.

[1:03:00] I hope not.

[1:03:01] So, but anyway.

[1:03:03] Yeah.

[1:03:04] Right, right.

[1:03:07] Okay, next case.

[1:03:09] Next two cases will be presented together.

[1:03:11] LDCPS-2026-6 and LDCT-2026-13.

[1:03:17] Related to LW's Main Street corridor and Mark Bennett is the case planner.

[1:03:23] Mr. Chairman moved to Acts, but I have a motion to

[1:03:28] I'll ask is there anyone in the audience to speak on favor or in opposition to this case in L.O.A

[1:03:41] .s.

[1:03:42] Seeing none, it does qualify for an expedited procedure to have a second to expedite.

[1:03:50] Cindy Janamosa's second.

[1:03:52] All in favor of seeing what I've to say tonight.

[1:03:55] Okay.

[1:03:56] Well, I'll explain.

[1:03:57] Okay.

[1:03:58] You didn't expect that, did you?

[1:04:00] I've worked on this thing for over a year.

[1:04:02] I'm so long.

[1:04:04] I'm so long to present this.

[1:04:05] So now it's six minutes.

[1:04:07] I will give a brief summary of what's going on here.

[1:04:11] The first slide here explains our news requirements.

[1:04:14] We are submitting to the record to staff report application, impact assessment statement

[1:04:19] And this slides,

[1:04:24] the small scale conference plan amendment is a level, well both actions are a level four review.

[1:04:30] The map amendment will be heard on October 6th.

[1:04:34] The first reading of the text amendment will be on the 15th and then the second reading and adoption would be on October 6th of the text amendment.

[1:04:47] This map shows location of Eloise, you can see in the blue there, the just of the change,

[1:04:54] just the change, just under choice to click or some residential low, to Main Street corridor,

[1:04:59] Community Act.

[1:05:00] Activity Senate and Institutional plus teams to text of the comprehensive plan. And then the LDC text amendment is to establish permit, conditional prohibited uses in the proposed mainstream court or an additional development standards.

[1:05:18] Here's the site,

[1:05:27] this is current, this is proposed, CAC institutional, the institutional is proposed to recognize and organization knows the freedom tour, which provide social services and assist accounting and disaster relief.

[1:05:44] The west of the designation was proposed as a Main Street corridor to reflect, you know,

[1:05:52] and exceeding a lot for redevelopment activities long, slightly avenue, you know, as soon

[1:05:58] through these real quick.

[1:06:02] Eloise is in a CRA.

[1:06:05] We'd have a lot of community engagement on this project, various maps, but you'll see what

[1:06:12] final result is the text amendment outlines the proposed permit and conditional uses and

[1:06:21] additional development standards for multi-family as certain designer,

[1:06:26] requirements, and signage limitations.

[1:06:34] Impact assessment because it's a redeveloped area.

[1:06:40] I really want to anticipate a new additional impacts.

[1:06:45] Justification for approval, the proposed institutional community activity center, designations,

[1:06:51] reflect existing uses, mainstream corridor allows for a change in uses, provide potential

[1:06:57] entitlements for property owners to redevelop their property.

[1:07:01] These uses are compatible and the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[1:07:07] And I'll stand for any questions.

[1:07:08] Thank you.

[1:07:09] Any questions?

[1:07:09] down. So, this is county initiated. Yes. So, I asked previously, but the buttons of caution

[1:07:19] and I'll ask again, anyone in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition to this.

[1:07:26] Seeing none, there's a commission have any discussion or a motion.

[1:07:35] Be brief, be going. That's what I wanted to do.

[1:07:42] move to approve LDCPAS 2026-6 and it's entirety.

[1:07:51] Shall I have Aaron second?

[1:07:54] Motion second to approve roll call please Angel Sims for the motion Kevin update for the

[1:07:59] motion Chad Baron for the motion Brooke Agnini Murrow Bishop for the motion Cindy

[1:08:14] case is the text amendment. Anything to add? Okay, again, anyone's speaking favorite

[1:08:23] opposition to the text amendment? See none? Do I have a motion?

[1:08:30] Do we need a motion next? But I, this one as well. Are you presented them together, so I guess?

[1:08:38] Okay. Mr. Chairman, maybe we'll be able to improve LDCT 2026-13 and it's in 30.

[1:08:45] Angel Sim 2.

[1:08:47] Progoplage.

[1:08:49] Angel Sims.

[1:08:50] For the motion.

[1:08:51] Kevin update.

[1:08:52] For the motion.

[1:08:53] Chad Barron.

[1:08:54] For the motion.

[1:08:55] For the motion.

[1:08:57] Cindy Jennamosso.

[1:08:58] For the motion.

[1:08:59] Shane B.

[1:09:00] For the motion.

[1:09:01] Motion passes.

[1:09:02] Thank you.

[1:09:04] Next.

[1:09:04] Next to cases again will be presented by Mark Bennett, the case planner, and that is LDCPL-2025-7,

[1:09:13] and LDCT-2025-15.

[1:09:18] Okay, good morning.

[1:09:20] Hold on, we got a lot to cover with these two cases here.

[1:09:24] So,

[1:09:27] the original request, well first of all, let me go through the notice items here.

[1:09:32] 49 maillers were sent out on July 17 and then the same number of maillers were also sent out on August 17.

[1:09:44] Given the large size of the site, we had to put a lot of boards out.

[1:09:48] So 29 boards were posted in July.

[1:09:51] And I work knowledge, the help of the staff, Shonda Tyler.

[1:10:01] Reliea, Robert, and Kyle all help put Boyd's out.

[1:10:04] So thank you. Legal ads were published in the Lakeland winner Hayman Sun on July 21st and August 17.

[1:10:12] These are requests were continued at the last planning commission meeting.

[1:10:17] As far as response from the public, we did get a petition against with 536 signatures,

[1:10:24] There's 13 emails,

[1:10:28] one email, right, of support and two expressing concerns.

[1:10:33] Staff recommends approval.

[1:10:35] We're submitting to the record staff report, application, impact assessment, and these slides.

[1:10:42] These cases are a level four review, and they will be presented before the Board of

[1:10:54] and the middle hearing for the conference, a plan amendment.

[1:10:58] So I'll have you look at the blue box here.

[1:11:03] The request originally contains numerous changes.

[1:11:09] And I'll go through them here.

[1:11:11] The first change was to change the development area

[1:11:14] for rural to suburban development area.

[1:11:19] And then to change property that was designated

[1:11:22] It fast-feet mining agricultural residential rural, some industrial, and some leisure recreation.

[1:11:31] The original change was to change it to rural cluster center, 15 acres, at the 640 and 37

[1:11:41] intersection, basically a commercial node.

[1:11:45] Change 1200 acres to residential suburban, generally located on the western half of the property.

[1:11:52] And then industrial on the eastern half, 1261 acres.

[1:11:59] The Comprehensive Plan Amendment also proposed text that made reference to the land

[1:12:05] development code, which was the purpose of LDCT 2025-15, that text proposed activity center plan for

[1:12:20] the rule cluster center, and the establishment of a buffer area between the proposed industrial

[1:12:27] and the proposed residential.

[1:12:30] The reason why it struck out, as you see there in the blue,

[1:12:36] is that we did receive a modified request from the applicant, just about two weeks before

[1:12:44] the hearing. The applicant requested the following, and we see it there in the bullet points.

[1:12:50] One, remove the residential suburban request.

[1:12:55] Two, remove the suburban development area designation.

[1:13:01] Three, remove the rural cluster center proposal at the intersection,

[1:13:06] and correspondingly the activity center plan for that center.

[1:13:14] What that would mean then is that the request before you now

[1:13:18] is only for the proposed 1261 acres of industrial that is generally located at the eastern

[1:13:29] part of the site. So let me say that again. The modified request from the applicant is now only

[1:13:37] for the industrial on the eastern portion of the site.

[1:13:43] That's good. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that does not involve a development area change.

[1:13:52] It's correct. Correct.

[1:13:55] It doesn't require, I guess, what I should say, it doesn't require a development area change.

[1:14:01] Yeah, the applicant is withdrawing the request at the suburban development area.

[1:14:06] So you see, bold number five there, the text amendment is no longer needed.

[1:14:14] The purpose of the text amendment was to implement additional standards in the residential area,

[1:14:22] which is now been withdrawn, and to implement an activity center plan, which is now being withdrawn.

[1:14:30] So, by line up front, we don't need to hear LDCT 2025-15 and I'll look to Council and say, does

[1:14:41] the board need to take form of action to withdraw or is that just understood?

[1:14:48] I apologize for putting on the spot there.

[1:14:49] No, that's fine.

[1:14:51] So number 10.

[1:14:54] Number 10.

[1:14:55] No, number eight, number eight, item eight.

[1:15:02] The case number is LDCT, 2025-15. That's the text amendment to implement certain provisions that were proposed as far as the MEMS crossing project.

[1:15:16] So to leave answer a question, to leave nothing to the chance when we get to that item.

[1:15:24] Okay. We can hear a motion to accept the withdrawal.

[1:15:29] Okay. But right now we're considering the first.

[1:15:31] Okay. Okay.

[1:15:33] The last bullet point there is something that I want to emphasize.

[1:15:39] The 54 page staff report you got reflects the original full proposal.

[1:15:47] The full proposal being the residential, the commercial, the industrial,

[1:15:54] the

[1:15:54] and all the proposed text changes.

[1:15:58] The request now, again, and I keep saying,

[1:16:01] it's a world crystal clear on this.

[1:16:03] The request now is just for industrial only.

[1:16:08] 1261 acres, generally located on the eastern half

[1:16:12] of the property and some of it is south of 640 also.

[1:16:18] So with that, I will go through my amended modified

[1:16:24] presentation here.

[1:16:27] Let me ask before you do you do that.

[1:16:30] Let me ask if there are any questions from the commission.

[1:16:35] So where we are now?

[1:16:37] I will kind of just add because this is a level four and it will go before the Board of County Commissioners.

[1:16:45] Regardless of what the recommendation is from the Planning Commission, the staff report will be updated prior to the hearing before the

[1:16:54] the first year before the Board of County Commissioners to remove, to about to provide staff

[1:17:00] analysis to the modified application.

[1:17:05] And, and, and yeah, I want to specifically mention that the staff report in front of you now,

[1:17:11] again, one doesn't reflect the change and we have not been able to do an analysis of only

[1:17:18] the change. So I think the board needs to decide whether or not they're comfortable

[1:17:23] with proceeding based on the fact that you don't have a complete inaccurate staff.

[1:17:28] Let me ask this. Does that change your recommendation to us?

[1:17:34] No. And if you think about the effect of the request is that there is less impact

[1:17:44] impact because there's no more commercial proposed, no more residential proposed.

[1:17:50] So, presumably, and we don't have the hard numbers, but presumably the impact on public

[1:17:57] service facilities, except there will be less because the size has been reduced and the

[1:18:03] mixture of uses has been eliminated.

[1:18:06] And I want to offer something, too, that we got the request at a time frame that it was not

[1:18:12] possible to provide you an ethically responsible staff report, based on the timing that we have

[1:18:19] to turn these things around.

[1:18:20] It's not reflected in the land development code of some kind of, there's some cutoffs,

[1:18:24] but if there's a change, it doesn't say if the applicant makes a change prior to the planning

[1:18:28] commission hearing, it's got to be done in so many days prior, it doesn't say that.

[1:18:32] But we felt that it wouldn't have been an appropriate staff report that would have been

[1:18:38] that it would have met our standards.

[1:18:41] Normally, if it's a few months prior, we would have said, well, you can't go forward because

[1:18:45] your application is not sufficient.

[1:18:47] It doesn't reflect everything that you're making a request for.

[1:18:50] But it happens frequently that applicants make changes at the last minute.

[1:18:53] So that's why we're kind of in this awkward position.

[1:18:57] So let me ask this.

[1:19:02] Why wouldn't this have recommend it, continuous?

[1:19:06] The applicant did request that we hear that the planning commission here at the case today.

[1:19:11] So staff is trying to accommodate that request,

[1:19:14] but is that the planning commission?

[1:19:15] I did this question.

[1:19:16] I did answer.

[1:19:17] Thank you.

[1:19:19] OK.

[1:19:20] Question is everything in here relevant

[1:19:23] to what we're now talking about today?

[1:19:26] Often defer the applicants since he provided that.

[1:19:29] Wait, this is.

[1:19:30] This is a variety from the applicant.

[1:19:32] And also we would need to make sure any opposition

[1:19:35] gets the copy, but the applicant would

[1:19:37] be able to speak to this.

[1:19:38] OK.

[1:19:38] Yeah, I would say you didn't proceed unless there's any.

[1:19:44] This feels pretty convoluted to me, especially with so many people invested in this

[1:19:50] in so much public interest and interaction, it's just pretty convoluted at this point to

[1:19:58] me.

[1:19:59] But maybe I can-

[1:20:00] I can get more of it if it keeps going. I don't want to get ahead of ourselves or myself here. But did

[1:20:09] the, you said it was a petition of opposition, right?

[1:20:16] Just to go in order, I want to make sure. So if there's a thought that the board may want to continue the case,

[1:20:21] we should address that issue first before we get into the merits and opposition to the substantive portions of the

[1:20:29] but the board may, if there's a thought that the board may want to consider a

[1:20:34] continuity may also want to ask the applicant to have they feel about that.

[1:20:39] How was the petition? Was the petition, did it have a statement on the petition?

[1:20:44] I didn't see the petition, so I didn't see any answer that.

[1:20:48] What would could you tell us what the statement is?

[1:20:56] I just wanted it to stay most specifically addressed the requested industrial

[1:21:01] or the uses? I mean, I want to know, what were they, did they express their opposition to a certain aspect of this, or was it just, we're opposed to all of this?

[1:21:20] So, I do want to reiterate that if there's an,

[1:21:26] if there was going to be a motion to continue, that should be addressed before we get to the merits of the case.

[1:21:33] I think. Hi, Jim, I'm also.

[1:21:35] Well, now I'm always going to go with the questions, but if we have to do that first, I had a question from Mark on the one.

[1:21:42] And if there is no desire of the board to continue, I'm not suggesting that.

[1:21:46] I just wanted to make sure that we address each matter.

[1:21:50] He's not finished with his presentation.

[1:21:53] And I'm the one who started this line of discussion, I guess, because I interrupted him.

[1:22:00] We're trying to apologize for, but I just, for clarification.

[1:22:05] Now, before you go to foredown the road with us 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.

[1:22:16] And the clarify again, what is now being proposed is a change from phosphate mining to industrial.

[1:22:25] How?

[1:22:26] Let me ask, maybe you can't really answer it, but how involved is your presentation?

[1:22:34] Well, I've got rid of lost lines because we don't need to discuss the text amount anymore.

[1:22:39] So it's reduced by about it.

[1:22:41] While we're waiting, I would say, let's just in the interest of time, go ahead and proceed with your presentation.

[1:22:46] Okay.

[1:22:46] I'm waiting on the answer to the question about the petition.

[1:22:52] Yeah, okay, so go ahead. Here we go.

[1:22:59] 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.

[1:23:08] The aerial photo on the right again encompasses the entire roughly 2500 acre site.

[1:23:15] This is a better picture that shows the location, south of Mulberry.

[1:23:22] State Route 37 is here.

[1:23:24] County Route 640.

[1:23:27] Unincorporate community of Pinedale is here.

[1:23:30] Anderson Road is located here as reference points.

[1:23:35] I'm going to show some aerial photos here.

[1:23:39] The large size of the site makes it hard to show everything.

[1:23:44] But you can get an idea of flavor if you will of what the site looks like

[1:23:53] and then the narrative at the bottom of the slide shows the direction and

[1:23:58] What's looking at?

[1:24:12] Okay, and again, this is

[1:24:14] the same photo from before

[1:24:16] join the location of the site

[1:24:22] This is the existing

[1:24:23] and just to clarify again, this is not proposed for change, it will remain in a rural

[1:24:28] development area.

[1:24:32] This is the current land use map. It shows the property as phosphate

[1:24:40] mining.

[1:24:45] The four squares here were to show the rural cluster center, but that's now off

[1:24:51] the table.

[1:24:54] Here's the proposed change to the land use map.

[1:25:00] I want to focus first on the proposed change to industrial because now that's the one item that's up for consideration.

[1:25:07] 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.

[1:25:25] So,

[1:25:29] the original proposal was to change this from phosphate mining to residential suburban,

[1:25:35] but that's off the table, that's no longer valid.

[1:25:39] So, to summarize, the proposed change now is to consider the area in purple, here, here,

[1:25:48] and then also a separate smaller parcel here from phosphate mining to industrial.

[1:25:53] That's the proposed change as it stands today.

[1:25:56] I put this slide in originally, if you notice, the case file numbers had 2025 on them.

[1:26:08] That's because we originally received this request.

[1:26:10] This is officially submitted, I think, in June last year.

[1:26:16] The request was much larger in size and scale,

[1:26:19] 50, 400 acres, 18,000 units, two main square feet commercial, 700,000 square feet of office.

[1:26:30] And with the original proposal this would have been the third largest city in the kind of

[1:26:35] population nearly 50,000.

[1:26:39] There was a lot of issues with this site, I won't go through the list, the largest one was

[1:26:43] utilities, IE provision of water and sewer.

[1:26:47] So, go back to that. Show us on that map generally where we are now by where we mean by where we are.

[1:26:57] Where this request is in relation to this much larger development proposal.

[1:27:04] At the, yeah, the area that's only proposed for industrial, the 1261 acres of industrial is generally, generally located here.

[1:27:17] Okay, here and again a little bit okay, so that was the original proposal.

[1:27:26] The modified proposal that was submitted about the beginning of the year.

[1:27:32] Again, reduced it from 5,500 to about 2500 acres, dropped the number of residential down

[1:27:41] to 240 per mid by right with the potential for more up to 3,600 to a suburban plan development.

[1:27:50] And a lot of other changes that we don't need to go through.

[1:27:52] The main issue all along was you told these,

[1:27:54] how is the water sewer going to be provided?

[1:27:56] The applicant has demonstrated that they had

[1:27:59] some water capacity.

[1:28:01] That's why we're seeing with a recommendation of approval

[1:28:05] for the suburban development area and the residential suburban

[1:28:09] land use.

[1:28:10] However, again, that's off the table now.

[1:28:14] In fact, assessment,

[1:28:18] schools, because the residential is no longer being considered to

[1:28:22] schools, schools would not be impacted.

[1:28:26] Likewise, we're part presumably a lesser impact on public safety due to the removal

[1:28:33] of the residential.

[1:28:35] Water and sewer are not required as it will stay in the rural development area.

[1:28:44] Transportation,

[1:28:47] the project as reviewed was going to have a significant impact.

[1:28:51] I can't tell you what the impact will be of just the industrial, again, smaller project

[1:28:58] lesser impact, presumably on the road network.

[1:29:02] Environmental, these numbers reflect the entire site, and I do believe that there is still

[1:29:10] some floodplains and wetlands on the industrial portion of site, those would be addressed

[1:29:15] of course as part of any site kind of you.

[1:29:19] So, just for occasion for approval, I'll focus on just the first bullet because that's

[1:29:29] the only item on the table now that being the change from phosphate mine to industrial.

[1:29:35] We consider it appropriate because there are industrial uses and designations already located

[1:29:43] along state road 37.

[1:29:46] Bear with me while I go through and go back to the map here.

[1:29:51] This is the existing land use map.

[1:29:53] This is the proposed land use map.

[1:29:55] You see a lot of purple here, which reflects the industrial and then.

[1:30:01] Delight or purple reflects business parks under which is a light industrial. Likewise, there's existing industrial designations here next to what is proposed for industrial here.

[1:30:15] So, because there's existing industrial designations and or uses, especially along state rule 37, and in particular, this property in here is not included in the request, but it's also industrial.

[1:30:29] So, I'm going back to the justification, because they're existing industrial uses of locate

[1:30:35] long 307.

[1:30:36] We thought that the proposed industrial designation was appropriate.

[1:30:43] For that reason, we consider it compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[1:30:49] So, with that, I will stand for questions.

[1:30:52] Thank you very much.

[1:30:54] Any questions or staff?

[1:30:55] I have a couple of marks.

[1:30:59] So I'm looking at Mr. Men's presentation that he gave us.

[1:31:08] Where is the rail located for this?

[1:31:11] And is it on the site for rail use or is this something that's just south or actually surrounding the site for rail?

[1:31:20] I'll need to defer to Mr. Men's.

[1:31:23] I don't recall any rail being directly on the site.

[1:31:28] I know from a previous case review that there is rail up here in this area.

[1:31:37] Oh, yeah, right around here.

[1:31:43] The north-fong property, right?

[1:31:47] So the best thing to try and give you is I know there's rail nearby,

[1:31:50] but I don't think there is rail directly on the site.

[1:31:52] Oh, is there a rail yard, I'm sorry. I stay corrected on this small parcel here. There are two rail lines. Actually, I think short lines are connected to CSX. How do we I thought they're connected to CSX, but I am not sure to be on. I don't think they're short lines. So it's interesting. Yeah.

[1:32:15] As Mr. Men's identified a user, be curious?

[1:32:20] I don't know, and I'll need to defer to you.

[1:32:22] Okay. Thanks.

[1:32:23] Any other questions?

[1:32:26] I was given the, it's not the actual petition, but it's the, I guess the, well, maybe it is.

[1:32:35] Anyway, it says, I'll read this. It's not that long.

[1:32:38] Dear Planning Commissioners and County Commissioners, I am writing to request the complete

[1:32:42] denial of both men's crossing areas, LDCT-2025-15, LDCPAL-2025-7.

[1:32:53] The proposed development would introduce a large high-density residential community into

[1:32:58] a rural agricultural and industrial area that does not have the land conditions or infrastructure

[1:33:03] necessary to support it safely and sustainably.

[1:33:06] portions of the proposed development in surrounding homeowner properties are located within

[1:33:13] FEMA, Flood Zone A, residents already experienced flooding and city water doing ordinary rainfall.

[1:33:20] The property is previously phosphate mine land and uneven terrain and low line areas that remain

[1:33:28] every teen water developing this land could worsen drainage conditions and re-direct

[1:33:34] water into neighboring homes, farms, pastures, and roads. The shrining roads already carry residential

[1:33:40] residents, school buses, agriculture, equipment, commercial vehicles, and heavy industrial uses.

[1:33:48] The proposal also raises serious concerns about water supply.

[1:33:52] Redemoisect emergency access, schools, utilities, fire rescue, law enforcement,

[1:33:58] and the cumulative effects of continued high-density development. Changing in

[1:34:02] In 1902, General Assembly passed throughスト leaders and four chưaers who хотел what

[1:34:06] was on the right to sake.

[1:34:12] And at that time, talking about what contenance committee members did, we also

[1:34:24] heard a time machine called Teedge's education commission, realms of growth.

[1:34:31] support it without harming existing residents. Please listen to the citizens who know this area

[1:34:37] and live with these conditions every day. I respectfully ask that the Poked County Plank

[1:34:43] Commission and Poked County Board of County Commissioners deny in the cases of 2025-15-257

[1:34:50] in their entirety. It's sincerely Katie Marshall and it looks like there is 490-8 names attached to that.

[1:35:00] It's hard. I was wondering if there was some way to distinguish their opposition, but from that, you can't. It's like thanks for all of it.

[1:35:10] 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.

[1:35:21] And I don't believe it can be entered as competent and substantial evidence either.

[1:35:26] So the email itself and the reasons listed can be considered citizen testimony.

[1:35:32] The number of signatures is not relevant.

[1:35:35] Populatory polls and petitions are not competent.

[1:35:37] Substantial evidence Florida law is clear on that.

[1:35:41] But as far as the issues raised, those can be given merit as a layperson testimony.

[1:35:48] And then of course anyone here today.

[1:35:50] And the interest of time, then we may have to get other people up here to speak, but I'm

[1:35:57] going to recommend that we just move this onto the county.

[1:36:00] Commissioners without a recommendation, because I don't know that anybody knows what's

[1:36:05] going on.

[1:36:08] I think I'm going to speak for the board of committee members, and I think that they would

[1:36:12] like to have a recommendation from their planning commission, and to clarify.

[1:36:18] And I think the reason staff went ahead and accommodated the request for today, at least

[1:36:25] to let the planning commission decide if they want to hear it or continue it, is because

[1:36:31] it's not a case and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but if not a case of items are changing

[1:36:37] within the application, it simply pieces of the application are coming off.

[1:36:41] So if you consider the entire application, now all you're being asked to do is to just

[1:36:48] not consider portions, but a portion of it is the exact same, and that's the industrial.

[1:36:52] That's the 1261 square feet of industrial.

[1:37:03] All I say, I've got to come forward, please.

[1:37:13] Good morning.

[1:37:16] Let me see.

[1:37:17] Could you have a slideshow?

[1:37:18] Yeah.

[1:37:18] Okay.

[1:37:27] So, thank you, commissioners.

[1:37:30] My name is Tom Mills.

[1:37:31] I'm the applicant.

[1:37:32] I think you're good.

[1:37:33] Good morning, address points?

[1:37:34] Yes.

[1:37:34] for 39 South Florida Avenue, like 3381.

[1:37:39] I think you're gonna find it's actually pretty straightforward.

[1:37:43] And that's the reason why I wanted to give you the booklet so you could actually

[1:37:49] see as we're going through the slide presentations.

[1:37:52] But where we have come from is important.

[1:37:56] So a lot of people would like you to believe that this is agricultural rule in its

[1:38:02] This is from 2000, you can see the extensive mining taken place on the west side of the site.

[1:38:15] This is 2007, you can see the extensive mining taken place on the right side, which is on the east side of this.

[1:38:24] And then I want, how do you give it?

[1:38:26] Is that laser?

[1:38:30] They can't?

[1:38:32] So if you look on this piece here, you will see, basically,

[1:38:40] a creed system that goes through the center that I'll

[1:38:43] explain more to you that actually bifurcates the east from the west

[1:38:48] on the site.

[1:38:50] This is 2025, so in 2017, the site was reclaimed and released from DEP.

[1:39:00] We actually did the reclamation, but the important aspect here is that the lights you

[1:39:06] see on here aren't actually lakes.

[1:39:09] Those are permitted ERP, their ERP uses, which means, I'm sorry, which means that you

[1:39:20] You can utilize those for onsite mitigation.

[1:39:24] You can use those for storm water retention, and you can utilize those for what we are

[1:39:32] also talking to the water management district about is a reservoir, which can be used for

[1:39:39] additional water.

[1:39:40] They're very supportive of an alternative water supply system that does not address the upper

[1:39:48] Florida. As you all know, presently on this site we have a water use permit of 317,000 gallons

[1:39:59] a day.

[1:40:00] So, we will go. So, Mark mentioned this. This was the original. We've been working on this for two and a half years.

[1:40:13] So, the concept originally was to try to create a high part-pipe environment, where you would have the commercial uses along 640, mainly at the two corners of 37 and 640, but be the main one.

[1:40:29] It's 5,200 units, but as Mark alluded to, there are water constraints and sewer constraints

[1:40:38] with a development of the size.

[1:40:41] However, I can tell you the concept is good and it was real.

[1:40:47] Stan Pack did the layout of this, and it certainly had a lot of merit.

[1:40:54] For the direction we wanted to go, and it would have been a significant benefit to

[1:40:59] area. However, it did propose 17,000 units, so it would have been 50,000 people, 2 million

[1:41:07] square feet of commercial and 70,700,000 office.

[1:41:14] We then moved to this layout, which you

[1:41:19] can see in the maroon type, that is the industrial and the residential is in the yellow.

[1:41:30] However, we wanted to modify that to just get to the industrial.

[1:41:35] That's the reason why this is a fairly straightforward application.

[1:41:39] As you see in the staff report, and I'm going to demonstrate this in a minute, you can pretty much

[1:41:44] bifurcate between the residential and the industrial.

[1:41:51] This is the existing plan, and what is important to note is that the maroon area does not

[1:42:00] But any type of residential whatsoever,

[1:42:05] it is a budding, all phosphate mining land uses.

[1:42:09] And along 37, it is a budding, actually, industrial.

[1:42:14] It runs all the way along 37.

[1:42:17] And there's extensive, there's extensive industrial in the area.

[1:42:23] You had mentioned, somebody mentioned about the railyards

[1:42:27] and the rail lines.

[1:42:29] These are CSX rail lines that the bottom right hand corner of the purple on the map.

[1:42:37] You will see that is a rail yard is very extensive.

[1:42:43] We're going to see some pictures of that in a few minutes.

[1:42:46] The rail line runs all the way from mulberry down to make those end of mosaic and then continues on.

[1:42:56] And then in the northern corner is another rail line that also is a CSX rail line.

[1:43:08] The surrounding uses all parcels to the east are industrial.

[1:43:14] Highway 37 is a buffer to the south county grid, 640.

[1:43:19] And to the west phosphate mining and industrial uses.

[1:43:22] To the north you also have phosphate mining.

[1:43:25] No portion of the property is as stated as adjacent to residential.

[1:43:31] In fact, the Mulberry Chamber of Commerce says this, there is a lot of hometown support for the upcoming growth and essentially located Mulberry.

[1:43:41] Although we are a small city, we have an abundance of large industry that keeps us going.

[1:43:47] So, one of the things with regards to the petition, if you go back to the petitions that we're asked,

[1:43:53] 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.

[1:44:02] And we'll get into that aspect in a few minutes.

[1:44:09] The properties located south of Mulberry as stated.

[1:44:16] The area is a road that our adjacent is basically state where the 37, it's 640, and

[1:44:21] the highway is 37, which are collector roads in major arterial roads.

[1:44:28] This is giving an example.

[1:44:30] This is new whales.

[1:44:33] This is located on phosphate mining land, which all of the property that we're talking about

[1:44:39] allows this use with a floor area ratio of .75 which is very high. The uses on the existing

[1:44:51] property are heavy industrial. There's no question about that and we're about to see more.

[1:45:01] We've talked about residential. The existing land use already has industrial and commercial uses on

[1:45:12] it under PM. On the local, whether if you like it or not, allows the highest density in the

[1:45:25] housing. That is already allowed on that property. So anybody opposed to residential

[1:45:32] uses this law was passed in 2023 that allows you to put these densities, street

[1:45:41] stories high buildings.

[1:45:45] And it can go higher if there's a building within one mile

[1:45:50] this higher than three stories.

[1:45:53] So you're looking at residential uses that are the most

[1:46:00] intensity in the county already allowed under industrial

[1:46:05] and commercial uses, which clearly pion is industrial.

[1:46:11] The mining site, the water,

[1:46:18] the on the site, we actually have on-site wetland mitigation areas,

[1:46:28] which are the areas that we showed you on the lake system, thank you.

[1:46:43] So the areas that we showed you on the lake system in the middle actually is an on-site mitigation area.

[1:46:52] They are not wetlands that they are used to offset any wetland impacts that you have on any property from here all the way to Tampa Bay.

[1:47:05] So that is already an existence on this property and you can use them if any wetlands are impacted on this site as well.

[1:47:13] However, however, the use of those lakes for stormwater ponds is a huge benefit for this site,

[1:47:23] because most sites do not have on-site stormwater, they have to build them.

[1:47:29] This is a major stormwater ponds system, if we choose to go that route, or we will probably

[1:47:36] do a combination of a reservoir and stormwater ponds.

[1:47:40] You know, probably read a few days ago in the paper where Paul County won a settlement agreement

[1:47:50] with Tampa Bay Water on 12 million gallons of water a day coming out of the LFI River.

[1:47:56] That's going to come out of this point very close to this location.

[1:48:00] So, and I will probably be able to show you on a different map, but pretty much every wetland

[1:48:08] that appears to be a wetland on here is either a well-immitigation part of our well-immitigation

[1:48:15] bank or part of an ERP permit that allows us to actually fill that lake if we want to fill

[1:48:21] it. So we can go in there and fill these areas if we chose to do that. We're not going to do that

[1:48:29] because we want to use it for other uses but that is an allowable use pretty much on every lake you see

[1:48:36] there. They're all within the ERP or the wetland mitigation bank.

[1:48:43] We talk about the history

[1:48:44] of this area. This area has been mined for 100 years. This property, even though you saw

[1:48:52] it mined in 2020, had been mined multiple times for the past since 1914, these buildings have

[1:49:00] and other buildings like it in the area have been built.

[1:49:05] And this one is located north of this site in his recently

[1:49:11] in the 2000s, been an operation, same with this one.

[1:49:16] All of these structures show you just how intensive

[1:49:21] the industrial uses are in this area.

[1:49:23] This is Mosaic's Fossy Pond, which is located also north of the site along Anderson Road.

[1:49:34] Same, the piece to the west of here, this is north of the site along Anderson Road.

[1:49:39] You can see the rail line that runs the perimeter here as well.

[1:49:46] This is Mosaic's Fossy Fogips and Stack to the south as well.

[1:49:52] This is just north of this site along Anderson Road, this is a sand mine area.

[1:50:01] This is adjacent to our property. In this commission, recently, or in the past three or four years, voted to allow a salvage alarm guard to go adjacent to our property as well as a conditional use on the west side of the property, along 37.

[1:50:21] This is the intersection of 37 and 640.

[1:50:27] By the way, let me go back.

[1:50:29] That north, I mean south, west corner.

[1:50:34] We're not where the red truck is, but the one in front of him,

[1:50:37] that is also his own industrial.

[1:50:40] This corner parcel right here is zoning industrial

[1:50:44] and our property that we're requesting to change for is directly behind this piece.

[1:50:51] This is Tico solar farm, you can see they have multiple solar farms in the area.

[1:50:57] This is another one that is just north of the site that they've recently completed.

[1:51:05] The extensive rail lines you can see as well in the area.

[1:51:09] This is the rail yard that is on 37.

[1:51:14] 7. You can see it right there on 37.

[1:51:21] This is the one that is right on 640 just closer

[1:51:28] to where we are. And that piece right there is approximately 130 acres in that is undenastrile

[1:51:36] as well to the just to the south of us. This is the new Wales plant that property line

[1:51:44] but our property to the south west of our site.

[1:51:51] So this will give you an idea of just how many residents we've added here in

[1:51:56] bulk County and this gives an opportunity to bring jobs. As you can see, the Central Florida

[1:52:03] Region of Planning Council has been very supportive of industrial uses and in getting bigger

[1:52:11] uses to the area, right here, they need ready-made market

[1:52:16] ready industrial and manufacturing sites.

[1:52:22] They also say that for the, this site here is 216 acres,

[1:52:31] and it is contiguous with, it has the roads.

[1:52:36] It has utility, there's a large transmission line that runs

[1:52:40] right through the center of this piece of property.

[1:52:43] It has storm water systems in place as buffers.

[1:52:49] Mulberry in industrial development.

[1:52:53] It talks about the city's direct access to state road 630.

[1:52:57] And 37 is a critical economic asset.

[1:53:02] Mulberry, everything that's state from their own website,

[1:53:08] from the Chambers website talks about bringing industry to this area and rightfully so this area

[1:53:15] is heavy industrial. You can look at the uses. This is very important because it shows you just

[1:53:24] how similar the industrial and PM land uses are you solve a mosaic plant. You can build on this site

[1:53:33] right now, the most intensive industrial uses in the code.

[1:53:40] It goes right down in comparison.

[1:53:45] So you can see how similar they are.

[1:53:49] The Polk County, because the phosphate mining is moving away,

[1:53:54] although Mosaic's plant will be there forever,

[1:53:57] is moving away from the PNLan use

[1:53:59] in trying to get other uses for those sites, and that, this is a natural transition to that.

[1:54:07] As you can see, it continues on.

[1:54:10] It's not just one or two uses that are similar.

[1:54:13] It is almost the entire list that are identical uses within the code, and these are allowed

[1:54:21] right now today, even on the suburban areas that are directly behind any residential house

[1:54:29] they were complaining about.

[1:54:31] But behind their houses, also you can put the live local

[1:54:35] in how expensive dense, dense, dense housing

[1:54:41] under the live local life.

[1:54:45] This shows some financial benefits as well as

[1:54:47] the benefits for Southern Polk County, surrounding

[1:54:52] compatible uses.

[1:54:54] If you look at the compatibility, it says compatibility

[1:54:57] states that the land shall be developed.

[1:54:59] So the...

[1:55:00] The adjacent uses are compatible with each other, pursuant to the requirements to other policies in the future land use element, so that one or more of the following provisions are accomplished.

[1:55:11] A, there have been provisions made which buffer and compatible from dissimilar uses. The land use change we're seeking today is from PM to industrial, those are similar uses.

[1:55:25] And it says, one or more,

[1:55:31] in compatible uses are made to be more compatible to each

[1:55:35] other through limiting intensity and scale of the other intensive uses.

[1:55:40] This is an applicable since the adjacent uses have the same intensity.

[1:55:46] And then see uses are transitioned through the gradual scaling of different land use

[1:55:51] activities through the use of innovative development techniques such as the Plane Unit Development.

[1:55:58] This is not applicable because the adjacent uses are the same and very similar.

[1:56:05] If you go to the comprehensive plan on compatibility, it states under 4.4, a condition

[1:56:12] in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other and a stable

[1:56:17] fashion over the time that no uses or conditions are undoubtedly negative impact directly or

[1:56:23] directly by another user condition.

[1:56:27] The uses being proposed have been on the site long before any homes are in the area.

[1:56:34] It's been mined in the homes if any to the north of the site were there.

[1:56:39] Most of these were built for mining towns.

[1:56:43] They were mining communities at the actual mining industry built and put there to be used for their workers.

[1:56:51] That's clearly the case towards Anderson in the 676, which is north of this area.

[1:57:02] You can see that the IOMC processing chemical plant remnants, these are sites along 37.

[1:57:10] I'm going to move through them pretty quick.

[1:57:11] This is north of the site on 37.

[1:57:13] 7, 37 is highly industrial.

[1:57:22] One of the things I wanted to bring to your attention was if you go to the staff report,

[1:57:29] because I do think that the staff report is broken up between the industrial uses, and you

[1:57:37] to page 26, you will see that the use that we're changing to, because of the 7.75

[1:57:48] far that is allowed under PM, you actually see a reduction in average annual daily trips that

[1:57:57] allowable for this land use of PM, go from $148,922 per day to $49,686.

[1:58:09] And it's because of the far, you're allowed greater densities

[1:58:14] in use of the property under PM.

[1:58:17] If you go over to maximum allowable use of square

[1:58:23] footage, it almost cuts in half.

[1:58:25] It goes from 41 million square feet under the existing land use, to 27 million square feet under the industrial.

[1:58:36] So it's almost half of the amount of the two and you see water consumption between phosphate mining is actually,

[1:58:45] if it were completely built out to the maximum capacity, which I can tell you with industrial, that's just not the case.

[1:58:52] We have a lot of experience with industrial.

[1:58:55] You don't typically see that.

[1:58:56] However, south of us, Mosaic,

[1:58:59] actually has a permit for 18 million gallons a day,

[1:59:02] here's something.

[1:59:05] So you see that the water use is actually decrease.

[1:59:08] So I would say that the uses from industrial to PM actually

[1:59:14] are decreasing in less intensive or the same.

[1:59:19] There's certainly less intensive in what you can build.

[1:59:22] But they are less intensive in traffic, water consumption, sewer consumption, et cetera.

[1:59:34] I think this is a clear, if you looked around the county for a site for industrial, I don't

[1:59:40] think you'd find one better than this site for that kind of use.

[1:59:47] And regardless of what the neighbors want with regards to not having residential, the law that got passed is a game changer.

[2:00:00] On that, and it's unfortunate to me that that did pass, but it did. However, it is applicable and you can

[2:00:10] have the most intensive residential uses on the side already. So I'm open for questions if you'll

[2:00:18] have any.

[2:00:21] Sir Chair, I have two things I wanted to clarify. First, I think there was a lot of testimony

[2:00:27] by the applicant appreciated that might be considered opinion which can be considered if the

[2:00:33] witness is qualified as an expert. However, if the witness is not qualified as an expert,

[2:00:39] the opinion testimony as I said in my opening comments aren't competent substantial evidence.

[2:00:44] So if the commission wants to consider the applicants testimony, there may be a motion or

[2:00:51] consideration of whether the applicant is qualified and the applicant may want to speak to that.

[2:00:55] Yeah, I submitted my resume to y'all with regards to that.

[2:01:01] To give you an idea, I have over 35 years of land use change experience

[2:01:09] before this board, before the city of Lakeland, before Mallbury extensive.

[2:01:15] I've testified the circuit court on land use applications of the Polk County

[2:01:21] comprehensive plan, as well as the land development code, when it comes to uses, it's gone

[2:01:31] from land use applications and I've been here to testify many of y'all have seen me here

[2:01:38] before, for industrial, commercial, residential. In addition to that, I don't know a company

[2:01:44] called the Elefile River Wetland Medigation Bank. We are actually the largest wetland

[2:01:51] mitigation bank in the Hillsborough County, I'll

[2:01:53] notify River Basin, which goes to Tampa Bay.

[2:01:56] I have extensive experience with regard to the environmental

[2:01:59] issues that are associated with wetland plants, wetland

[2:02:05] resources, hydrology, this entire area we saw through and

[2:02:13] actually help design the reclamation of that site and how

[2:02:17] those, we permitted those ponds in those areas to be utilized for wetland mitigation impacts

[2:02:26] for storm water for ERP application.

[2:02:31] So this is a site that has been planned for a very long time to achieve the big city that

[2:02:40] we've once proposed.

[2:02:41] Those retention areas would have worked fantastic for that use as well.

[2:02:45] So, I would say that I'm a licensed contractor, I have extensive experience with construction.

[2:02:52] We have done thousands of acres and reclamation of these types of sites that deal with the hydrology aspect of things.

[2:03:00] And that's our company, not just as a landowner, but our company has done them.

[2:03:06] So, I would say, and put forth in the resume, as you can see, that I definitely have experience

[2:03:14] with those planning and on the environmental research issues.

[2:03:18] Is there an interest in accepting his resume

[2:03:24] and his testimonies expert witness?

[2:03:29] No, I need a motion.

[2:03:32] Sounds like an expert to me.

[2:03:33] I'll make a motion to accept him as an expert witness.

[2:03:36] No, no, no, no, no, no,

[2:03:43] no.

[2:03:43] All right.

[2:03:45] All of every scene I would like to say.

[2:03:47] Bye.

[2:03:48] I'll pose the same time.

[2:03:49] You're an expert.

[2:03:51] And then the only other item I wanted to clarify, I think there's a statement by the applicant that the Florida statute delivered local act, which for the county's purposes is Florida statute 125.01055 applies to a phosphate mining, the county's phosphate mining union designation, the statute applies to commercial industrial and mixed use, so while the phosphate mining and industrial uses may be similar,

[2:04:19] or the statute does not mention

[2:04:23] live local applying to the phosphate mining.

[2:04:25] As I recall, and you may want to clarify this,

[2:04:28] but I believe it says industrial uses in the statute

[2:04:31] versus industrial, so phosphate mining clearly

[2:04:35] as an industrial type use.

[2:04:38] Right, I'll read the exact statute just so we're all clear.

[2:04:41] Accounting must authorize, and again,

[2:04:43] this we're not sure to consider

[2:04:44] multi-family that I just want to clarify.

[2:04:47] Accounting must authorize, multi-family,

[2:04:49] next use residential as allowable uses in any area zoned for commercial industrial or mixed use.

[2:04:57] I agree with that. Okay. Thank you.

[2:05:00] That's all my comments. Thank you for indulging me.

[2:05:08] Yes, I'm open for a question. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?

[2:05:16] Thank you.

[2:05:19] Seeing none is there, I'll open the hearing up and ask is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone?

[2:05:32] Okay, that makes sense for that next.

[2:05:35] 81 in opposed to this application.

[2:05:40] And yes, if you would come forward, please,

[2:05:43] and one is coming forward, I would just reiterate

[2:05:48] that the application, the applicant,

[2:05:51] has requested that his application be amended

[2:05:54] to include only a portion of the original request,

[2:05:59] And that is for the industrial only.

[2:06:03] Yes sir.

[2:06:04] Name an address.

[2:06:05] Where are you sworn in?

[2:06:06] What was that sir?

[2:06:07] Where are you sworn in?

[2:06:08] Yes sir.

[2:06:09] Name an address.

[2:06:10] My name is Anthony Childs.

[2:06:11] My address is Bluff Road Mobile.

[2:06:14] For the.

[2:06:15] Okay.

[2:06:15] My biggest question is,

[2:06:17] He keeps saying that live live local

[2:06:20] 2023 act.

[2:06:21] So basically if he does it.

[2:06:23] Industrial.

[2:06:24] He can build whatever he wants on on his.

[2:06:28] House is on his hand, am I right?

[2:06:32] You are correct for the standpoint of the statute that was passed, known as the

[2:06:40] liberalical act that does allow for residential development provided that at least 40%

[2:06:48] of leave is, does qualify for affordable housing?

[2:06:53] Yes, sir. My, my, my own question is what he's proposing bill. I don't, I have zero problems

[2:07:00] where about development. My biggest problem is what he's proposing to bill, what I saw is,

[2:07:08] is that it's twice the size of mulberry. It's twice the size of, of Fort Meat. The two nearest

[2:07:16] towns to us. We have one ambulance in the area and we, I mean, what can we do? The traffic

[2:07:26] is horrible. We have a two-lane road so we're going to build all this info, we're going to build

[2:07:32] all this stuff on a two-lane road

[2:07:38] that goes to from 640 to 37, what I understand and what I understand,

[2:07:46] And what my research is, it's about 28,000 cars a day now before we build this.

[2:07:55] I have no problem about building planning, because I know we always have to develop.

[2:08:02] But my biggest issue is we have to do it before we have to build a foundation before we

[2:08:08] can build a roof, or it will all come tumple in that.

[2:08:13] I mean, because they all say about the water issue,

[2:08:21] and I know like CDM workers like 800,000,

[2:08:25] and the water issue for me, it is like 700,000, they denied a data center because it would put them close to their point of water.

[2:08:37] So, and they want 1.5 to 2.5 million gallons of water a day,

[2:08:49] I mean, what can we do?

[2:08:54] I don't have any answers for you. I just wanted to get your comments. I'm pretty sure you're...

[2:08:59] I mean, for example, I mean, I have zero issue about building, but we need to do something.

[2:09:07] with the road, because it's a two-lane highway, and by DOT standards, it says,

[2:09:15] I would say how many as 10 to 15,000 people a day, roughly, and what I'm seeing is

[2:09:24] 25 to 30,000 people a day, travel at road. Now, we're putting another city out there,

[2:09:35] travel in the same road and we have one ambulance for all for all this we have

[2:09:45] We have fire engines, but we don't have one ambulance for the whole community

[2:09:51] And then our nearest ambulance put a half to come from

[2:09:55] Modella or

[2:09:56] Barker

[2:10:01] I mean, I understand. We just have to do something. I have no problem about building, but we have to, there has to be some kind of give and take.

[2:10:14] Thank you.

[2:10:15] You can't just, I guess you'll get 16-50 more seconds. And there has to be some kind of give or take. I mean, I just don't understand.

[2:10:26] I'm done. Have a good day.

[2:10:29] Anyone else in opposition?

[2:10:32] Mr. Chair, while they're coming up, I could clarify one thing, because this is a little confusing.

[2:10:37] I just want to make sure we understand.

[2:10:40] So the legislature has said, and it preempts the county.

[2:10:45] If the property was to be zoned industrial, the legislature's already determined that affordable housing in the criteria that they have in the statute is compatible.

[2:10:53] So that's nothing. The cleaning commission can consider.

[2:10:56] and making their recommendation as to this application.

[2:11:00] The only thing the planning commission is able to consider

[2:11:03] is whether the industrial uses that we have,

[2:11:06] because the application is to change to industrial,

[2:11:09] is whether the industrial uses are appropriate in this area.

[2:11:13] We can't consider whether affordable housing would be appropriate,

[2:11:17] because the legislature's already taken that out of the county's hands.

[2:11:20] What is the affordable housing for a poll?

[2:11:23] Yeah, no sorry your public comment portion is over

[2:11:29] Yes, ma'am. Okay, my name's Crystal Tim and I live in Pinedale, area and I did not get no mail at all from these companies

[2:11:38] I flood out there. Could you give us your address please? Yes, 310 line street

[2:11:43] Mallary Florida 3386. Okay, thank you. We've flood out there like crazy. It is as a cultural out there on

[2:11:51] 37 and 640 we have cow fields we have wild animals we have endangered animals out there that

[2:11:58] he did not even speak of he don't speak of the traffic. How bad it is at 4 o'clock in the afternoon

[2:12:06] I've laid out there three times at the green light just to turn left because we don't have no turn signal

[2:12:12] we have a turn lane but we don't have a turn light we are terrible with the traffic the watering out

[2:12:21] there and he don't even talk about the agricultural out there and we don't know what he is planning

[2:12:29] on to building if it's going to affect our animals or not, if it's going to affect my

[2:12:34] chickens, my cows, my sheep, my neighbors, goats, anything.

[2:12:43] We are not for this and I did

[2:12:45] sign that petition and there was 539 people that signed it within three days online.

[2:12:55] We are

[2:12:55] not for it. And he can say whatever he wants to say, but us residential people was there

[2:13:01] before they decided to do whatever they're trying to do. We've been there. We are the ones

[2:13:07] that live there. I would recommend you all to drive out there at four and five in the afternoon.

[2:13:14] Drive out there. Look at this stuff. And then he's over here talking about the false state mind.

[2:13:18] What about the chipsets? What are they going to do? How's it going to affect us? Do they know?

[2:13:24] That's not part of this effort.

[2:13:26] We've already been affected by this.

[2:13:27] And this is false fake murder.

[2:13:29] He's trying to take false fake land.

[2:13:33] That's false fake water that's all on that screen that he showed.

[2:13:38] All of his contaminated.

[2:13:40] All of it.

[2:13:42] I am done.

[2:13:43] Thank you.

[2:13:44] Anyone else speaking in the opposition?

[2:13:54] Good afternoon.

[2:13:55] Are you sworn in?

[2:13:56] Yes, I am.

[2:13:57] My name is Katie Marshall.

[2:13:58] I live off Anderson Road.

[2:14:00] My address is 3, 3, 7, 5 Anderson Road.

[2:14:04] I have prepared a speech, but now it's since this is kind of changed.

[2:14:07] I'm just going to kind of shoot from the hit here.

[2:14:11] However, I do a little off Anderson Road and would be directly affected by these areas.

[2:14:16] Now I know that his map now shows that it's changed.

[2:14:21] However, this hearing was previously postponed because of problems with the original notices.

[2:14:26] I was specifically told these cases would be re-avertized and the second set of mill notices

[2:14:30] would be sent yet as of yesterday. I have still not received them, neither has some of our

[2:14:35] neighbors. So that's your current concern. Everything will want to view. Public notices is not

[2:14:41] a technicality. It is required, so effectiveness citizens can know what their government is

[2:14:46] turning to consider and how the opportunity to participate before decisions are made.

[2:14:55] And

[2:14:55] of the information at all, which I think was why we, you know, to your...

[2:15:01] I think it does need to give time for our citizens to be a little bit more educated as to what he is proposing.

[2:15:09] Most of our citizens, I would say, is, you know, we're not going to stop all growth. I could sit here and, you know, tell you right now that it's

[2:15:17] stopping all growth, especially in Florida. I don't see that ever happening. I think responsible growth is what we need to be as our goal.

[2:15:26] This point I could not really tell you what's being proposed other than just that being changed to industrial.

[2:15:33] Yes, we do live around industrial. I've grew up in this area.

[2:15:37] I've been around the fall state mining. I've had families who work for them.

[2:15:40] And we deal with the fall state mine traffic every day.

[2:15:44] I hear the fall state mines running when I wake up in the morning.

[2:15:48] But at this point in time, I did choose to live there.

[2:15:54] However, one of the larger concerns, especially living off Anderson Road, is the flood plains and the wetlands,

[2:16:01] 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.

[2:16:08] I don't know if you can give this to you, but I do have some photos of our property.

[2:16:13] We do get inundated with flood water and not just during hurricanes, but, you know, throughout just our rainy season.

[2:16:20] We have a very, very valid concern as to what's going to happen with all this growth.

[2:16:27] It may change now that it's just industrial but I would like to have some more information as to what is this look like for our future.

[2:16:35] 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

[2:16:41] because there's not an actual plan in place now that it's changed.

[2:16:44] I just, I have a need more information to be able to communicate a little bit better as to

[2:16:48] you how this now would affect us compared to my prepared speech from, you know, all

[2:16:53] month long.

[2:16:54] I do appreciate you all taking the time to listen.

[2:16:57] Thank you.

[2:16:58] Thank you.

[2:17:00] Any well to speak in opposition to this request.

[2:17:07] Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion.

[2:17:12] The applicant.

[2:17:13] I'm going to catch a chance to you.

[2:17:14] Oh, okay, I'm so...

[2:17:15] I'm so...

[2:17:15] Respond.

[2:17:16] Yes.

[2:17:17] Please.

[2:17:21] Thank you.

[2:17:22] So, to answer some of the questions with regards to traffic.

[2:17:26] Traffic study has been done to determine that that is not an issue at this time.

[2:17:32] As you go through, and this is not just on this project.

[2:17:36] This is on any project you're dealing with, this any kind of large scale.

[2:17:39] That as you go through, if you do not meet your traffic study,

[2:17:44] doesn't work, then you may have to make as a developer improvements to that, roads or infrastructure.

[2:17:53] For example, on one of the first plan, the city concept that we were talking about, over time, those

[2:18:03] were then a large portion of 37 would have been converted to a four lane road.

[2:18:09] I mean, it's, you know, when you're talking 50,000 people, it will increase the need for road infrastructure.

[2:18:17] However, that's not the case here.

[2:18:20] 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.

[2:18:36] So, you heard testimony about you wake up in the morning and you hear the industrial activity

[2:18:45] and noise around you.

[2:18:47] That is the area.

[2:18:49] That is what is out there today.

[2:18:52] So, I think that with regards to the agricultural, there are cows on our property, but it's always

[2:19:01] been fostering mining. It's always for a hundred years that is what this property has been

[2:19:08] and it's had heavy industrial uses throughout that time period. So, I stand for any questions

[2:19:15] that you want me to have for this question of the Albuquerque. I'm just sitting here curious,

[2:19:22] are there any plans of what you're going to do now that the residential city concept is off the table

[2:19:30] So we will seek for industrial, like we're probably going to put a road through the center on the west side and sell like we sell on other parcels that we have five ten acre tracks for small industrial type uses that's

[2:19:46] That's your main, we find that there's a sweet spot out there for those five acre

[2:19:52] Small mom and pop type operations that want their welding and they want their different industrial uses

[2:19:58] And that's the end.

[2:20:02] And then the other land that's now off the table that we're not talking about, is there any thoughts on that down road?

[2:20:08] You know, we don't really have a specific thought on that right now.

[2:20:13] I don't have a specific thought on that.

[2:20:17] It's just with the things.

[2:20:20] I have a follow-up on that question. So you're planning on dividing it into five acre industrial sites.

[2:20:29] They five to ten, but yet then at the same time you can get somebody that wants

[2:20:35] Like we just sold down on matter five those curious you'll have a hearing before you all on a cement

[2:20:41] Think coming up. We sold a parcel that's thirty acres

[2:20:46] Right south of us first-sentent plan. I don't know if it's that one thirty acres is a little bit different than five acres

[2:20:52] That's right. I'm saying it will vary. I mean, we're not living in it to five to ten

[2:20:57] I'm just saying that that's a sweet spot, that that is where we find that we're selling

[2:21:01] the most industrial uses.

[2:21:04] South of this location on Jamerson Road, we have one, the three acres, and we're selling

[2:21:11] a lot of them.

[2:21:12] I mean, it's, but we do occasionally sell one that's 30 acres, so it's, you know, we would sell

[2:21:19] the larger track.

[2:21:20] It's just, that's where we find the market.

[2:21:30] Okay, thank you.

[2:21:31] So, I got a question of staff, and I don't have, since I know I have the code in front of me.

[2:21:38] Do you have, have you seen his handout that shows the comparison of uses between the PM and the industrial?

[2:21:51] Yeah, I'm okay. Do you agree with that?

[2:21:56] Yes, and no.

[2:21:57] But the conference of plan policy for phosphate mining says other uses and silvery to phosphate mining.

[2:22:05] So the list that you see with the checks have to be phosphate mining related to be permitted.

[2:22:12] But changing it to industrial allows uses that have no tied to phosphate mining.

[2:22:17] For example, you're going to hear a case later this year that Mosaic is proposing for a pipe extrusion plant.

[2:22:23] But they're changing it to industrial, but they don't have to at least for a timeline.

[2:22:28] So those uses that you see have to be related to phosphate mining for them to be developed.

[2:22:33] That's a policy that's what I thought, because I mean the problem question would be,

[2:22:37] well, why do you need to change it to industrial if you could already do all these issues?

[2:22:41] It gives them a brighter market, a wider market, a wider market, yes, yes.

[2:22:47] And Mr. Bishop, just to follow up, exhibit nine of the staff report page 53 contains a list

[2:22:53] of uses by level review for industrial and then page 54 contains a list of uses for

[2:23:04] phosphate mining. The so what of that is generally more uses are allowed in

[2:23:09] industrial than in phosphate mining.

[2:23:12] I got some.

[2:23:16] Okay.

[2:23:18] Any other comments or questions?

[2:23:22] Do we have a motion?

[2:23:32] I wanted to ask staff or our attorney

[2:23:35] about the second notification that went out.

[2:23:37] Some people were saying that that didn't, yeah.

[2:23:40] Do we find out about that?

[2:23:44] I don't personally.

[2:23:45] Yeah, I meant to ask staff that too, is there any,

[2:23:48] was there?

[2:23:49] There was a problem in the notification,

[2:23:51] was the reason that was continued initially,

[2:23:54] And we still heard some comments about notification.

[2:23:59] Just one of you have any response to that.

[2:24:07] Yeah, as far as notice, I pulled this slide up to sort of summarize it.

[2:24:16] We did send mailers out in July for the August hearing.

[2:24:20] And what was the distance of that?

[2:24:23] The distance that mailers go out?

[2:24:25] Oh, it's 500?

[2:24:27] Yeah.

[2:24:28] Yeah, 500.

[2:24:30] I know you typically, you can go further than that,

[2:24:32] but I just want to do a requirement, it's 500 feet.

[2:24:38] The reason for the continuous was that the legal ad,

[2:24:45] when in the paper, did not have the required map.

[2:24:49] Okay.

[2:24:50] That was the reason.

[2:24:51] Okay.

[2:24:52] Why there's a defect and notice and that's why I was continued

[2:24:56] Notice what subsequently put in the paper was there additional

[2:25:00] General mail notice set out. Yes. Okay. We also mail out 49 mailers on August 17th. Okay. So.

[2:25:12] And I also think that there's three, I think Ms. Howard has mentioned this in previous hearings. There's three forms of advertisement.

[2:25:19] So that one of them reaches the public. And I was one of the staff members that posted the signs on Anderson.

[2:25:26] Yeah, at this time staff is not aware of any deficiencies,

[2:25:30] let's notice.

[2:25:33] And we believe all the requirements have been met.

[2:25:38] OK, thank you.

[2:25:43] I'm not ready to make a motion yet.

[2:25:45] I'm just going to explain kind of where I'm thinking.

[2:25:48] I really, I wish that there had been time and communication

[2:25:52] between the applicant and the community,

[2:25:54] because we had community members coming up

[2:25:56] talking about things as if it was still part of this application.

[2:26:02] 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 property owner who has a massive piece of property that anybody who lives out there knew it 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 any kind of opinions? I'm still kind of tossed up.

[2:26:29] Well, I'll just say this, because I have had experience in dealing with phosphate mind property.

[2:26:36] And phosphate minding is in my mind, has always been considered a temporary use.

[2:26:42] I mean, you mind it.

[2:26:43] And there's multiple examples in Focany where phosphate mind is changed to other uses.

[2:26:51] even residential uses, recreation uses, environmental uses, industrial, commercial, you name it.

[2:27:00] There's multiple places, particularly South Lake and a lot of that.

[2:27:03] Most of that property on South Florida Avenue, when you get south of Shepherd Road,

[2:27:10] even Imperial Lakes and Christina, that was all mine.

[2:27:15] All that property south of Shepherd Road, all that commercial was formerly mine.

[2:27:19] So to say that it's always going to be phosphate mining is just not realistic.

[2:27:27] So from the standpoint of this is located some distance from existing development, but

[2:27:34] that's not to say that it can't develop and so my guess opinion is that probably one of

[2:27:41] the better uses of industrial land if it can support it is probably industrial because that's

[2:27:49] we've seen across, you know, from 60, between Bartoe and Mulberry, most of that property that

[2:27:56] we see industrial development on was formerly mine. So it's a matter of is this in the right

[2:28:03] location. I think the use is appropriate, is it the right location? And I'm not sure I have a

[2:28:12] on that. I mean, I think the use is, by being as a use as appropriate.

[2:28:21] Mr. Chairman,

[2:28:22] also, we need to keep in mind, we're making a recommendation to board of our county commissioners here.

[2:28:30] And you can, all of us can go attend that meeting as well, make our comments, but in the interest of time,

[2:28:38] Mr. Melem's did a great job of explaining what exactly he was doing.

[2:28:43] I was confused at the beginning, but I'm no more confused now.

[2:28:49] And I'd like to make a motion to approve LDPD-2026-12, and it's entire four of the

[2:28:56] residential, as amended by the applicant.

[2:29:00] Yes, sir.

[2:29:01] I think that's a wrong number.

[2:29:03] It's a wrong number.

[2:29:07] Now it's number 7, LBCPL 2025, that's the correct number, and just to clarify, that's just for a change from phosphate mining to land use change only.

[2:29:22] Yes, so I'll second that.

[2:29:26] Okay, motion second to approve the amended motion, amended application.

[2:29:31] Role College. Angel Sims.

[2:29:34] For the motion. Kevin Updike.

[2:29:37] For the motion. Chad Baron.

[2:29:39] For the motion. Brooke Egg Neenine.

[2:29:41] For the motion. Murl Bishop.

[2:29:42] For the motion. Cindy Jenna Mosso.

[2:29:44] For the motion. Shane Bevelard.

[2:29:48] I'm going to say that.

[2:29:51] Bevelard.

[2:29:52] There you go. For the motion.

[2:29:55] Motion passes.

[2:29:57] Thank you. Okay.

[2:29:58] Now we need action on

[2:30:00] 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.

[2:30:15] So we're making a motion to withdraw, please.

[2:30:20] Motion to accept the withdrawal.

[2:30:21] Motion to accept the withdrawal.

[2:30:22] I'll make a motion to accept the withdrawal of LBCT-202515 in just a second.

[2:30:32] Okay.

[2:30:32] All in favor of seeing what I'm the same eye.

[2:30:34] Aye.

[2:30:36] Those things fine.

[2:30:37] Okay.

[2:30:40] Nice, guys.

[2:30:40] Thank you.

[2:30:43] All right.

[2:30:43] Next on the agenda.

[2:30:44] Number nine is LDP-2026-12.

[2:30:47] It's the plant development request for 178 town hominets in Northeastern

[2:30:51] Polk County.

[2:30:52] Carl Rogus is your planner.

[2:31:17] Apologies.

[2:31:18] Sorry for the wait.

[2:31:22] If we can hold up just a second.

[2:31:31] We can be just a minute.

[2:31:32] Yeah, absolutely.

[2:31:34] I've gotten, I need time as well.

[2:31:45] Okay.

[2:31:45] Shane, I promise I'm going to get this right.

[2:31:47] I'm going to get this right.

[2:31:49] I don't really know.

[2:31:51] Because I know somebody else.

[2:31:52] I've got that name for years ago.

[2:31:53] Is that Italian?

[2:31:54] There.

[2:31:55] I should be able to say that.

[2:32:12] I'm very embarrassed that this moment, my grand mother would be here in the east.

[2:33:53] Presbyed.

[2:33:55] All right.

[2:33:55] Good morning.

[2:33:56] Kyle Roves-Witland Development, presenting LVPD-2026-12, the same I wrote in the plan development.

[2:34:02] The applicant is requesting a plan development approval for 178 multi-family townhold

[2:34:06] units, and I'm approximately 29.18 acres.

[2:34:09] The request includes increased density and reductions rear set back and the residential

[2:34:14] low one-futual land use district.

[2:34:17] On August 17th, 183 millers were sent to area property owners, three boards were posted

[2:34:21] on the property, August 17th, a legal ad was published in the late land and winter havens

[2:34:26] sun.

[2:34:27] On August 19th, staff has received no response from the public.

[2:34:30] Staff finds the request is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the

[2:34:34] comprehensive plan on land development code.

[2:34:36] Staff recommends approval.

[2:34:39] The subject site is located on the south side of Samai Road, North of Dean Still Road,

[2:34:44] south of Samai Road, east of Commonwealth Avenue, west of U.S. 27, Section 14, Township

[2:34:50] 25, Range 26.

[2:34:54] The subject site is located in the residential low one-putroland use district and the transit

[2:34:58] support of development area, through a system.

[2:35:00] 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.

[2:35:08] The density of women in the residential low one district in the north, US-27 selected area plan is up to eight dwelling units per acre by achieving at least 20 bonus points without planned development process.

[2:35:19] The planned development you have today's approval is not required for purposes of density, rather for the unit type and setbacks.

[2:35:26] I'm sorry would say that again, I'm just going to do.

[2:35:30] The plan development you have today is not for the increased density.

[2:35:34] It's already allowed within the future land use district in the north US.

[2:35:38] Okay, seven selected area plan.

[2:35:40] That is zero.

[2:35:41] Thank you.

[2:35:46] So all the majority of the site is within the transit supported development area.

[2:35:49] Apportion is within the world development area to the west.

[2:35:52] From a public investment standpoint, urban services, urban level services are expected and available

[2:35:57] at this location.

[2:35:58] This property was originally part of the required open space for PUD99904 when Density was limited to 4 units per acre and 50% open space was required.

[2:36:10] In 2001, the North US Highway 27 selected area plan was amended and development in the residential load districts were permitted to achieve up to eight dwelling units per acre with only 30% open space.

[2:36:20] In 2018, PD-801 requested to remove the property from PD-904 and approve development in its place.

[2:36:30] PD-801 was planned for 184 short-term rental town homes and associated amenities.

[2:36:37] On February 7, 2018, the case was heard before the planning commission with staff recommendation of approval with conditions.

[2:36:43] The planning commission denied the case with a 6-1 vote.

[2:36:48] This request will remove the property from PD904 once again, and improve a new development in its place.

[2:36:55] The proposed development will continue a residential town home development, because seeing of 178 units.

[2:37:01] This request is less than the previously heard case, lowering the overall density of the site,

[2:37:06] and it is important to note that short-term rentals are not a part of this request.

[2:37:12] Two of the abutting developments are multifamily town homes, the same as the proposed, with similar densities as well.

[2:37:17] The green-bay mine borders the western side of the proposed development, but there will be no mining activity nearby

[2:37:23] Is there significant amount of land under a conservation easement held by the state of Florida that provides much distance between mining activities in the residents

[2:37:32] 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 resident

[2:37:40] So the unit's directly, but in the subject side, is 22 units.

[2:37:44] How identified is lots, 31 through 52.

[2:37:47] It will be these units here, off of New Hampton Road.

[2:37:53] Here's the site plan for the record.

[2:37:55] The total density proposed is 7.462 units per acre,

[2:37:59] with mixed units that include 128 foot wide lots,

[2:38:03] and 54 foot wide corner lots.

[2:38:07] The setback for the proposed development,

[2:38:08] as the pick that on the site plan, will be front, 25 feet,

[2:38:11] side 10 feet and the reduction to the rear step back from 15 to 10 feet.

[2:38:17] The submitted site plan shows proposed type B landscape buffers, along the single family

[2:38:22] residences to the south and east of the site, along with a type A landscape buffer,

[2:38:26] along Santa Mayan Road.

[2:38:30] While the request is compatible with the surrounding area,

[2:38:33] as the residential densities are very similar to what is being requested.

[2:38:36] The argument can be made for incompatibility with the multi-family town home

[2:38:40] developments about a single-family detached units. According to the site plan, there's

[2:38:45] a approximately 640 foot strip of single-family homes about in the multi-family is anticipated

[2:38:50] to have the most incompatibilities. As part of the applicant's mitigation techniques, it

[2:38:56] required type be landscape buffer separates the developments in addition to changing grade.

[2:39:01] Multi-family developments set on a single grade where a single or multi-family development

[2:39:06] it on a single-rad, red single-family developments can vary in grading.

[2:39:12] The proposed town-oems are 336 feet in height, making the development in minimum two

[2:39:17] stories high, providing single families, the lower-grade separation from the town-home

[2:39:21] developments to the Highland Reserve, or offset any inter-patipology

[2:39:25] of these different structures structure heights.

[2:39:31] It has been mentioned previously that only 22 single-family homes

[2:39:34] directly about the subject site.

[2:39:37] However, of these 22 homes, only 11 single family homes along that 604 foot boundary will

[2:39:42] butt town homes at a ratio of 2 to 1.

[2:39:45] These town homes are situated in development blocks, with no greater than 16 units wide

[2:39:50] without separation.

[2:39:52] This design condenses the town homes, leaving portions of the open space between the blocks,

[2:39:56] providing it break in the design.

[2:40:00] A ratio of two to one, the single family dwellers will have two neighboring faith, two neighbors facing their

[2:40:05] backyards, where they have enjoyed a vacant and highly vegetated property since 2001.

[2:40:12] Here is the amenity plan, an open space plan submitted for the record, for a multiple type

[2:40:16] one in type two amenities ranging from top lots to multi-use trails surrounding the stormwater retention

[2:40:22] ponds. The site has exceeded the minimum amenity requirements of 178 points. All recreation spaces will be connected by

[2:40:29] sidewalks, and all lots will be within 1,300 feet walking distance to these amenities.

[2:40:36] Residential developments within the rural, special production area greater than 4-0 units per acre

[2:40:41] must provide a minimum open space set aside of no less than 40 percent of the total area.

[2:40:47] The submitted site plan shows 12.73 acres of open space, which equates to approximately 43.63%.

[2:40:54] The request meets the parking requirements outlined in table 710, so the land development

[2:40:58] code and the additional parking spaces required for developments exceeding 5 doing and it's

[2:41:03] per acre from table 3.48 in section 303 of the land development code.

[2:41:11] One access point is proposed office sign my road has been identified on the site plan, sign

[2:41:16] mine road has a capacity to support 880 peak hour trips and available capacity for an additional

[2:41:23] 554 trips eastbound and 567 trips westbound.

[2:41:27] before the link service level is degraded.

[2:41:29] Until the traffic study is complete,

[2:41:31] at the time of level two review,

[2:41:33] there is no immediate way to gauge the exact impact

[2:41:35] the development will have on each road link.

[2:41:37] However, the portion of the 36 vehicles

[2:41:39] exiting the site during PMPIC hour traveling north

[2:41:43] on US27 will likely be the least of all travel

[2:41:46] directions since it's counter to the normal travel

[2:41:48] former residential developments.

[2:41:54] This development will be required to connect to water

[2:41:56] and sewer, the site is serviced by the North East region,

[2:42:00] recently utility service area, and has adequate capacity of water and wastewater.

[2:42:04] The nearest available line is to the serve.

[2:42:06] The proposed development is a 10-inch portable main on the North East corner of the property,

[2:42:10] located on the south side of Samline Road.

[2:42:13] The same 10-inch portable main will service the townhome developments to the north.

[2:42:18] A public lift station is located approximately 440

[2:42:21] when you're feet north of the property were a 4-inch and 8-inch sewer line

[2:42:25] converged for their surrounding developments.

[2:42:31] If we're proof for the request of PD,

[2:42:33] the items listed on the screen will need to be reviewed by staff during the level 2 phase.

[2:42:37] This includes flood study, species walkover and a major traffic study.

[2:42:41] Sidewalks will be required along the front edge of the site along Santa Minor Road.

[2:42:48] And staff finds that plan is compatible with the surrounding uses.

[2:42:51] There are a number of developments to the north and northeast that have similar densities and unit types.

[2:42:55] It meets or exceeds the all-plan development standards, it meets the goals and sections of the comprehensive plan of land of home.

[2:43:01] I request that the presentation be submitted to the record and with that I'll stand for questions.

[2:43:07] Any questions or staff?

[2:43:10] I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. Those are 11 houses in the back.

[2:43:15] The two-story townhouses, they're mitigating that kind of view down in the backyard with an additional buffer.

[2:43:23] Yes, so there is a required from Section 720 of the land development code multi family, which is how we're classifying the town homes, does require a type elanscape offer when inviting single family.

[2:43:34] So they are proposing that type elanscape buffer along this entire 604 feet boundary that abuts that highlands reserve development.

[2:43:43] but of that 664 fee, you only have 11 homes along this southern boundary that will be

[2:43:50] directly having neighbors in their backyard. They're using the stormwater drive

[2:43:54] upon in addition to that required landscape buffer, type landscape buffer, to mitigate for

[2:44:00] those other 11 homes to the south. Great, thank you. And has the school board been

[2:44:05] on discussed with us to the increase on children in that area in the schools available.

[2:44:14] The schools and listed capacity have been identified on page if I can put through quick enough

[2:44:21] on page 10 of the staff report.

[2:44:25] Yes.

[2:44:26] She's here.

[2:44:26] Yes.

[2:44:27] Good morning.

[2:44:27] Melissa's last seen our school board.

[2:44:29] They actually did a non-binding school concurrency letter.

[2:44:33] and it should act at this point, it does have capacity.

[2:44:36] Of course if this does get approved,

[2:44:38] during the level two, they'll have to apply

[2:44:39] for the binding and currency letter

[2:44:41] to make sure they're invested for the project.

[2:44:43] Perfect, thank you.

[2:44:44] You're welcome.

[2:44:48] Any other questions?

[2:44:51] Yes, I actually have one additional question.

[2:44:53] So there's 11 homes that lined up, but up against it,

[2:44:57] what's the playing difference?

[2:44:59] The grading difference.

[2:45:00] Between the two. I don't have that information right now. That will be addressed during the level two review when we have more of an engineered site plan review. But to that point, the multi-family 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, a kind of mitigates or offsets, some incompatibility to that extent.

[2:45:27] Any

[2:45:31] other questions?

[2:45:36] Thank you.

[2:45:38] 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?

[2:45:48] First, I'm sorry.

[2:45:49] I'm getting ahead of myself again.

[2:45:52] Is the applicant present?

[2:45:55] Yes, sir.

[2:45:56] Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

[2:45:58] Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Kelly.

[2:46:00] I'm a land planning manager with the England Thames and Miller, we're E.T.M. for short,

[2:46:06] Reno Orlando, and we are the applicant, and also represent the property owner this particular

[2:46:13] development. There's some great questions about sort of the compatibility, the distance,

[2:46:22] between existing single family and our proposed project. I will say that the site design has

[2:46:28] It's definitely not been finalized.

[2:46:31] There's a tremendous amount of change and grade on that property

[2:46:34] primarily because it's been altered.

[2:46:36] It's a motor car off-site, lots of hills and bumps.

[2:46:41] There's about a two to three-foot difference in grade right now

[2:46:45] between the subdivision to our south and to our overall elevation

[2:46:52] along the property line there.

[2:46:53] but we definitely take into account concerns

[2:46:58] with single family to the south.

[2:47:01] And the building footprint that we're asking for

[2:47:03] and the setbacks are really the maximum.

[2:47:07] We don't have a product type for this site yet.

[2:47:10] So there's always a chance that the building pads

[2:47:13] will not exceed, will it cannot exceed the maximum,

[2:47:17] but they will be potentially smaller

[2:47:20] and the setbacks may actually increase,

[2:47:22] but we just don't have a particular product type at this time, but understand your concerns and

[2:47:28] happy to answer any other questions you might have.

[2:47:32] Thank you.

[2:47:33] Thank you.

[2:47:33] Any questions of the applicant?

[2:47:36] Seeing none.

[2:47:37] Thank you.

[2:47:39] Now, I'll open it up to the public.

[2:47:40] Anyone to speak in favor of the application?

[2:47:45] Seeing none, anyone to speak in opposition to this application?

[2:47:50] Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and emotion.

[2:47:55] I'm

[2:48:01] Mr. Chair. I move to approve L.D. PD-26-12. Angel Sims.

[2:48:09] Kevin Updack. Second. Motion. Second. To approve roll call please.

[2:48:14] Angel Sims. For the motion. Kevin Updack. For the motion.

[2:48:18] Chad Baron. For the motion. Brooke Agneany. For the motion.

[2:48:22] Marl-Beschott.

[2:48:24] Marl-Beschott.

[2:48:25] Cindy Giannamasso for the motion.

[2:48:27] Shane Bevela Quah.

[2:48:30] For the motion.

[2:48:32] Sorry, Shane.

[2:48:34] Motion passes.

[2:48:35] Thank you.

[2:48:39] Okay, nice to see you.

[2:48:41] All right, good morning.

[2:48:41] E&S, Land Development.

[2:48:43] Staff recommends approval of LDPD-2026-13 and request for 151 single family lots on approximately

[2:48:50] 58 acres in a residential low-one future land use district.

[2:48:53] For the record on August 17th, 45 males were sent to area property owners, and August 14th, 3 boards were posted, and on August 19th, illegal adverse published, staff has received one response and opposition.

[2:49:06] The subject side is located east of Alderman Road, north of west of Swindell Road, north of 5-4, and north of west of the city of Lakeland and section 18, township 28, range 23.

[2:49:15] The subject parcels are approximately 133 acres, but the project area will occupy approximately

[2:49:20] 63 acres of which 58 are upland.

[2:49:24] This is in the Itchapack Assass of Basin, described by the county as a strained or stressed

[2:49:28] basin because of constrained stormwater outfall.

[2:49:31] The site is in proximity to I-4, the Polk Parkway in U.S. 92.

[2:49:35] This is near major employment areas with multiple warehousing and distribution, manufacturing,

[2:49:39] and office uses low-cate along this I-4 corridor and down county line road.

[2:49:44] 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.

[2:49:56] R01 generally requires 40,000 square foot lots and densities of

[2:50:00] One-to-one unit per acre, given the location of this property and relation those major roads and employment

[2:50:05] opportunities, it is mapped within a transit corridor overlay by the Comprehensive Plan. This overlay allows

[2:50:11] densities here to range up to 25 dwelling units per acre.

[2:50:17] What is proposed today is a 151 loss with a

[2:50:19] density of 2.61 dwelling units per acre. These lots will be reduced to 6,000 square feet, but maintained

[2:50:25] the RL-1 setbacks, access is proposed on the Swindell and Alderman Roads.

[2:50:32] The Land Development Code requires a locational eligibility score for planned developments to

[2:50:35] determine the allowable density on a property based on proximity to infrastructure and

[2:50:39] environmental impacts.

[2:50:41] Potable water and wastewater adjacent to the site, there is access to an urban collector road

[2:50:45] way in Swindell, and the site is near retail and major employers.

[2:50:50] The proposed densities easily achieved after evaluating these factors.

[2:50:53] The PD process also requires a minimum of 20% open space, not counting wetlands.

[2:50:59] This is achieved through wetland buffers and hence landscape buffers and amenity areas,

[2:51:03] which will include passive recreation such as totlots, dog parks, and picnic civilians.

[2:51:08] In addition, there is anticipated to be 11 acres of stormwater facilities in five and

[2:51:12] half acres of wetlands of surface water.

[2:51:15] The PD process also requires additional parking areas beyond the two driveway spaces required

[2:51:19] pre-unit, this request meets that criteria, providing an additional 16 spots. The LDC requires internal

[2:51:26] sidewalks, 25-foot garage setbacks from an internal road-rights-way, pedestrian safety lighting

[2:51:31] at the entrance to the site and all lighting must be shielded or recessed.

[2:51:37] The clip on the right

[2:51:38] shows the proposed plan relative to surrounding uses. This is all single-family developments surrounding

[2:51:43] the property, to the east-west and north. Most of these are larger lots there than what is proposed

[2:51:49] and many of these were developed prior to the land development

[2:51:51] code and copper hence the plan.

[2:51:53] To address compatibility concerns, the applicant has

[2:51:55] posed the 25-foot wide type C-buffer along Ottoman road

[2:51:59] which provide additional separation between the proposed homes

[2:52:02] and those on the west side of Ottoman.

[2:52:04] Open space and type B landscaping is planned alone

[2:52:06] to eastern property line, where adjacent to larger acreage

[2:52:09] single-family residences, and the little red circles on the site

[2:52:13] plan are those additional parking areas.

[2:52:17] This is a brief impact assessment from the evaluations

[2:52:20] of available public services as a detailed and a staff report and short capacity as available

[2:52:25] in schools, utilities and on the surrounding roadways. Water and sewer will be provided

[2:52:30] by the City of Lakeland and all of this points the time limits of this development as required

[2:52:33] by the comprehensive plan and land development code.

[2:52:38] Can I last water view of the area? Again,

[2:52:41] there's this confluence of major roads here and nearby employment opportunities. Placing higher

[2:52:45] density development near these features is good planning. It reduces travel times for commuters and

[2:52:50] It incentivizes public transit opportunities.

[2:52:53] At the top left are the tests still to be reviewed during the level two review process.

[2:52:58] The stormwater plans are critical in this area and a major traffic study will be required

[2:53:01] to evaluate the impact of this development on the roadway network into identify any necessary

[2:53:06] improvements.

[2:53:09] Again, staff recommends approval is application, this is single family housing, a mid-single

[2:53:13] family housing, site plan demonstrates compatibility with surrounding properties through the

[2:53:18] layout and use of open space to buffer between larger existing lots.

[2:53:21] 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.

[2:53:32] Any questions or staff?

[2:53:36] Was the city a likeman bed fund?

[2:53:39] Yes sir.

[2:53:40] And as comments should be towards the end of the staff report.

[2:53:44] I believe I incorporated them here.

[2:53:46] And I know the applicants had conversations with the city of Lakeland 2.

[2:53:49] In the page 18 of the staff report of local instruments.

[2:53:51] Thank you.

[2:53:54] Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none of us out, I'm going to come forward.

[2:54:50] Good morning,

[2:54:50] Commissioner. It's for the record. My name is Bart Allen. I'm a land user attorney with the

[2:54:53] Petersen and Myers Law firm. I address his 225 East Limit Street Lakeland Florida. I'm here this morning.

[2:55:00] Half of the applicant felcon, felcon group. Before I get into my case, I wanted to just do a couple kind of

[2:55:09] housekeeping type things. One, I intend to go through most of the presentation this morning, but

[2:55:15] I do have Justin Ham, with us this morning, Justin is a professional engineer with the Kimlin

[2:55:20] who aren't engineering firm. He's been handling the site planning and the land of element issues on

[2:55:27] This project, he's a professional engineer and has been admitted by this board as well as the board

[2:55:32] of County Commissioner on Prior Occasions as an expert witness to the extent we need Mr.

[2:55:38] Pam to speak this morning.

[2:55:40] I'd like him to enter as an expert witness.

[2:55:42] I have copies of his resume in case anybody would like it for purposes of the record.

[2:55:48] Do I have a motion to that effect?

[2:55:51] I move to approve.

[2:55:52] Okay.

[2:55:53] Motion.

[2:55:53] Second.

[2:55:54] All in favor?

[2:55:55] I.

[2:55:55] Hi.

[2:55:57] Thank you very much.

[2:55:58] Again, to pleasure to be here this morning, I'm going to, we've been here for a little

[2:56:03] bit.

[2:56:04] It's already today.

[2:56:05] So I'm going to try and move through my slides.

[2:56:06] I tried to shorten them as much as I possibly could, but there are a few things that

[2:56:10] I think are important that we talk about related to this project.

[2:56:15] Mr. Nance has already given you the overview from the staff report, which I appreciate

[2:56:21] He's done a very thorough job, and you're going to see a little bit of duplication in some of my slides.

[2:56:27] That's become fairly common.

[2:56:29] We tend to touch on some of the same things.

[2:56:32] But he's really laid the groundwork from the Falcone group.

[2:56:36] This morning I have Mr. Ryan Williams.

[2:56:38] He's the Managing Director, and I'll give a little bit more background on Falcone as I go through my presentation.

[2:56:44] But he's been working with me on this project, and I've been working with him,

[2:56:49] as well as Kimley Horn from engineering.

[2:56:52] And that's just in Ham.

[2:56:54] Also, I've kind of lost here from Kimley Horn,

[2:56:58] who's been instrumental in a lot of the document prop.

[2:57:02] And then it would be remiss if I didn't mention the nights.

[2:57:06] Kara Knight is here with us this morning.

[2:57:09] You will touch on some of the history.

[2:57:11] We'll remember I've been in front of you before on this project

[2:57:14] on this property for a different project.

[2:57:17] But it's an honor to continue to represent the Knights and get to know them more as we've worked through these projects.

[2:57:27] Real quick, this is the property we're pretty familiar with it, Mr. Nancy's giving you the overview.

[2:57:33] 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.

[2:57:44] 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 for with the access that you have to the parkway, it's just a prime location to get in and out and live and be able to get to Tampa or be able to get into Lakeland, Orlando, you've got a great access at this location.

[2:58:13] A little history,

[2:58:18] Mr. Bishop, or Commissioner Bishop, we have been in a communication with the city of Lakeland prior to my time and involvement with the night property.

[2:58:30] It was previously proposed for annexation.

[2:58:33] This city was considering business part in industrial on this piece property, which that goes back to 2017.

[2:58:41] that that application ultimately was withdrawn.

[2:58:45] There was tremendous amount of pushback to that which I would believe is consistent with what you saw when we came through.

[2:58:52] 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.

[2:59:03] So they have, they've even commented in the staff report that they'd like to see this as a higher intensity use,

[2:59:09] multi-family in industrial even today in their comments relative to this application.

[2:59:17] But given this history and how much time we've had in it, having, I couldn't even begin

[2:59:24] to count how many public hearings we went through on this property at this time, but it

[2:59:29] was several, we've had community meetings and there has been no desire for industrial,

[2:59:36] So there's been more along the lines communicated of a residential development.

[2:59:42] And one of the reasons it has taken us, you know, year and a half to get back to you,

[2:59:47] with a plan or with a proposed development is, again, the nights want to be good stewards

[2:59:54] of the land and we'll talk a little bit about more of that as we go through this project.

[2:59:59] But...

[3:00:00] I'm finding the right developer, finding the right group to bring to the table was important to the nights in 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.

[3:00:16] 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 spend a lot of time in selecting their developer.

[3:00:26] This is the proposed request, again, Mr. Nance has run through all the details, but we're

[3:00:37] proposing two access points, one on Swindill Road, and then one also on Audermen Road, again,

[3:00:42] to kind of make sure that traffic flows appropriately.

[3:00:47] We're proposing landscaping and buffering, and we're meeting all of the criteria of your

[3:00:51] land development code.

[3:00:57] talk about where we are. Sometimes we want to talk about and get into issues that really are relevant

[3:01:03] more into the engineering design phase or more into the next stage. We're at the preliminary

[3:01:10] preliminary PD approval stage. We're proving the binding site plant. We'll talk about

[3:01:15] the densities and intensities and things like that. But we're up here in this front side of the process.

[3:01:22] There will be a tremendous amount of engineering that goes into the site.

[3:01:25] We are very familiar with this area, very familiar with the property, very familiar with it.

[3:01:30] Pakistan's database and our engineers have spent a lot of time in this application and prior applications working through those issues.

[3:01:40] So we're very familiar with all of those considerations.

[3:01:46] At this point in the process, the major traffic study, the ERPs, the protected species, reviews, all of those issues,

[3:01:55] are level two issues. However, we have a good grasp on where we are with all of those issues today

[3:02:00] because of the work that's gone on in the past, but also that's gone into this application,

[3:02:05] and I'm going to touch on a few of those as we get there. So again, what we hear today is to talk

[3:02:11] about the binding site plan for the PD.

[3:02:15] Mr. Nancy's touched on these issues too, but I think it's

[3:02:18] really important that we highlight this particular piece of property and where, because of where

[3:02:23] stands and where it sits within the county but also within the construct of our conference

[3:02:29] plan. The property on the left you can see and the red highlight that's effectively the

[3:02:38] PD that's in front of you. That's generally the boundary of the PD that's in front of you.

[3:02:42] It's entirely within the transit sport of development area. That's an area that your

[3:02:52] the services are there. They're not coming, they're there. You have three dwelling units in

[3:02:58] a criminal, seven dwelling units in a car max in the TSTA, and under some of the recent

[3:03:05] administrative interpretations, we're not talking about a density asker. This isn't about

[3:03:10] going, we have to go through the PD process. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not suggesting that.

[3:03:15] But the asker for the density is really granted by virtue of the fact that we're in the

[3:03:20] TSDA, and those intensities are what we're right in line with those, but also in line with

[3:03:28] those intensities, but trying to respect the character and the feel of the existing residents

[3:03:35] and the existing community and that area that is existed for a long time, and I know I keep

[3:03:42] saying I'm going to talk a little bit more about that, but I am, and I'm excited about it.

[3:03:46] This is the future land use on the right, again, residential low within your TSCA that allows us to go up to 2.0.

[3:03:54] It goes up to 7, where it 2.6.

[3:03:59] Transit corridors and centers, and another overlay district that we don't talk a whole lot about.

[3:04:06] But this property, all of the property is within the transit center.

[3:04:11] That is an area that the complaint really wants something more along the lines of 12 dwelling units in acre.

[3:04:16] Now, probably doesn't make sense on this site, given some of the physical constraints.

[3:04:22] You got compatibility issues and different things of that nature that you have to work through.

[3:04:26] But again, what is this map telling us?

[3:04:28] They're telling us we want to see some more intense development up in this area.

[3:04:32] We want to see that kind of growth occur here.

[3:04:37] Because this is where the services are.

[3:04:41] looking specifically into residential low. Again, just to show that we're being consistent with the conference of plans showing that we're meeting those those criteria.

[3:04:52] Residential load generally allows up to fog dwelling units in anger through a planned development. We're at 2.6.

[3:05:00] Based on the up-lendensity, mix of single-family residential low has a variety of single-family

[3:05:09] types. And that's what you see occurring on this piece property. You've got some of our

[3:05:13] drillots in the area. You've got some smaller drillots in the area. But it's all single-family.

[3:05:18] So we are sticking and we're consistent with the conference plan.

[3:05:26] We're here again. I know I talked

[3:05:27] about the TSTA and not needing to go through, not needing to evaluate density because of that.

[3:05:33] We are still evaluating consistency with the conference of plan, the land of element code,

[3:05:38] and compatibility in order to ensure that this proposed development meets all those criteria,

[3:05:45] going through your plan of element process.

[3:05:46] These are the three steps, and this is out of your land of element code as a relates to the standard

[3:05:52] overview.

[3:05:55] Because we're going through the PD process and most most of the folks on this board, Commissioner

[3:06:01] Bell Vevilakula, you're relatively new today.

[3:06:06] But there was the old PD standards where we evaluated a PD based on what's inside the

[3:06:12] development only, right?

[3:06:14] We're putting in just putting inside walks and those kinds of things.

[3:06:18] Forget what year it was, but staff, the Board of County Commissioner said, hey, we want

[3:06:23] to reevaluate how you look at PDs, and now before you look internal, you look external,

[3:06:29] because the external factors are going to drive what the allowable density should be on

[3:06:35] the site. So that's where you go through these three steps in your analysis. What's the location

[3:06:40] eligibility? Do you then, that's what, in the location all other eligibility are all external

[3:06:46] courses, utilities, roads, employment centers, all of those kinds of things, parks,

[3:06:54] wreck, all of the external factors that say, hey, are the services that you're

[3:06:57] to support the new project and then you get scored and we'll go through a little

[3:07:02] bit of that. Then once you determine what your potential score and your

[3:07:06] density is, then you look internal. Are we designing the project appropriately?

[3:07:11] Are we providing the appropriate and then in these an open space and things like that?

[3:07:15] So that's the new criteria.

[3:07:18] I took the new off of this slide because it doesn't feel as new anymore,

[3:07:23] but sometimes it's good to kind of look back on how we got here.

[3:07:29] So first the eligibility score and Mr. Nance went through it.

[3:07:32] There's a table and chapter three of your land of L.M.

[3:07:34] code that I'm not going to go through.

[3:07:35] It's about three pages all with identifying all the different scoring points.

[3:07:41] This site at minimum scores 13, potentially scores up to 25 points.

[3:07:45] We aired on the side of caution and stayed on the conservative side.

[3:07:50] 13 points gets us to three-and-a-half dwelling units in Acre.

[3:07:54] We're underneath that through the PD.

[3:07:56] Again, showing that the site is appropriate for, and the intensity of the site is appropriate for the location.

[3:08:05] Then, looking into the internal portions of the project.

[3:08:10] 20% open space requirement of the upland areas, so we're not counting.

[3:08:15] wetlands. We're not adding those acres into the calculation for open space. This site meets

[3:08:24] that. We've got 12.2 acres of open space. We are also providing 500 square feet per

[3:08:31] lot of recreation area. When you have a lot, I believe it's less than 80 feet. You have

[3:08:37] to provide that and all of our lots under 80 feet. So we're meeting all of your open space

[3:08:43] recreation criteria.

[3:08:47] This is just the map demonstrating compliance with your code.

[3:08:50] A couple of things I want to point out on here is you can see the green areas are the open space,

[3:08:56] blue or stormwater and wetland areas that we're not counting in the open space calculation.

[3:09:03] We're highlighting some of the buffers on this one and there's no way for me to show you where I'm

[3:09:13] along the Rears, we're proposing a Type-C buffer by code, a 25-foot-wide Type-C

[3:09:21] buffer. By code, that buffer is not required. There's no landscape buffer

[3:09:26] required between this right away or single family adjacent to single family

[3:09:30] just basically by code. So what you're seeing there is an enhancement over what

[3:09:34] your land of element code requires are ready.

[3:09:39] So again, providing the necessary

[3:09:41] open space for this project.

[3:09:44] Minity standards, we identify amenities in the different types.

[3:09:52] We have to provide one point for every home.

[3:09:56] This layout provides 225 points, so we're over and over.

[3:10:00] Inattizing at this point with the amenity package that's in there, you get to choose. We've identified

[3:10:06] three type two amenities within your plain development code to choose from, and those will be identified

[3:10:18] specifically at level two. But one of the reasons why, again, we kind of got into this excitement.

[3:10:29] with Falcone. Anyway, is that when you look at the amenity plan and you look at what they're

[3:10:35] trying to do and why they've selected them. Falcone's been in the state of Florida for almost

[3:10:39] 50 years developing. This is their first time in Polk. They haven't been here, so this is and

[3:10:45] they're a home builder too. So this isn't necessarily what we've seen in the past. If you know

[3:10:52] what I mean and I'm not name any names, but so this is a different program for what's going on.

[3:10:59] And one of the reasons why Falcon was picked was because they do a lot that is of their

[3:11:04] amenities and their theming of their neighborhoods are agricultural focused, which this

[3:11:10] area has had a lot of agriculture in the past.

[3:11:12] I mean, this property has been farm for a long time.

[3:11:15] They use that as kind of how they market and they see this as an area where that agricultural

[3:11:21] rural community, dare I say, I rule it, might be an appropriate place, it's a term I learned

[3:11:30] in the Complaint Committee, Commissioner Sums, so we are looking in what Falcon is proposing

[3:11:40] here is the amenities, the design of the community,

[3:11:45] the recreational opportunities will

[3:11:47] be agriculturally focused, that will drive what the aesthetics are, the architectural features

[3:11:53] of the homes. They won't be the standard. They're going to be more agricultural in nature.

[3:11:58] I mean, I'm certainly not suggesting that every house is going to have a cow or anything like

[3:12:03] that, but I'm suggesting that there will be open areas and there'll be common areas where there

[3:12:07] can be some communal, I believe the term on here is regenerative farming areas. I didn't know that

[3:12:15] until I started preparing for this hearing today.

[3:12:19] But again, showing the intention of one bringing something new

[3:12:23] to the community, which we don't really have,

[3:12:26] haven't seen any built, but also be in respectful

[3:12:29] and supportive of what's gone on in this area, historically.

[3:12:33] So it's a nice balance.

[3:12:38] Mr. Nans provided you a similar slide to this one,

[3:12:43] but this is, again, just for purposes of the record showing

[3:12:46] that we meet all of the PD, criteria, satisfy or exceed all of your requirements for a project

[3:12:54] to this nature.

[3:12:57] Kind of looking forward, because these questions always arise, concurrency

[3:13:03] type issues, level two issues really, but I want to just make sure that people understand

[3:13:09] we're looking at them. We have looked at utilities. We will be getting utilities from the

[3:13:13] city of Lakeland. They've already provided a capacity letter indicating that capacity is

[3:13:18] available for this project for development, water and sewer.

[3:13:26] We have reached or requested a non-binding school concurrency letter, which again, this

[3:13:32] is just a snapshot on July 29th of 2026 for this project, but there was ample capacity

[3:13:39] in all the zones, schools for this, for this piece of property, 451 homes, so school capacity,

[3:13:46] and that's what you heard Mr. Nancy as well.

[3:13:48] So,

[3:13:50] we've looked at drainage, drainage again is a significant issue out here, we're well aware

[3:13:58] of that.

[3:14:00] There's a condition of approval that relates to requiring us to treat this as if it's a closed

[3:14:06] basin, although it's not a closed basin, but we're going to treat it that way, commit to

[3:14:10] 100-year stormwater ponds, we've evaluated the site, we can meet those requirements.

[3:14:15] It will be an interconnected series of stormwater ponds that will be permitted through the county's

[3:14:22] process as well as the water management districts process to ensure that there is no increase

[3:14:26] in volume or flow rate.

[3:14:28] There are two different things.

[3:14:30] How much water you are putting off the site between pre-development and post-development and volume,

[3:14:38] but also how fast it is going off the site.

[3:14:40] So it's not affecting downstream.

[3:14:42] We can affect downstream or upstream drainage issues.

[3:14:47] So we will be going through that rigorous modeling

[3:14:50] and design using 100-year storms as the model event.

[3:14:56] Again, that's above and beyond some of the code requirements,

[3:14:59] which is.

[3:15:00] Why it's a condition of approval.

[3:15:04] We've looked at traffic. We've had a major traffic study

[3:15:06] commissioned. That was being completed by Kimely Horn as well. The methodology has been

[3:15:16] complete all the updated traffic counts are done. We've finalized our review. There's always

[3:15:21] some back and forth before the traffic study gets 100% locked in stone, finalized. We're not quite

[3:15:26] to that point yet. But we've evaluated this site. We believe that this, the two access points

[3:15:32] work. You're looking at 62% of the of the trips going in and out on Swindow Road, 38%

[3:15:38] on Alderman, using that for a waste stop. So we believe that the segments will function

[3:15:45] without any improvements that we aren't already required to make. They'll be right away

[3:15:49] dedication along Alderman Road. There's going to be improvements along Alderman Road to increase

[3:15:54] on our front edge, things of that nature.

[3:15:57] I'm not suggesting that there's not going to be anything done.

[3:15:59] I'm just suggesting that there's no failing intersections.

[3:16:02] There's no failing segments, based on the traffic study.

[3:16:07] The one issue and I'm proposing a condition that I would ask to be included.

[3:16:13] There is a favorable recommendation approval this morning.

[3:16:19] There are some constraints if you will on the front edge of Swindle Road.

[3:16:26] We acknowledge that.

[3:16:28] We will work through, again, those issues on how that design, whether it's a Type 2 or

[3:16:34] a Type 3 or some sort of version of a modified Type 2 Type 3 intersection, get worked out

[3:16:41] and get identified at your level 2 process with your engineering.

[3:16:46] Those are really detailed analysis and required very detailed engineering that just isn't done at this stage.

[3:16:53] What I'm proposing is that this condition that would allow some flexibility, for instance, let's say various hypotheticals.

[3:17:01] We need to modify your typical type two or type three.

[3:17:04] We can do that under your code today.

[3:17:07] We need to shift the Swindle access a little the left or the right.

[3:17:12] We can do that generally today under the code, but if I need to come back and add another

[3:17:16] access point on Alderman or eliminate an access point in its entirety, that would require

[3:17:21] an additional public hearing.

[3:17:23] We're trying to add a condition that would allow some flexibility knowing that we've got

[3:17:28] some engineering to do, because at the end of the day Falcon wants to make sure that whatever

[3:17:34] designed in whatever's constructed and implemented it is works for the works for their project,

[3:17:42] but also make sure that they're not creating any safety issues for existing users of the

[3:17:47] road, whether it's residents on Audermen Road or just truck traffic coming up in down Swindell.

[3:17:54] So I would request that this condition be included and with an approval if that is the pleasure

[3:18:03] to the board. So with that, I'm going to kind of wrap up. You've heard this morning that

[3:18:13] this project meets or exceeds all of your provisions, if your confidence is a plan, your

[3:18:18] land development code, you have a finding of compatibility, they have gone above and beyond

[3:18:23] on landscaping and buffering that isn't otherwise required by the code to even go further

[3:18:30] on landscape on the compatibility issue, you've got a developer who's looking to bring a project

[3:18:37] to the community that's similar or complementary to what to an agricultural area of the past.

[3:18:46] And so with that, we would request a favorable vote on LDPD 2026-13. This morning, we'll stand for any

[3:18:56] questions and would request a few minutes of a battle at the end.

[3:19:01] Any questions of the album?

[3:19:03] I have a couple of comments, so Bart, once again, thank you for the educational and

[3:19:11] informational PowerPoints that you do.

[3:19:15] I love them.

[3:19:15] It helps me up here.

[3:19:18] I appreciate that.

[3:19:19] Also, thank you to the night family for listening to not only the community, but to the

[3:19:27] on the change from last to now.

[3:19:32] That's super nice.

[3:19:33] And it says a lot for the honor of the property.

[3:19:36] And did you say the Falcon developer,

[3:19:40] their new in Polk County?

[3:19:42] We've been in Polk County.

[3:19:43] They've been in Florida and are Florida based.

[3:19:45] They've been around for about 50 years.

[3:19:47] They do a variety of developments.

[3:19:50] Single family.

[3:19:51] They've done some mixed use.

[3:19:53] They've actually got some high rise type stuff.

[3:19:54] two down in South Florida. So they're involved in a variety of different uses, which I think.

[3:20:00] This is why you're seeing something a little different coming at the table.

[3:20:03] Well, welcome to them. I just had comments.

[3:20:08] Thank you.

[3:20:10] I got a question of staff. Have you seen, have you had a chance to look at his proposed condition?

[3:20:17] Any are you okay with it?

[3:20:19] Yes, sir. We've discussed the county engineer, too, on the heels of his preliminary traffic.

[3:20:24] Okay.

[3:20:24] And that's included in our motion today.

[3:20:26] Well, we'll make our the motion will need to include it correct it's not in the staff

[3:20:33] of it.

[3:20:34] Who makes the motion will need to include that?

[3:20:40] Okay, thank you.

[3:20:42] So I'll open up the public hearing and ask is there anyone in the audience to which is to

[3:20:49] speak in favor of this application?

[3:20:51] Are you going to favor?

[3:20:54] Yes.

[3:20:55] Okay.

[3:20:55] I just want to give some clarification.

[3:21:04] My name is Edwin Leonard, 805, giant or grote,

[3:21:08] we live behind the proposed development.

[3:21:12] I like to know, will all of them road be widened?

[3:21:19] What type of, it says, type C buffer?

[3:21:23] We don't know what type buffer that is along all of them.

[3:21:26] And also at the intersection of Alderman and Swindell with that be widened because now it's very small and it's very tight.

[3:21:40] And we live in a closed community. So there's only one way out, one way out, one way out of China and there's about 19 units back there.

[3:21:51] And so we're adding a lot of traffic with this new development.

[3:21:56] I've not against it because I was here when they were going to put a warehouse here.

[3:22:02] So that was a large fight and plus, if they're big homes, that makes my own look better.

[3:22:08] But those are things that I want to know because we all live there.

[3:22:13] And we all got to come out every day and we got to go back in every day.

[3:22:17] So those are the things, if the developer can answer those,

[3:22:22] what type of buffer that he's gonna put along all of the road,

[3:22:28] so that we all know, is it a burn, are the trees,

[3:22:34] or are they gonna put along that road so that we as,

[3:22:40] people that live back there, we wanna be comfortable too.

[3:22:44] So, all these houses they're going to build don't have anything to ask that, but we also want to be comfortable with this whole development.

[3:22:55] I'll ask the applicant when he comes back up to address that.

[3:23:01] I'm sure he's made note of your questions.

[3:23:04] Thank you.

[3:23:07] Anyone else to speak in favor?

[3:23:09] Anyone to speak in opposition to this request?

[3:23:12] You come forward,

[3:23:16] please.

[3:23:16] Name an address, and I assume you're a sworn in.

[3:23:20] Yes, I have two handouts, if someone could pass them around.

[3:23:28] My name is D. Allen, I address 503O Alderman Road in Lakeland and I have been sworn.

[3:23:36] And I have no objection to the plan to develop this parcel into single family homes,

[3:23:42] but I object to the lot size.

[3:23:44] They're listing a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, which is 0.13 acres, and if you just, 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.

[3:24:06] So one of the main reasons people move outside the city limits is so they can have a slightly bigger

[3:24:13] lot.

[3:24:14] And so this indicates that and it also doesn't mesh with the properties that are there.

[3:24:20] So the map that's coming around is a map that I took from the page 21 of the staff report,

[3:24:28] but I added some text to it and it shows that the existing Alderman road lots are mainly

[3:24:34] one acre lots, and directly north of the project is the country classic farms, that's to the northwest,

[3:24:42] and that's a horse owner's community, and they have lovely homes with lots of 2, 5, and 8 acres.

[3:24:53] And there's also a new development that was more recently approved, and I don't even think

[3:24:58] work is complete there on the street.

[3:25:00] We call 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 this Swindell project, but it has all one quarter acre lots.

[3:25:14] 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,

[3:25:27] 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

[3:25:36] though was this transit supported development area and page nine of your staff reports says it contributes

[3:25:44] to greater demand for higher urban densities while this isn't an urban area is not even in the city limits

[3:25:51] And then it goes on to say that the Swindell property is divided by that overlay, so it's not completely even in it.

[3:26:01] So then this effort port says that there's a sidewalk located along the south side of Swindell Road,

[3:26:07] with connectivity to a mass transit stop, it's about a mile away.

[3:26:11] But that's deceiving, because if you look at the picture that I sent around, that's Windell Road,

[3:26:17] in an area that's not affected by this road widening or the project itself and you can see

[3:26:26] that much of the route you would have to, you know, if you were walking to a bus stop,

[3:26:30] you'd have to walk through this area and it's got steep sides, lots of vegetation.

[3:26:37] So I'm through, but I would approve this if you would increase to a quarter acre minimum

[3:26:45] lots of us.

[3:26:46] Thank you.

[3:26:48] Anyone else in opposition?

[3:26:50] Comfort, please?

[3:26:56] Hi.

[3:26:57] My name's Cassandra Starner.

[3:26:58] I live at 501-6 Alderman Road.

[3:27:03] As I stand here before you to advocate for myself, my children, and my neighbors, I hope you

[3:27:08] guys truly hear what we all have gathered here to say in regards to the construction by Alderman

[3:27:13] Road.

[3:27:15] proposed is the 151 single family homes and what is now a cow pasture filled with beautiful

[3:27:21] live oaks, sand hill cranes, bats, and other wildlife in fauna, something my toddler and newborn

[3:27:28] enjoy walking down to and viewing on a daily basis. Not only would the construction of this complex

[3:27:36] decimate the beautiful nature that we have there a large concern of mine is the fact that we already

[3:27:41] blood being in an AE flood zone. I have submitted photos via email for reference of the flooding

[3:27:49] conditions experienced in our area. In the proposed construction, we do see their attempt to

[3:27:55] mitigate any flooding by digging retention ponds as well as other drainage measures. However,

[3:28:00] if these homes are built up higher than the existing property already stands, they won't have to

[3:28:11] structure in our neighborhood is also corrected and accounted for, we will be the ones paying

[3:28:17] for the consequences of this new build. I'm no engineer obviously, but I know when you

[3:28:23] cover the land in concrete and cement, water has to find somewhere else to go. This is not

[3:28:31] something that we want to see happen and non-area, we really want to see developed. Secondly,

[3:28:37] the amount of traffic that will increase is going to be exponential on our road that really

[3:28:43] isn't designed to handle that. And I know they were talking about addressing some of those

[3:28:46] issues. I would be curious to see what their solution is for that. Sorry, I lost my spot.

[3:28:56] Taking into account the natural wildlife that live out there in our fairly undeveloped area,

[3:29:01] the increase of traffic also means an increase in roadkill and damage to vehicles as well.

[3:29:07] You can't just push nature out and expect it to go somewhere else, whenever where else is getting torn down just as quickly.

[3:29:14] I'm no public speaker, but ultimately I'm here and we are here to shut down the proposal for development.

[3:29:20] We choose to live outside the city for a reason, and the city keeps creeping closer with every year.

[3:29:25] Eventually, there will be nowhere else to develop, and that scares me.

[3:29:29] I want a future where my kids can bring their children to see the giant oats and the bats and the sand hill cranes,

[3:29:35] and beautiful nature that surrounds us.

[3:29:37] Not more homes, not more concrete, and certainly not a state that has been completely developed.

[3:29:43] With all that being said, if for some reason you do choose to move forward with the development of the area,

[3:29:48] I would ask that you take these things into consideration.

[3:29:51] We would like to see homes that have between one and maybe five acres of land per lot,

[3:29:56] not less than a third of an acre as proposed as this leaves the area feeling more open.

[3:30:00] And natural. I did have a little bit more, but thank you.

[3:30:08] Anyone else to speak?

[3:30:13] Who are you sworn in?

[3:30:14] David Lefler, 4455, Swindell Rood, Lakeland Florida, fifth generation Floridian, third generation

[3:30:20] on the family property, which is 660 feet on my northwest corner to their highest south east corner.

[3:30:27] and I did not receive a letter.

[3:30:29] I have pictures of the sign that was placed.

[3:30:31] I just want you to know only one sign was on Swindell Road

[3:30:34] and it was actually facing Alderman Road going south, right?

[3:30:38] So unless you're coming from a dead end road of Alderman south

[3:30:40] where the construction companies are,

[3:30:42] that's the only way you're going to see that sign.

[3:30:44] I went back for three days before I realized

[3:30:45] it was to the left of me and I couldn't see it.

[3:30:48] My uncle pointed out to me.

[3:30:49] That sign was put up as far as I know.

[3:30:51] I'm Friday the 21st, so we're about at 20 days.

[3:30:54] No excuse me, the 13th we're around 20 days of us being here today.

[3:30:58] I had a whole bunch of stuff written down.

[3:30:59] I've listened to a lot of people come up to you and talk and I'm just coming to you now

[3:31:03] from the heart.

[3:31:03] I want you to understand there is a lot of flooding in that area, right?

[3:31:07] A lot of our neighbors could not be here today.

[3:31:09] My mother takes care of my stepfather, Vietnam veteran, so she's a full-time caregiver.

[3:31:13] They could not be here.

[3:31:14] They live on the same property.

[3:31:16] My uncle could not be here today.

[3:31:17] He just had knee surgery.

[3:31:18] He could not be here today.

[3:31:19] I've got several neighbors that are at work and a cousin that lives on the same property

[3:31:23] of our 20 acre block that we live on.

[3:31:25] they couldn't be here today because of work. So a lot of people wanted to be here. A lot of

[3:31:28] these people did not get these letters or see the sign because maybe they only go towards

[3:31:33] the lake when they don't go towards plant city. 100% of that traffic will come out on Swindell Road at

[3:31:39] that small intersection of Alderman Road. Is a dead in road as was mentioned before going north,

[3:31:43] right? So when they're coming out south, don't matter how many entry eggs that you have,

[3:31:48] if it's on Swindell or Alderman, it's all got to come to Swindell. I can tell you, first hand

[3:31:53] Got pictures and videos to show you the accidents at Clark Road in Swindil Road. It's even though they put the rumble strips in

[3:32:00] We still have accidents and Polk County never used to put rumble strips in at intersections like that

[3:32:05] I've got pictures and videos that can document the flooding from the last three storms

[3:32:10] 2021

[3:32:11] 2023 and Milton of course in 2024

[3:32:14] from my home

[3:32:15] through the 90 degree curves of Swindil Road

[3:32:18] And going west towards Caliline Road almost 90% of that road was underwater for days.

[3:32:25] If I went south and were excuse me north but going towards Walker Road where another

[3:32:29] development has been taking place, that road was completely underwater all the way to

[3:32:34] a night's Griffin Road.

[3:32:35] If you took a left or excuse me a right on Bell of this to go east towards Lakeland, all

[3:32:40] of that road was underwater and Milton, again was a heavy storm but my point to that is

[3:32:47] is the Walker Road ballpark, which is right across from the former dairy that is now a hundred

[3:32:51] and something home to be in built.

[3:32:53] I go there almost every other day to go walk, and the ground is saturated with water just

[3:32:57] from the recent three rings that we've had.

[3:32:59] I check my rain gauges daily, and I'm looking at about an inch to a half inch every two or

[3:33:04] three days.

[3:33:05] I can see the bank of those retention ponds, a good foot and a half and now they're already

[3:33:09] up to the grass level.

[3:33:10] It was dirt, now it's grass.

[3:33:11] So the rain water definitely affects us.

[3:33:13] I had a lot more written down.

[3:33:14] I'll just say, we're passionate about where we live.

[3:33:18] We care.

[3:33:18] I heard these people earlier.

[3:33:21] Somebody needs to come out and look at this.

[3:33:22] Take a walk with us and see the area.

[3:33:25] Thank you for your time.

[3:33:26] Thank you.

[3:33:28] Anyone else?

[3:33:29] Which is the speed?

[3:33:30] Yes, ma'am.

[3:33:39] My name is Brenda Jimenez, and my address is 5011 Alderman Road.

[3:33:43] And I just want to add to the gentleman's comments and regards to the traffic.

[3:33:48] There's so many racks out there that the stop sign is wind ill and aldermen daily, every

[3:33:55] day people run through that they only have a stop, they slow down, they do a rolling stop,

[3:33:59] they go, that's why they put those road things to stop people because nobody from the goes

[3:34:06] up and down that road stops at that road, but what I'm really wanting to know, and I don't

[3:34:11] know Falcon Group is aware, but the nights have such low, all of our property out there

[3:34:17] 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.

[3:34:30] Now it's just not our house. I am like next to the night's property and when it hurricanes or rain or anything, these culvert pipes are just gush and water and they say they have an agreement with the county.

[3:34:41] I have not seen that agreement or contract and I don't know if anybody else on giant

[3:34:46] road down there has seen any contract where they have those culvert pipes so falcon

[3:34:53] group.

[3:34:54] Do you aware of the flooding that the pipes are you going to stop them or the pipes?

[3:35:00] What's 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.

[3:35:14] It pounds so much dirt and sand and everything brought in. So I just want Falcon Group to know, and if you guys are I know, 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.

[3:35:27] So if the night property is flooding the county and the county is flooding me, I don't have

[3:35:33] a contract with the county.

[3:35:36] So something may can be done in regards to that.

[3:35:38] If someone can contact me or get me the information, I'd appreciate it.

[3:35:43] Okay.

[3:35:43] Thank you.

[3:35:45] Thank you.

[3:35:46] Anyone else?

[3:35:47] Which is to speak?

[3:35:50] Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant if he would come back and address some of the concerns

[3:35:55] questions that we've been given.

[3:36:13] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:36:16] A couple of things I want to touch on, and I'm going to try to hit the issues, hopefully

[3:36:22] in order.

[3:36:23] But if I miss something, and do you feel like I need to address it further, please?

[3:36:27] Let me know.

[3:36:29] As it relates to the first gentleman, relative to Alderman Road and Buffering and things like

[3:36:37] we'll be bringing it up to the county standard.

[3:36:40] We'll be dedicating the necessary right away

[3:36:42] on our side of the property to the extent we control it

[3:36:46] to bring that right away up and be making any improvements

[3:36:50] that are required by the county,

[3:36:52] if there are deficiencies, it will be rectified.

[3:36:57] So you're looking at for a collector road 40 feet from center line

[3:37:00] as far as right away.

[3:37:02] So if there's any deficiencies when we go out and survey,

[3:37:04] will mitigate those, as well as come in and do some resurfacing and reconstruction as required

[3:37:12] by your engineering department. Those are, again, level two issues, not necessarily things

[3:37:19] that we go out and design and identify and address specifically today. The Type-C landscape buffer

[3:37:28] is defined by your lane of element code. Candidly, I don't remember every specific detail

[3:37:33] of it. However, I know it's a mixture of trees, understory and

[3:37:37] overstory trees as well as shrubs planted, and that's defined on

[3:37:41] every 100 foot section. So every 100 feet you have to have a

[3:37:45] certain number of overstory trees and a certain number of

[3:37:47] understory trees and things like that. But again, so we'll be

[3:37:51] implementing that, that will be part of the site development.

[3:37:53] There you go.

[3:37:56] Four canopy trees, every 100 feet, five

[3:38:00] understory trees, every 100 feet and 20 shrubs, every 100 feet.

[3:38:04] If a fence is implemented, you can do some additional,

[3:38:09] you can reduce some of those plannings.

[3:38:11] But at this time, we haven't made any decisions on whether or

[3:38:14] not there's going to be any fencing involved.

[3:38:18] So that's will go by your lane development good.

[3:38:21] Thank you for pulling that out.

[3:38:26] Let's see, what else do we have?

[3:38:27] The density issue relative to seven dwelling units in acre,

[3:38:32] based on the 6,000 square foot,

[3:38:34] lot size. We calculate density on the gross for a reason because if you only look at the

[3:38:42] lot size, you discount all the other land within this division that needs used to support

[3:38:49] those slots, stormwater ponds, roads, amenity centers, all of the extra parking, all of

[3:38:57] that stuff comes into play to support the lot. So you can't take a lot size and divide it

[3:39:02] to acres, you can't take 6,000 into 43,000, 560 and say it's 7.

[3:39:09] You have to account for all of the other activity, all the other use of the land, where

[3:39:15] at 2.6 dwelling units to an acre.

[3:39:17] The Apple Quirk project that is quarter acre lots was originally 50 foot lots.

[3:39:23] It was permitted, approved, the APD by this board, as well as, through, by the Board of

[3:39:30] County Commissioners, it's 50 foot lots.

[3:39:31] The reason why that is now quarter-acre a lot is because of the inability to get sewer there

[3:39:38] And because you couldn't have sewer you had to go on septic therefore it is

[3:39:43] All on an entirely on septic tank lots that that is why we have sewer and water and sewer available

[3:39:51] I share the utility lines. We will be forced to connect it out

[3:39:55] To those lines and make those in extensions and connections. So that's

[3:40:00] That's a big difference between the Walker Road Apple Quirk project as well.

[3:40:09] Dranich, Mr. Nanskin, I don't know if I can switch it or not.

[3:40:15] I hate this, I don't like this, I'm going to have control.

[3:40:26] I

[3:40:42] guess that would be one of my biggest concerns, because you mentioned it.

[3:40:46] And then anybody says, I can't say it, express a sense of, I automatically think of all

[3:40:53] of the horror stories years ago when people were just inundated.

[3:40:58] We're very familiar with the H.P.A.C.S. space, and a lot of the development that has occurred

[3:41:06] out there has occurred prior to, and you've heard Mr. Nancy, to prior to comprehensive planning,

[3:41:12] prior to today's standards, prior to water management

[3:41:16] district standards, no storm water ponds, things of that nature.

[3:41:20] If you look at the, and you, Mr. N.

[3:41:22] you had an exhibit that showed the floodplain.

[3:41:26] I didn't put that in my powerpoint.

[3:41:40] You can see the flood zone area, the, a lot of these homes,

[3:41:45] existing homes are almost entirely, if not entirely in the flood zone.

[3:41:50] So the fact that there is flooding that's occurring out there

[3:41:52] is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

[3:41:56] This property can't fix the issue for other people.

[3:42:02] Just can't.

[3:42:03] Whether this property develops or not,

[3:42:05] there is potential for flooding in the area.

[3:42:08] I mean, that's just the fact, I don't disagree.

[3:42:12] Our property owner, the Knights of Owners Property

[3:42:15] for 100 years, they recognize that there's flooding

[3:42:17] and drainage issues out in this area.

[3:42:19] But if you look at this map,

[3:42:20] The majority of what is being proposed is not in a flood zone.

[3:42:25] It's outside that flood zone.

[3:42:28] We'll be working to make sure that those areas that are developed

[3:42:32] do not have off-site impacts.

[3:42:34] From a drainage perspective to the residents on the west side of Alderman,

[3:42:39] the way the site naturally drains today,

[3:42:42] as you can see the drainage surface water ditch that runs to the site,

[3:42:46] that will remain unchanged.

[3:42:48] It will continue to drain to the north.

[3:42:51] So the site doesn't drain to the west.

[3:42:53] It drains to the north end of the Ichapakasasa Creek basin.

[3:42:57] And as I mentioned, we have a condition that requires us

[3:43:00] to model this and do stormwater studies to the 100-year storm,

[3:43:04] treat our project as if it's a closed basin.

[3:43:07] Make sure that there's no discharge volumetric,

[3:43:12] involume, and inflowate as how quickly it leaves the site.

[3:43:16] We have to accept water onto our site, model that too.

[3:43:21] We have to make sure that this site does not have any effects upstream or downstream.

[3:43:25] And that's all part of the engineering and design and permitting process with the county,

[3:43:30] with your engineering folks, as well as water management district.

[3:43:34] But again, that doesn't come until later down the way.

[3:43:38] We fully recognize that.

[3:43:40] We've done everything we can at this point to recognize it and address it through conditions,

[3:43:45] so that we ensure that we address it when we get to design and permit.

[3:43:51] So we have heard them loud and clear, we recognize y'all have concerns and we've done the best we can to address them to the extent we can today.

[3:44:01] I think this is a good project.

[3:44:03] Again, lots sizes different, single family and single family, they're basically the same thing.

[3:44:08] Lots sizes can vary.

[3:44:10] This property around this is residential low.

[3:44:14] As you move to the other side of the folks on the west side of Alderman Road, you get

[3:44:18] into industrial.

[3:44:19] As you move further west into plant city, you're going to have a signalized intersection

[3:44:24] at County Line Road and Swindell, you're going to have industrial and commercial development

[3:44:29] there.

[3:44:31] The property on the immediate south side of this property on the other side of Swindell Road

[3:44:37] is cleared and being developed as industrial today.

[3:44:39] This area is urbanizing, it is developing, being urban doesn't necessarily mean you're in a municipal limit.

[3:44:48] It's what's going on around you.

[3:44:50] So while we are not asking for to be in the city limits, this is an urban area.

[3:44:57] One of the constraints that

[3:45:00] That has on this peach property. If you look in this bottom right corner of the site you see, I

[3:45:08] have got a little notch there and we have just is kind of limited our frontage on Swindell Road.

[3:45:13] That's a stormwater pond. That's stormwater pond is a result of a taking from the DOT. So that's

[3:45:18] a DOT stormwater pond. So we're having to work around all these different issues and we can

[3:45:25] get through it, but we need we have to get to the engineering design stage. So you've got a lot

[3:45:30] different things kind of going on in this area but this is an ideal area. That's what your

[3:45:35] conference will plan again. We talked about the transit supported development area. We talked about

[3:45:39] the transit corridor and the transit center. This is where the county's comp plan has indicated

[3:45:47] development as to occur and you've got a staff report that says we meet all of your criteria

[3:45:53] from the conference a plan land development code and that is compatible. You've heard seen our

[3:45:58] presentation. You've seen what the Falcon Group is proposing. I think this is an appropriate

[3:46:04] project in the appropriate area, and we're going to request a favorable vote this morning.

[3:46:08] We'll stand for any additional questions.

[3:46:13] Any questions of the applicant?

[3:46:16] Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and emotion.

[3:46:26] I make a motion to approve LDPG 202613 to include the additional conditions.

[3:46:33] That

[3:46:37] was one condition.

[3:46:38] I can clarify it with the condition that the applicant requested was to address access management as a minor modification to the site plan as a level to review.

[3:46:53] I'll second that motion.

[3:46:56] Okay.

[3:46:58] Motion second to approve roll call please.

[3:47:02] Angel Sims.

[3:47:04] Fourth motion.

[3:47:05] Kevin update.

[3:47:06] for the motion. Chad Baron for the motion. Brooke Gagneenie for the motion.

[3:47:11] Murled Bishop for the motion. Cindy Janamoso for the motion. Shane Bevalar

[3:47:18] Coa for the motion. Motion passes.

[3:47:26] Thank you.

[3:47:30] Next three cases will be presented together by Eric Peterson, the case

[3:47:34] the CPL-2026-6, LDC-2026-4, and LDC-2026-17 for a solid waste management facility.

[3:48:14] Just loading up the applicant's slide here, and I started.

[3:48:22] Three cases in one, a lot of unpack here.

[3:48:24] Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division.

[3:48:27] You have a four-year comprehensive plan amendment.

[3:48:30] Request you have before you a district change request,

[3:48:32] And you have you before you a conditional use request for solid waste management facility as well as a power generation facility and a

[3:48:41] Class 3 utility both water and wastewater

[3:48:45] All in one hundred eighty three maillers were sent area property under son August 17 12 boards were posted on the property in August 12

[3:48:52] Alia lad was published in the Pope's son on August 17

[3:48:57] You have before you submitted to the record to the record a number of items

[3:49:02] They are in your lead to star access, including the staff report, the ordinances.

[3:49:08] The applications, the demonstration need, boundary surveys, site plan traffic, study,

[3:49:13] solid waste, recycling research, and the also the final judgment on a related case

[3:49:19] to this project.

[3:49:21] First, I want to explain why we are here.

[3:49:24] This is an institutional land use that's being requested in an institutional two district,

[3:49:30] because the county only allows solid waste manufacturing or solid waste related businesses to be in the institutional district.

[3:49:40] Now, solid waste recycling, manufacturing, things of that nature, any time you have a business that involves a byproduct of somebody else, it can fall into the solid waste category.

[3:49:54] It's a fine line between manufacturing and re manufacturing.

[3:50:00] Where we determine that it's re-manufacturing and required to meet the solid waste standards is when the either the transport or the product or the intake to the site is at the cost of a customer.

[3:50:16] The 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.

[3:50:26] So, on-site it's the same thing, they're manufacturing something with this input.

[3:50:34] After it's done, most likely a solid waste facility is going to have to dispose of some

[3:50:40] of the stuff it took in because not all of it was readily usable in the product.

[3:50:47] That might happen in manufacturing too because there's a lot of inputs, but those were raw

[3:50:51] inputs or those were new inputs and not by-products of some other manufacturing.

[3:50:58] So it's a very fine line.

[3:51:00] And that's why we're here, keep that in mind, sites located south of Mulberry, west of

[3:51:08] Bartow, west of Fort Mead, near Bradley Junction, which was once an incorporated town in the

[3:51:20] of us, a mining industry changed over time, the site is itself of 640.

[3:51:28] This site has to the north or actually part of this site.

[3:51:32] This is an overall site that has approval for a landfill, class one landfill, also a class

[3:51:37] three landfill.

[3:51:38] Also everything that's being requested today, they're asking to do some of those things that

[3:51:45] they were approved for in a new location on the site.

[3:51:49] Why? Because it works out better. This site right here has much more frontage. The

[3:51:57] other, this portion of the project, these things are approved right here, but they

[3:52:04] have to come out on 640. It's a long distance to 640. It's about a mile. This site

[3:52:12] at self-to-use your access, it's a road that can bear higher volumes, a lot of different

[3:52:19] reasons. And one big one is that there's all these other industrial facility or land

[3:52:27] uses nearby, where manufacturing can be done. And the applicant owns a good number of

[3:52:35] these properties and is marketing them to businesses that teeter on that balance between

[3:52:41] are they manufacturing or are they re-manufacturing and this gives them the option to move

[3:52:49] it to the other side of 37 if it happens to fall into that solid waste category.

[3:52:57] So the request includes a change from PM to institutional, bossate mining to institutional,

[3:53:04] and then a district change from institutional one which is the default to institutional two.

[3:53:13] Remember again how these work together. These land uses work together in much closer proximity

[3:53:20] To one another and can be interconnected.

[3:53:25] Here's a site plan. I'm sure you can all make that out

[3:53:29] It's a

[3:53:30] It's a little hard to read you have it before you can zoom in on it, but I

[3:53:34] Just thought I'd

[3:53:36] Blow it up a little bit and make it a little easier to to see on the side

[3:53:40] Thank you.

[3:53:42] So the bulk of the re-manufacturing activity

[3:53:46] will be on the north end.

[3:53:48] There are four access points.

[3:53:51] One thing that's key to this development

[3:53:54] and the other previous development, which you

[3:53:57] have the conditions of in the conditional user request,

[3:54:02] is this 200-foot-wide buffer.

[3:54:04] Much of this buffer is in burns, large burns.

[3:54:08] as much as 30 feet high.

[3:54:12] So, there are industrial uses developing,

[3:54:15] off of the Jamison Road.

[3:54:19] The applicant seeks to eventually

[3:54:23] do some type of renewable energy on the site.

[3:54:27] There's a possibility of that.

[3:54:29] It's located very close to a 230 kilovolt

[3:54:33] to 130 KV line that comes into the property and crosses it.

[3:54:39] Excellent location for that.

[3:54:41] There's also a waste water treatment plant

[3:54:44] It would be located on the lowest portion of the property

[3:54:47] So everything flows downhill to it.

[3:54:49] So it makes it a lot more better place

[3:54:51] Unlike some cities I might know that

[3:54:55] But there's sewage treatment plan on the top of the hill

[3:54:58] But another story.

[3:55:00] For another day. Other uses in the area. Of course, we have the rolling hill subdivision. The property line is over 2,000 feet away from the nearest residents on this and the rolling hills. The base property line here is over 2,000 feet away from Bradley Junction.

[3:55:20] There's other things going on in the site.

[3:55:22] There's a storm debris management, which Polk County definitely needs during hurricane

[3:55:27] weather, hurricane events.

[3:55:30] So that in itself is a plus for the county.

[3:55:36] The applicant is approved to do composting of agricultural related products already.

[3:55:42] That would be intermixed with organic processing.

[3:55:46] We have a condition of approval in the CU that's that that that deals with

[3:55:52] Putressable waste that's anything that's breaking down

[3:55:55] If it's not related agriculture, which they're already permitted to then it's got to be done in an enclosed building or an enclosed container

[3:56:02] So that keeps it from being that the next BS ranch if anybody remembers that

[3:56:09] type of solid waste facility

[3:56:13] So that covers that issue there.

[3:56:17] A lot of the site is in floodplain or shown in floodplain.

[3:56:23] A lot of the site is in reclamation for wetlands

[3:56:27] and things of that nature and those will still remain or be modified

[3:56:32] in the confines of their permits.

[3:56:35] A lot of the site will be used for storm water.

[3:56:37] Some of the impact assessment estimates you see through the report gives you the absolute worst case scenario.

[3:56:45] There's not that much land that can be used for buildings for things that would create impacts.

[3:56:55] A lot of that's going to have to be used for floodplain compensation and also handling storm water.

[3:57:00] There are conditions of approval on the prior approval and with this one that they meet the

[3:57:06] hundred year storm of it on this property.

[3:57:09] It's not in a closed basin.

[3:57:10] There's a way for the water to reach the alfaya river, but there's some constrained areas

[3:57:20] that go through rally junction where the capacity is not stellar and so for that reason

[3:57:25] we're requesting that it meet the hundred year as we did in the other project.

[3:57:30] This is what the site looked like, back in 2009, the Soul Conservation Service states for

[3:57:36] airant soils, which occupy a good portion of the Uplains area, that they not be built

[3:57:43] on or developed until at least 20 years after their mining has ceased.

[3:57:49] It's been about 26 years, so this portion of the property is due for use.

[3:57:55] This shows you some pictures along the side of the site.

[3:58:00] This is looking off a 37 at several of the points along 37.

[3:58:07] Most of it is a buffer that's well vegetated.

[3:58:11] It's got live oaks.

[3:58:12] It's got all kinds of tree species.

[3:58:17] Cogagras that goes up to your armpit.

[3:58:20] It's throughout the site.

[3:58:23] 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.

[3:58:30] Because of the Birmingham, because of the vegetation that's there, it's 200 feet is not going to be disturbed.

[3:58:36] Once you get to the top of the berms, you can see into the site.

[3:58:40] You see it's fairly flat and it's a buildable area there.

[3:58:44] And you see how much you have to overcome to, as a passerby to look into the site.

[3:58:50] So it will be well buffered from any residential or passerby traffic.

[3:58:59] I showed you a picture here, and I showed you a picture there.

[3:59:03] I'm going to walk you through some other points of the project.

[3:59:07] This is looking at some of the land inside.

[3:59:10] This is when she gets inside, you see the buffer looking out towards Jamison Road.

[3:59:17] This is looking from one of the top of the berms that bifurcates the property.

[3:59:23] The easily-developable area is over here.

[3:59:27] This is the area in which there's a lot of wetland conservation and things.

[3:59:34] There's actually a wetland bank that goes on on that side of the property.

[3:59:38] Much of that will be remain undisturbed or will be amended to suit whatever needs there are.

[3:59:46] This is looking again from the top of that central berm in the middle of the site development.

[3:59:52] This is looking back at the highway over again from one of the berms on site and that has the more

[3:59:59] available.

[4:00:00] This is Jamison Road. It's just the beginning. It's first phase of the industrial park that will go there. There is a significantly large gas line that comes through Jamison that moves natural gas through the project. So if there are any uses that needed natural gas, it's in close proximity to the site as well as the high voltage power lines.

[4:00:27] This is the site looking back at Bradley Junction from the bottom of the site.

[4:00:34] There's that 230 KV line crossing the property looking north from the base of the site.

[4:00:41] So in summation, this significantly improves the access to these types of uses that are already approved in the conditional use as it stands.

[4:00:51] It puts them in a better location, more accessible, where they can be much, much more successful.

[4:00:57] It also improves those connections with the industrial districts.

[4:01:00] It gives us more opportunities for finding the right fit for those types of businesses that

[4:01:04] teeter on that solid waste balance.

[4:01:07] And it is consistent with all policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan with that.

[4:01:12] I'll stand for questions.

[4:01:15] Any questions or staff?

[4:01:19] Seeing none.

[4:01:20] I'll ask the applicant to come forward.

[4:01:28] It's a rare too when we don't have anybody in the audience.

[4:01:32] But where did everyone go?

[4:01:34] Yeah exactly.

[4:01:35] Eric is because I thought I said to get job.

[4:01:38] I gave my best performance.

[4:01:41] So I have a presentation, but I think Eric covered it all.

[4:01:44] So with that, I won't delay any further.

[4:01:47] But I'll give you an example of what happened in the reason why we wanted to expand this area

[4:01:52] because we actually had an Italian company come to us.

[4:01:57] Somebody asked earlier about what size of lots you typically sell.

[4:02:00] And I had mentioned up to 40 acres.

[4:02:03] We lost a sale from an Italian company that was wanting to come to Paul County to relocate

[4:02:09] to convert free on AC, free on, from used units that they would be acquiring and convert

[4:02:19] it back to so it could be reused because that falls under the recycling side of things.

[4:02:26] So that's one of the reasons why this is such an important element because Polk County does

[4:02:32] miss out on having recycling type uses, which is important all of us without having

[4:02:39] these kind of land use changes.

[4:02:41] So with that I'll stand for questions and be glad to answer any of that.

[4:02:46] Thank you.

[4:02:47] Any questions that I've forgotten?

[4:02:50] Seeing none, I opened the public hearing and asked us anybody to speak in favor of our opposition.

[4:02:57] Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for a discussion and a motion.

[4:03:05] Mr. Chair, I moved to approve LDCPAL-2026-6.

[4:03:11] I have a motion.

[4:03:17] I'll second.

[4:03:19] I'll second.

[4:03:20] Motion and second to approve roll call please.

[4:03:25] Shane Bevelakwa,

[4:03:32] you don't know what you're doing.

[4:03:34] He's trying to put it like this.

[4:03:39] Yeah, it's approved.

[4:03:41] Cindy Janamoso, for the motion.

[4:03:44] Marlvisha.

[4:03:45] For the motion.

[4:03:46] For the motion.

[4:03:47] For the motion.

[4:03:48] For the motion.

[4:03:49] Kevin Appdike.

[4:03:50] For the motion.

[4:03:51] For the motion.

[4:03:52] Motion passes.

[4:03:55] And I need a motion for the next one.

[4:03:57] I'll just keep it rolling.

[4:03:59] I move to approve L.D.C.D.-2026-4.

[4:04:06] Second, Kevin.

[4:04:08] Motion, second, approve for a couple of please.

[4:04:10] Shane Bevolacqua.

[4:04:12] For the motion.

[4:04:13] Cindy Gianlamoso for the motion, Murl Bishop.

[4:04:16] For the motion.

[4:04:16] Brooke Agneany.

[4:04:18] For the motion.

[4:04:18] Chad Barron.

[4:04:20] For the motion.

[4:04:20] Kevin Updye.

[4:04:21] For the motion.

[4:04:22] Angel Sen.

[4:04:23] For the motion.

[4:04:24] Motion passes.

[4:04:25] Thank you.

[4:04:26] and the

[4:04:28] move to approve LDCU-2026-17.

[4:04:35] Second, Kevin.

[4:04:40] Shane Bevelakwa.

[4:04:41] For the motion.

[4:04:42] Cindy Jennam also for the motion.

[4:04:44] Mark Besscher.

[4:04:47] Brooke Agnini.

[4:04:47] For the motion.

[4:04:48] Chad Baron.

[4:04:49] For the motion.

[4:04:50] Kevin Appdike.

[4:04:50] For the motion.

[4:04:51] Angel Sims.

[4:04:52] For the motion.

[4:04:53] Motion passes.

[4:04:56] Last case.

[4:04:59] All right.

[4:04:59] This one.

[4:05:07] First ask to do a section 902 in code enforcement. When someone decided for a land development code violation, they are supposed to bring the property and compliance prior to the case being settled.

[4:05:17] To often what happens is the site plan is approved, but the work is never completed. The infraction is dismissed because of this approval. The amendment will explicitly state that code fractions are not resolved until plans are approved and expected for compliance.

[4:05:30] changes the sections 905 and 972 involved the development review committee or DRC. The

[4:05:36] function of DRC has evolved since the adoption of the land development code, but is

[4:05:39] always required that applicants for level 2 reviews of engineered site plans at 10 to

[4:05:43] meeting after the first round of staff's efficiency with you. With the advances in communication

[4:05:48] investment and site plan review technology, these in-person meetings simply are unnecessary

[4:05:53] as a requirement. DRC will still offer them if an applicant would like, but attending a meeting

[4:05:58] won't be mandated to gain approval of those plans any further.

[4:06:02] Another effort to streamline development applications, this amendment is adding language

[4:06:05] for word known as the pre-design meetings.

[4:06:08] These were created by the county engineer to provide technical guidance to a level to review

[4:06:12] applicant prior to formal submission of plans.

[4:06:15] These are voluntary but more in-depth and pre-application meetings which focus more on process

[4:06:19] than site plan review.

[4:06:21] This amendment will add language for both pre-design and pre-application meetings to the

[4:06:24] to list a purpose in what applicants should submit for review.

[4:06:29] Next, the comprehensive plan has long required a pre-application meeting prior to the submission of a comprehensive plan amendment.

[4:06:36] However, that has not been written into the code.

[4:06:39] This has led to countless rejected or delayed level four review applications,

[4:06:42] because the language was buried in the comprehensive plan.

[4:06:45] And Shanda has had to deliver a lot of bad news over the years for that.

[4:06:49] Hopefully by adding this to the LDC, staff can ward off these premature applications.

[4:06:53] Finally, this amendment will change the Dinovo policy in section 1922, currently if an applicant

[4:06:58] for a Dinovo appeal wants to withdraw the appeal, he or she must do so prior to 20 days

[4:07:03] before the hearing.

[4:07:04] The county recently had a situation where the applicant for the development and a residence

[4:07:08] who filed a appeal worked through the issues on their own and the applicant for the Dinovo

[4:07:12] requested a withdrawal within the 20 days, which required it to remain on the agenda and

[4:07:16] for the board to formally withdraw it.

[4:07:18] This will be changed to allow it administrative withdrawal within 20 days.

[4:07:22] Again, a handful of cleanup items, provider liability for citizens and staff when they deal

[4:07:26] with the land development code.

[4:07:28] For the record of this case was advertised on August 19th, no response.

[4:07:32] This is said to be heard by the Board on October 6 when the adoption hearing set for

[4:07:35] October 20th.

[4:07:36] Staff recommends approval and we'll stand for questions.

[4:07:39] Any questions on this staff?

[4:07:42] Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing as if there's anyone here to speak in favor

[4:07:46] our Opposition. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for Discussion and Emotion.

[4:07:58] Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCT-2026-17.

[4:08:05] Second, have a motion of second, on favor of seeing love of seeing eye, motion passes.

[4:08:12] Shonda.

[4:08:15] Thank you. Shonda been at line development.

[4:08:17] I'm really interested in what you have to say, but I must be brief.

[4:08:22] I could, but there's a couple of new members that haven't really moved in.

[4:08:26] I don't know about the conference plan.

[4:08:28] All right.

[4:08:29] Well, maybe one and a half, Chad, kind of, Mr. Baron, kind of knows.

[4:08:33] So, for those of you who don't know, the County Commission's directed staff to update

[4:08:38] the conference plan, are we right?

[4:08:42] Comments of I'm first adopted in 1991.

[4:08:44] And we've been working with a committee that the Board appointed for the Lover year.

[4:08:50] Mr. Baron, you should know that we have finished the committee finished last week on the 26th, 27th meeting.

[4:08:58] What did they do? I'm sorry?

[4:09:01] What did what did Chad do?

[4:09:03] He was on there for a bit.

[4:09:05] Oh, you served.

[4:09:06] He was.

[4:09:08] So we had 27 meetings of the committee, 54 committee hours, over 100 staff hours, 11 elements reviewed,

[4:09:15] 8 sections and appendices reviewed within the conference plan.

[4:09:18] In the time frame that the community has been formed, the county got 30,000 more people.

[4:09:25] Wow.

[4:09:25] Move to the county in that year and a half, year and a few months time frame.

[4:09:30] So, you know, west for the weary.

[4:09:33] Just some of you, a little bit of past information.

[4:09:38] The public engagement we had before the community started.

[4:09:40] We had eight stakeholder group interviews.

[4:09:41] Three community.

[4:09:43] Pop up events.

[4:09:43] Seven county wide workshops.

[4:09:45] Three listening sessions.

[4:09:46] It sounds like the 12 days of Christmas.

[4:09:49] 5,000 to 27 website visits 574 surveys taken 944 website contributions, 4,542

[4:09:57] vision preferences, tallyed.

[4:10:00] We had a few themes that came out of that public engagement that we've proceeded with our changes in the conference plan.

[4:10:09] Now, the elements start getting a little bit more complicated in terms of the interactions with the committee and the changes that were made more substantive and rather than just simple changes.

[4:10:18] The infrastructure element has some complicated changes, but the conservation element took

[4:10:23] actually a while to get completed, but overall the changes we reduce the interest

[4:10:31] statement, we added more data or the community added more data to the environment-ly sensitive

[4:10:36] overlays, bringing in different data sets, more policies about coordination, clearing

[4:10:45] house for conservation tools and that actually will become the responsibility of the board

[4:10:50] adopts that the Parks and Network Resource Division.

[4:10:53] Level of service has was added to the conservation element.

[4:10:58] So the idea is to acquire an additional 30,000 acres between 2020 and 2050.

[4:11:03] That's the environmental land program.

[4:11:06] Added some policies about dark skies, lighting, and added language about wildlife crossings,

[4:11:12] not to be confused with the wildlife corridor, although they are related, but those were added

[4:11:19] specifically into the conservation element.

[4:11:22] Next steps are we are to form a board workshop to tell the board what the results are with all

[4:11:28] the elements. And do a full, either ask the board, do you want to send the full rewrite through

[4:11:35] the process into the state or do they want to divide it between burdensome and non-burned

[4:11:40] policies, scheduled hearings, the other last two items for the consultant are to develop

[4:11:46] a metrics of goals that we want to track over time that might guide us to changes as

[4:11:52] we progress in time, and then a comprehensive plan, customer guide. So that's the synopsis

[4:12:01] there of the changes.

[4:12:04] I'll stay for any questions.

[4:12:05] Does this identify burdensome policies that might be considered burdensome?

[4:12:16] Yes.

[4:12:17] We've identified them in yellow.

[4:12:19] Yellow, okay.

[4:12:20] One of the, over the course of the committee as well, there's been interesting reactions from the state about other jurisdictions that are sent up more burdensome.

[4:12:29] And their tone has been changing?

[4:12:32] really? With the orc report orc stands for objections, recommendations, and comments report.

[4:12:38] So when we send a large scale conference appointment up to the state, they can be report

[4:12:42] in the comment on it. And at first, they'd say your complaint is not going to avoid.

[4:12:46] They've not been saying that. They said this potentially could be more burdensome.

[4:12:50] But they have not been forced with an adoption. That's more burdensome.

[4:12:54] And do we don't know what the state would do if they were faced with that?

[4:12:57] I've heard that you started out by specifically just saying everything was more burdens,

[4:13:05] which is, which is based upon, was it 3380, no 180, Senate Bill 180, Senate Bill 180,

[4:13:14] and because of pushback and argument from local governments in saying, wait a minute, this

[4:13:19] does this, and this does that, that they realize that it's not just a blanket, no it's more

[4:13:27] There are situations where it is not necessarily more burdensome, so I'm encouraged to hear that they are changed their approach.

[4:13:39] And what's interesting, the language of the more burdensome under Senate Bill 180 is not in the comprehensive planning section of state statute. It's in a different section.

[4:13:47] So, what they're reviewing doesn't include that word burdensome language, it's the other sections.

[4:13:54] So it's changing over time.

[4:13:57] But I will send out an email because we have some new members that gets you the full elements that we send out.

[4:14:05] The idea is to give you elements every month so that you're not getting the full compound amendment at one time a week before the hearing.

[4:14:14] Thank you.

[4:14:15] Thank you.

[4:14:18] If there's no other business to come before us, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

[4:14:24] chat bearing a motion to adjourn.

[4:14:27] 1.

[4:14:29] 1.

[4:14:32] 1.

[4:14:32] We're adjourned. Thank you.

Planning Commission on 2026-09-02 9:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript