City Commission Workshop Meeting

City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes November 17, 2023 (APPROVED) 11/17/2023 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Mayor Jack Hilligoss, Robin Gibson, Danny Krueger, Daniel Williams, Keith Thompson Staff Members: James Slaton, City Manager; Jennifer Nanek, City Clerk; Mayor Hilligoss called the meeting to order at approximately 9:05 a.m. 2. City Manager Comments James Slaton, City Manager, said this is an opportunity to review strategic goals and milestones set last year. He encouraged everyone to ask questions as we went along. We are flexible with our time. He reviewed the schedule for today. There will be presentations from outside speakers on Water Supply, Planning and Neighborhood Design. There will be a time for open discussion at the end. 3. Agenda Commission Retreat 3.I. Strategic Priorities James Slaton, City Manager, shared a slideshow with updates on Strategic Priorities and milestones set last year. He does not intend to update these now as these can take time to make progress on these. The Strategic Priorities include Quality of Life, Economic Development, Community Development, Quality Development, and Long-Range Planning. Quality of Life Milestones include: Promote Safety and Security, Historic Preservation, Increase Median Income, Increase Property Values, Individual Respect and Dignity, Improve Recreation, and Maintain Quality Infrastructure. He reviewed the Strategic Priority of improving Quality of Life and the milestone of Promoting Safety and Security. The Police Department has earned Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation. That was a large task. Five new patrol officers and 1 new School Resource Officer were added. Calls for service have increased 15% over the last two years. The Police Department is now equipped with mobile devices. Troy Schulze, Deputy Chief of Police, said they are helpful with evidence collection and cloud storage. It has expedited the process in everything from obtaining evidence to getting warrants. Mr. Slaton said that for the Fire Department we have ordered a new Frontline Fire Engine and added 3 new positions. 67% of Firefighters are also paramedics with more in school. Calls for service have increased 30% over the past two years. Deputy Mayor Gibson asked why calls for service have increased. Deputy Chief Schulze said it has to do with increased traffic through our City. Mr. Slaton said approximately 38,000 people travel through Lake Wales a day on US HWY 27 and close to 30,000 on SR 60. Mr. Slaton said that for the Fire Department we have ordered a new Frontline Fire Engine and added 3 new positions. 67% of Firefighters are also paramedics with more in school. Calls for service have increased 30% over the past two years. Deputy Mayor Gibson asked why calls for service have increased. Deputy Chief Schulze said it has to do with increased traffic through our City. Mr. Slaton said approximately 38,000 people travel through Lake Wales a day on US HWY 27 and close to 30,000 on SR 60. Mr. Slaton shared that new and enhanced lights were added to bus stops and in the northwest neighborhood. Every street light in Lake Wales are being retrofitted to LED lights. This will take years to complete. We have implemented a Circulator Bus route to connect citizens to food retailers and health care services. Mr. Slaton reported on the milestone of Historic Preservation. He said we are partnering with Lake Wales Heritage to promote and restore Olmsted Landscaping. Our newly hired horticulturist will help with this. The City has adopted a new Crystal Lake Overlay District. Autumn Cochella, Assistant Growth Management Director, reviewed this. This was done to maintain the historic character of the area. Mr. Slaton asked Deputy Mayor Gibson to give an update on the Grand Hotel. Deputy Mayor Gibson reported that the motion for summary judgement was filed against us and was defeated. The City has filed a motion for summary judgement based on fraud. The facts were so conclusive that we went forward with this. The judge asked for proposed orders in 20 days. This is short because the judges ill change after the first of the year. We should get a judgement before Christmas. He estimates a 50/50 chance. We will see what happens. Mr. Slaton asked if the judge doesn't rule in our favor do we go to trial? Deputy Mayor Gibson confirmed this. He explained that we moved for Summary judgement on 2 of 7 counts. If we prevail that will decide the case. We can voluntarily dismiss the other 5. There will most likely be an appeal. The judge has confidence in our lawyer. That judgement will be defended. We feel confident about that appeal. Mr. Slaton said that as part of Historic Preservation we adopted the downtown design standards. Ms. Cochella reviewed these. They are intended to promote a mix of residential and commercial in the downtown while preserving the historic character of downtown. Mr. Slaton said that the City has appropriated funds to help with the Stuart Dunn Oliver House, the Arts Council, the Woman's Club and a façade grant for downtown. Mr. Slaton reviewed steps taken on the milestone to Increase Median Income. There are over 250 jobs headed to Lake Wales with the new ADS pipe plant. We have an incentive program to encourage high paying jobs. We have contracted with Retail Strategies to recruit companies to come to Lake Wales. There is a national restaurant chain planned as a result of this. It is working. We have received a $40,000 grant from the Central Florida Planning Council to create an economic development strategic plan. We are co-applicants on a IDA grant application to fund a multi-jurisdictional economic development strategic plan focusing on HWY 60. WE have made it through the first round. Commissioner Thompson asked who the other applicants are? Mr. Slaton said Winter Haven, Bartow and Ft. Meade. Mr. Slaton reported on the milestone to increase property values. He shared a slide showing the increases in the 3 CRA areas. Outside the CRA many homes' assessed values, under the Save our Homes Act, can't increase more than 3%. Most of our new ad valorem tax revenue are from new taxable construction. Deputy Mayor Gibson said this goes away when a home changes hands. Mr. Slaton confirmed this but this limits us. Lake Wales had $12 million in new capital construction this past year. The lowest in Polk County. The great thing is that property values are going up. The homeowners are paying less taxes based on the new value. They got all the equity. A great deal for them. Commissioner Krueger asked if the numbers are adjusted for inflation. Mr. Slaton said no but we can calculate this easily. We are outpacing the rate of inflation since it started increasing in 2020. Mr. Slaton reviewed the milestone on Improving Recreation. He said we have taken over the YMCA now the Recreation Center. He said lots of departments worked hard on this transition. He commended Stephanie Lutton, Parks and Recreation Director, for all her hard work putting everything together. We have assumed operation of the Kirkland Gymnasium. We have drafted an interlocal agreement to share recreation facilities with McLaughlin. Mr. Slaton said we have a self service kiosk with kayaks. Ms. Lutton said more of these are coming. Mr. Slaton said the Recreation department has hosted 14 events over the past year. Mr. Slaton reviewed various grants to enhance Recreation facilities. We have hired a turf management specialist to help take care of our sports fields. Mr. Slaton reviewed the milestone on Improving Recreation. He said we have taken over the YMCA now the Recreation Center. He said lots of departments worked hard on this transition. He commended Stephanie Lutton, Parks and Recreation Director, for all her hard work putting everything together. We have assumed operation of the Kirkland Gymnasium. We have drafted an interlocal agreement to share recreation facilities with McLaughlin. Mr. Slaton said we have a self service kiosk with kayaks. Ms. Lutton said more of these are coming. Mr. Slaton said the Recreation department has hosted 14 events over the past year. Mr. Slaton reviewed various grants to enhance Recreation facilities. We have hired a turf management specialist to help take care of our sports fields. Mr. Slaton said that the next mile stone to review is Maintaining Quality Infrastructure. He said we completed the Lift Station 1, 2 & 3 Sewer Lining evaluation. Sarah Kirkland, Public Works Director, reviewed this project. Helps us make repairs in the older clay pipes. Mr. Slaton said we just completed our watershed master plan to help alleviate flooding in residential and commercial areas. Ms. Kirkland said this plan will soon come to Commission for review. Mr. Slaton reviewed the stormwater utility to help fund stormwater repairs and improvements. This relieved some burden from our transportation budget. There is a lot of work to be done in stormwater and lakes management. The stormwater utility fees do not apply to neighborhoods with their own Stormwater treatment facilities. So a lot of our residents don't pay the fee. That fee is for infrastructure items. Everyone uses the lakes and drives on public roads that have stormwater issues. Some cities have adopted an operating fee that everyone pays. This is for public lakes. Its a much lower fee. Those already pay would pay this but those aren't paying would pay something. Deputy Mayor Gibson asked about neighborhoods that don't pay this. Autumn Cochella explained that some neighborhoods have their own stormwater mitigation plan such as Lake Ashton. Mr. Slaton said those paying the fee are paying for the work for everyone. Mr. Slaton said the average ERUs is $6 a month. An operating fee would be a third. He asked the commission their thoughts. Mayor Hilligoss said those that are paying why should they pay more? Mr. Slaton said the fee would be for operating. Commissioner Krueger said no one likes paying new fees or taxes but this could be sold properly with reason or logic. This could be done as these are resources for everyone. Ms. Kirkland said this would be a quality fee and a maintenance fee. Commissioner Thompson asked to explain the difference. Ms. Kirkland said maintenance includes catch basins and pipes. Quality includes lake clean up. Mr. Slaton said that Winter Haven has this. Commissioner Thompson said this makes sense. It leads to improve the quality of our natural resources. He also agrees with the Mayor to see what the fee would be for those already paying. Commissioner Krueger said we could start with an insignificant fee and increase as needed. Deputy Mayor Gibson said we could increase the fees of those already paying with the only new fee on those not paying. Commissioner Krueger said those not paying already paid for stormwater as part of their community's stormwater mitigation. Deputy Mayor Gibson said they pay for that part but not all of it. Ms. Cochella said the new neighborhoods coming in won't be paying the fee. Mr. Slaton said he is not starting this soon. Mr. Slaton reported on the Water Main Replacement Phase 2. Ms. Kirkland reviewed this project. This will be done by the end of fiscal year. She said the Buck Moore Road septic to sewer conversion is essentially complete. This project will be closed out in a few months. Mr. Slaton said the Commission approved extending the distance where developments are required to connect to our utilities. We are first in the County to require 3rd party certification of Water Star Certification of each new home in Lake Wales. The City also passed an ordinance requiring developers building in reclaimed water service areas to install dry lines for irrigation services. Mr. Slaton reported that 7 roadways were treated and repaved this past year. This will be done again this next year. We removed invasive weeds from Lake Wailes lake and Lake Weaver and Lake Cooper. There are plans to expand the cemetery in the next few years. Commissioner Thompson asked about repairing alleys. Mr. Slaton said we need funding for the alleys. Commissioner Thompson said many access homes by the alleys. Deputy Mayor Gibson said if we are going to advocate alleys we need to maintain our alleys. Mr. Slaton reviewed updates related to the Airport. The Airport Master Plan is nearing completion. We are waiting on FAA approval. We have grant funding to replace the fuel farm. That is under construction. A grant has been received from FDOT and FAA for a T-hangar taxi lane. More corporate hangars have been constructed and more are coming. Commissioner Krueger reported on the Polk County Joint Airport Zoning Board Meeting he attended recently. The issue of concern was neighboring counties building near airports in Polk County. The Counties should work out that issue. He said he doesn't think there is a need for this board.  been constructed and more are coming. Commissioner Krueger reported on the Polk County Joint Airport Zoning Board Meeting he attended recently. The issue of concern was neighboring counties building near airports in Polk County. The Counties should work out that issue. He said he doesn't think there is a need for this board. Mr. Slaton reviewed Maintaining Quality Infrastructure. Regarding the City Administration building, an application has been submitted for a generator and a new roof. New carpet, paint and audio/video equipment have been added. The website has a new look. New fiber optic cables have been installed in the historic core. Mr. Slaton reviewed the Strategic Priority of Economic Development and the milestone of Land Use Allocation. We rezoned the downtown are to DMU Downtown Mixed Use, enacting the new Downtown design standards. An Ordinance was corrected which made Heavy Manufacturing uses permitted by right in the I-1 Industrial zoning district. Another Ordinance is coming to correct more of this. Ms. Cochella said some updates to definitions and clarifications are going before Planning and Zoning this month. Then it will come to the commission. Mr. Slaton said this milestone was created to set aside land for economic development. There is not enough economic development areas in the Lake Wales Envisioned plan. Some areas weren't included. This may need review. We can't assign land uses but we made an effort. Mr. Slaton reported on the Incentives milestone. We have created two programs to bring high wage jobs and develop an inventory for economic development. We get leads every day from CFDC but we have nothing to submit. So this impact fee mitigation program so developers willing to develop spec inventory can receive impact fee mitigation. Neither of these has been used. He asked if there is a desire to create more incentives. Deputy Mayor Gibson recommended getting aggressive. He likes incentives as opposed to requirements to get them to do something. There was consensus from the other commissioners. Mr. Slaton said he will work on this. Mr. Slaton asked about offering incentives to retail and restaurants. Mayor Hilligoss said that doesn't excite him too much as retail follows growth. He recommended allowing flexibility. Mr. Slaton said they may draft an Ordinance that will allow the Commission to decide on certain projects. Deputy Mayor Gibson said we have done something for restaurants already with the incentive program. Mr. Slaton said he would stop the presentation to allow the next speaker to set up. We will cover the rest later. The Commission recessed at 10:10 a.m. 3.II. Water Supply The meeting reconvened at 10:20 a.m. James Slaton, City Manager, introduced Dave Edson from Hoyle Tanner to talk about the status of our water supply. Mr. Edson said we have three water treatment plants with seven wells. The City is limited to an average of 3.9 million gallons a day (MGD) by permit. The usage in 2022 was 2.8 MGD, actual withdrawal was 3.005. In 2025 the projection is 3.185 MGD. Our withdrawals will exceed the Water use permit by 2027. The options for additional water supply include obtaining withdrawal permits from other holders in Lake Wales such as former Citrus Groves. One option is to increase conservation efforts and expand the reuse system. He explained the difference between the upper Floridian Aquifer and the Lower Floridian Aquifer. The upper Floridian Aquifer is cheap and over subscribed. Future wells will have to go deeper to the lower aquifer. The water from the lower aquifer need more treatment. A supply zone and an injection zone is needed. An injection zone has not been found in Polk County. Mr. Slaton said he believes that we have pursued this lower Floridian well as far as we responsibly can. No one can find an injection well. We can't treat the water in our system. we are at a decision point. We need other strategies. Mr. Edson said a test well would be about $4million with minimal chances to finding an injection zone and supply zone. Finding a new supply has been shelved for now. Mayor Hilligoss asked if the PRWC has shelved their plans. Mr. Edson has a lot more funding. Mr. Slaton said the PRWC will probably make this work no matter the cost. Mayor Hilligoss said he is not sure about the data used that painted SWFWMD into this corner. Should we buy into the PRWC? Mr. Slaton said we will believes that we have pursued this lower Floridian well as far as we responsibly can. No one can find an injection well. We can't treat the water in our system. we are at a decision point. We need other strategies. Mr. Edson said a test well would be about $4million with minimal chances to finding an injection zone and supply zone. Finding a new supply has been shelved for now. Mayor Hilligoss asked if the PRWC has shelved their plans. Mr. Edson has a lot more funding. Mr. Slaton said the PRWC will probably make this work no matter the cost. Mayor Hilligoss said he is not sure about the data used that painted SWFWMD into this corner. Should we buy into the PRWC? Mr. Slaton said we will discuss this. Mr. Edson reviewed the possibility of obtaining other withdrawal permits owned by others. Deputy Mayor Gibson asked if these were citrus groves. Mr. Edson confirmed that 90% of the others are agriculture. He reviewed Land Use Transfers. The common example of change is orange groves to homes. He reviewed the rules for these transfers and said the City is engaged in discussions on obtaining these. A maximum of 90% capacity can be obtained with each transfer. This amount is reduced if the pumping center is relocated. Commissioner Thompson asked what the reduction is if the pumping center is. Mr. Edson said there would need to be an impact analysis first. Mr. Slaton said these are all over the place. Deputy Police Chief Troy Schulze asked how far back the study goes. Some groves have been dead for years. Mr. Edson said 5-6 years. Anything older is no good to us. Deputy Mayor Gibson said at 90% people get less water than citrus. Mr. Edson said its a battle for limited resources. Any transfer is subject to these. Mr. Slaton said the City is heavily regulated. Deputy Mayor Gibson said we need to get as many of these as we can and do more with conservation. Commissioner Thompson asked what the cost is to move this water from the wells to people. Mr. Slaton said we don't know. Mr. Edson reviewed the Polk Regional Water Cooperative which is an agency created to develop a regional water supply system. They are working on 2 well fields and treatment facilities. These will be expensive in the area of $460 million. A ton of money will be spent to develop this. Lake Wales has recently requested to be an active participant. The Commission will vote on this once we know what the costs are.. The facilities and construction will be bid out in 2024. Its unknown what this water will cost. Commissioner Thompson asked what their solution is to injection wells. Mr. Edson said to go deeper. Sara Irvine, Special Projects Administrator, said at the recent PRWC meeting the permit timeline was extended to January. Mr. Edson said the permit is from Florida DEP. This will be expensive but they can't tell the communities what the water will cost. Mr. Edson said the focus now is on the Land Use transfers, updating the Water Conservation Plan and the application to the PRWC. The City will continue to development of a water supply strategy. This comes down to what the resident will have to pay for water. Mr. Slaton said we were using our American Rescue Plan money for the Lower Floridian Aquifer Well. We need to obligate that money by the end of next year. We need to decide about those funds. They could be used for other water infrastructure projects. He doesn't want to join forces with others but this doesn't make sense anymore. This is hard to accept. Mayor Hilligoss said it is hard to accept and he isn't sure about this narrative. He does not want to waste money. Someone is taking control of a precious commodity. Mr. Slaton asked about scrutiny and regulation of the water districts. Mr. Edson said others are under the same rules. Polk County is one of the fastest growing counties in the US. Commissioner Thompson asked if drilling to the Lower Floridian Aquifer if it will negatively affect the upper aquifer. Mr. Edson said those drills are cased through so there is no connection. Commissioner Krueger said we haven't seen an overall drop in lake levels. We need to find the truth on this. Mr. Slaton said the Water Management District is making the rules. Commissioner Thompson asked if we can push back. He gets lost at the PRWC meetings. He is concerned about what is discussed. Mr. Edson said Tom Cloud, Attorney, is in a better position to discuss this. The water districts have enormous power. Its hard to go against them. Commissioner Krueger said any statistics from governments are subject to question. Mr. Edson said different experts have different opinions. Mr. Slaton asked if there was consensus on the approach we are taking. There was consensus from the Commission members. Mr. Slaton said when we get numbers from the PRWC we will decide if we  Commissioner Krueger said any statistics from governments are subject to question. Mr. Edson said different experts have different opinions. Mr. Slaton asked if there was consensus on the approach we are taking. There was consensus from the Commission members. Mr. Slaton said when we get numbers from the PRWC we will decide if we should join. The Commission was recessed at 11:10 a.m. 3.III. Planning 101 & Land Use Law Meeting was reconvened at 11:22 a.m. Drew Crawford, attorney with Boswell & Dunlap in Bartow, gave a presentation on land use regulations. He introduced himself and some of the work he has done. He reviewed the topics he planned to present and explained that this presentation is usually for planning boards. He reviewed a history of land use regulation in Florida. In 1968 Florida redid its Constitution and established Home Rule Municipal Authority. More recent legislation includes the Growth Management Act of 1985 and the Community Planning Act in 2011. Overall the State was trying to control development. They gave powers to the Cities and then are trying to take it back. Most of the modern rules and planning environment come from the 1985 Growth Management Act. The Community Planning Act of 2011 rolled back some State involvement. The Department of Community Affairs turned into the Department of Economic Opportunity which is now Florida Commerce as of this year. Certain land use and Comprehensive Plan Amendments no longer had to go to the state for review after 2011. Mr. Crawford reviewed basic definitions in State Statutes such as Comprehensive plans and what is included and Land Development Regulations and what these cover. Land Development Regulations must cover subdividing land, flooding signage and others. The future Land Use Element is the important part of the Comp plan. The city must have regulations on how to use land and water in each category. This is where zoning regulations come into play. Prior Development Orders are a big one. What happens when something amortizes out? When there is a non-conforming use? He reviewed what Planning boards are authorized to decide. This is up to a City Commission. They are sometimes authorized to make final decisions on conditional uses and special exceptions. Sometimes Commissions can reserve the final authority but this can crowd the Commission agenda. Most Commissions have the Planning Board do this because they are considered the keepers of the Comprehensive plan. They deal with these issues more frequently. At the City Commission level they approve changes to land use and zoning maps. The Planning Board makes recommendations on these. They also make recommendations on changes to the Comprehensive Board. Florida Statutes say this board does all the study work on the Comprehensive plan. Mr. Slaton asked if being a keeper of the comp plan is a statutory role. Mr. Crawford said yes. Municipalities are required to create a Land Planning Agency (LPA). This should be different from the Commission. Usually it is called a Planning Board but names vary. These should be separate so that lines on responsibility are distinct. This gives citizens a way to be heard and process is transparent. He reviewed the responsibilities of the LPA. They hold at least one hearing on plan amendments. They can have other duties assigned to them. Commissioner Thompson confirmed that the LPA and the Planning board is the same. Mr. Crawford said yes. Mr. Crawford explained about Development orders like building permits, which permit land development. This is a big bucket. In 2019 the Legislature put time limits for applications called the shot clock. Commissioner Thompson asked if there is a penalty. Mr. Crawford said no but the city could face legal action. They recommend a program to get developers to waive these time limits. They typically agree if they know transparent progress is made on their application. Development orders decisions need to be in writing. He said the planning board needs to do their homework and make a recommendation with written findings. Mr. Slaton asked if these are quasi-judicial decisions. Mr. Crawford said yes except maybe assigning zoning to newly annexed property. Most of these are quasi-judicial that is why written findings are important. Mr. Slaton asked if the Commission should serve as an objective 3rd party should make decisions based on evidence. Mr. Crawford said yes. The Commission should be impartial even though this is hard to do. Decisions should be made on the evidence presented. They have to decide what is Mr. Slaton asked if these are quasi-judicial decisions. Mr. Crawford said yes except maybe assigning zoning to newly annexed property. Most of these are quasi-judicial that is why written findings are important. Mr. Slaton asked if the Commission should serve as an objective 3rd party should make decisions based on evidence. Mr. Crawford said yes. The Commission should be impartial even though this is hard to do. Decisions should be made on the evidence presented. They have to decide what is competent information. Having the information written ensures that the decision will stand based on appeal. Decisions whatever they are need to be sound. Deputy Mayor Gibson asked how much jurisdiction he has as a Commissioner. Mr. Crawford says the Commission is the trial court and make factual findings based on credibility of witnesses. Mr. Crawford said public transparency is key. The public needs to have their say. Deputy Mayor Gibson says that the Planning board hears the same things. Mr. Crawford said the Commission can judge what the public says. Without listening to the public the Commission loses credibility. The Commission needs to make decisions based on fact. If a member of the public has factual information they can give that information more credibility. Mr. Slaton said that staff can supplement that information. Mr. Crawford said the Commission also has to follow its own policies. Deputy Mayor Gibson asked how much value to give decisions of the planning board. The Commission can completely disregard these. Mr. Crawford said sometimes but that recommendation is competent substantial information to consider. A court is going to look at the written information and if the Commission followed the law. The Commission has all the original jurisdiction to make a decision. Professional opinions is considered substantial and competent. Deputy Mayor Gibson asked for a good picture for a City Commissioner on how much weight to put on the Planning board recommendation and does he have complete jurisdiction. Are there things that he must accept from the Planning board as a matter of law? Mr. Crawford said the Commission is not required to accept what the Planning Board recommends. The Commission members can decide how much weight to place on the Planning Board's recommendation. Deputy Mayor Gibson said who we put on the planning board is critical. Mr. Crawford agreed. The Commission should trust its Planning board because the Commission put them there. Mr. Slaton agreed. Mr. Crawford said they need to find good people who are honest and willing to learn. You don't want folks with fixed opinions who won't weigh evidence. Deputy Mayor Gibson said we should give the board the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Crawford said the Commission should consider did the board listen to and weigh evidence? Brian Hermann, Growth Management Director, asked about Florida Comp plans. Why are they more text based where as other states have more pictures and graphics. Mr. Crawford said the Polk County ones borrowed from the Central Florida Development Council model. He agrees with putting in more graphics in future versions. Some graphics and maps are required. Stagnation and inertia keeps these as mostly text. Mr. Crawford explained the different responsibilities of the Code board, planning board and Commission. The Commission passed Ordinances. The Code Enforcement board makes sure certain laws are followed. Most permits are issued by staff. Mr. Crawford said it is important that the public have a reasonable opportunity to be heard before action is taken. He recommends an Ordinance establishing how long the public can speak and what the procedure is. It is okay for the Commission to limit speaking after hearing many similar comments on the same topic. Its important to manage expectations. Commissioner Krueger asked if we can prioritize residents over non-residents. Mr. Crawford recommended against this as non-residents can be affected by Commission decisions. This can cause people to be upset. Allowing a representative of a group a bit more time is okay. This can be part of a public speaking ordinance. He recommended one. Mr. Slaton confirmed that we have one. Mr. Crawford shared a court ruling that ruled that public hearings continued to another date must have a notice published again. A state statute undid some of this decision saying that if the date and time and place is publicly stated then another notice isn't necessary. Mr. Crawford reviewed Business Impact Estimate requirement recently passed by the Florida Legislature. Certain items related to growth policy don't need this. He gave examples of when this is required. Commissioner Thompson said the legislation provides no model to follow or other guidance. Mr. Crawford commended the City on their Ordinance establishing a Business Impact Statement Policy. The steps in the policy most cities in Polk County will follow until directed otherwise. There was consensus to break for lunch. The meeting was recessed at 12:30 p.m. Estimate requirement recently passed by the Florida Legislature. Certain items related to growth policy don't need this. He gave examples of when this is required. Commissioner Thompson said the legislation provides no model to follow or other guidance. Mr. Crawford commended the City on their Ordinance establishing a Business Impact Statement Policy. The steps in the policy most cities in Polk County will follow until directed otherwise. There was consensus to break for lunch. The meeting was recessed at 12:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 12:48 p.m. Mr. Crawford explained the difference between quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial acts. A legislative act sets or creates formal policy. A judicial act interprets or applies formal policy. He shared examples. A request to assign initial zoning to newly annexed land and a request to amend the LDC to add a new land use category are quasi-legislative acts. Requests to rezone property, to authorize a special exception use of Property and to modify existing Master Development Plan approval are examples of quasi-judicial acts. Commissioner Thompson asked why the distinctions matter. Mr. Crawford said it has to do with the quality of the process you have to give to the applicant. Setting policy is legislative, like Congress, for everyone. For smaller pieces of property it gets more personal. The person needs their day in court. Its about individual rights. Commissioner Thompson said there are areas where it seems we have wiggle room and areas where we do not. Mr. Crawford said the Commission always has wiggle room but it varies as to what kind. There is wiggle room on what policy to approve for residents but in judicial acts the Commission decides who to believe. It's like wearing different hats. Legislative actions standard of review is "fairly debatable" where reasonable people can differ with each other. In quasi judicial its tiered Certiorari review that makes sure the law is followed, if due process was followed. Is there evidence to support the decision? Mr. Crawford reviewed due process in quasi- judicial matters. The issue must be properly noticed, there should be an impartial panel, sworn testimony evidence and findings of fact. Mr. Slaton asked about development orders like planned development projects or PUDs, are these included? Mr. Crawford said yes and shared some examples. They are absolutely an application of policy that makes it quasi-judicial. In these cases give applicants plenty of time to speak so they have their day in court. Commissioner Thompson asked about sworn testimony for quasi-judicial decisions. It seems like we need this. Mr. Crawford said some cities do this. From a legal stand point if you have a full blown swear in public hearing the City is fine. Decisions, findings of fact, need to be in writing. The Commission needs a fact based reason to deny a development. Commissioner Krueger said asking for well thought out arguments lead to accusations of calling the public stupid. Commissioner Thompson said this is why we need the law. Most people make decisions based on emotion. They can't look at something to see what best works for everyone. Mr. Crawford said quasi-legislative decisions can be based more on emotion but City decisions need to be protected. Some of these areas citizens need more education on. Mr. Crawford gave examples of accepted competent substantial evidence such as expert opinions, planning staff opinions, agency reports, and fact based sworn testimony. Items rejected as competent substantial evidence are opinions of lay witnesses and neighborhoods, unsworn testimony, and popularity polls. Lawyers need a defendable decision. Commissioner Thompson asked about Citizen petitions. Mr. Crawford said they can be useful. Citizens should feel listened to. How much to weigh it is a difficult question. Mr. Crawford said that the essential requirements of law are followed so long as the board applies the correct law to the matter before it. The commission needs to follow the correct law. Zoning is about compatibility. Commissioner Thompson asked about the recently approved Lake Wales Envisioned Plan. Can we make decisions based on this? Mr. Crawford said the Commission can change the law to align with vision and goals. They have to follow the process. Deputy Mayor Gibson said the 8 aspirations are Mr. Crawford said that the essential requirements of law are followed so long as the board applies the correct law to the matter before it. The commission needs to follow the correct law. Zoning is about compatibility. Commissioner Thompson asked about the recently approved Lake Wales Envisioned Plan. Can we make decisions based on this? Mr. Crawford said the Commission can change the law to align with vision and goals. They have to follow the process. Deputy Mayor Gibson said the 8 aspirations are within our Comp plan. Mr. Crawford said that the staff can articulate to the Commission if a development is in line with the vision. Mr. Crawford said the next section is ex parte communications. These are discussions involving one side only that are made on behalf of, or by, only one of the parties involved in a case outside of a noticed hearing. The Commission should not listen to one set of opinions with out the other party. Commissioners should avoid private discussions. The other person is denied their rights in court. Commissions should disclose private discussions. Put it on the record. He recommended polite avoidance and non-committal responses. Conversations with staff are encouraged. Mr. Slaton asked about a resolution concerning a remedy for ex parte communications. Mr. Crawford said the legislature created a path for a City to establish procedures of the statute, who, what, where and when. Communications should be disclosed before voting. Mr. Slaton said we don't have a resolution. Mr. Crawford said if the City has a good procedure they would be okay. How to address conversations with the public was discussed. Mr. Crawford encouraged the Commission to include these conversations in the meeting as early as possible. These concerns are for the Planning board as well. Deputy Mayor Gibson said we can listen to comments but decisions made should be based on facts. Mr. Crawford said Commissioners should not serve as witnesses if they are making decisions. They can confirm other evidence presented. Deputy Chief Troy Schulze asked if a Commissioner reported something they were told about a project. Mr. Crawford said that should be shared up front. Mr. Crawford shared general problems of concern. Tallahassee is interfering in local decision making. A recent statute approved allows those that file a suit against City Governments recent Ordinance on the grounds that it is "arbitrary or unreasonable" can be awarded attorneys fees up to $50,000. It is uncertain what arbitrary and unreasonable means. There have been no rulings on this. Commissioner Thompson said if a business owner wants to challenge an ordinance that affects their business. How can this be determined? This may create a whole new field of law. Mr. Crawford suggested there are gaps in the law and will be addressed at some point. If the City repeals the law 30 days after notice of filing they can avoid paying the fees. Mr. Crawford reviewed Senate Bill 250, effective July 1 2023, preventing a municipality from adopting a moratorium on Construction within 100 miles of Hurricane Nicole or Hurricane Ian. This affects Lake Wales. This is a huge issue and a big mess. Deputy Mayor Gibson said this is legislative interference. Mr. Crawford said this is an improper local bill. In the recent special session this was amended to remove Nicole so its only Hurricane Ian. Many cities with changes in process were halted by this. Also included in Senate Bill 250 is an amendment of the State of Emergency Act where a declaration of a State of Emergency tolls the period remaining to exercise the rights under a permit for 24 months. This applies to development orders, building permits and development agreement. Things happening under a State of Emergency are still in effect. The State of Florida is still under a state of Emergency with Hurricane Nicole. Time is still being tolled. That is out there. Mr. James Slaton asked if current projects are being tolled. Mr. Crawford said potentially, we should check with City Attorney. Mr. Crawford reported on legislation from 2021 about protecting private property rights. The City must have a property rights statement. The City of Lake Wales does have this in their plan. He listed the property statements. If the City goes against what is in our comp plan allows private property owners to challenge the City if they feel their rights are violated. Mr. Crawford reviewed the Bert Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Act says government needs to reimburse property owners in an action of government has inordinately burdened a property owner. This allows a property owner to recover attorney costs. Mr. Crawford reviewed a statute on corporate branding identity. An ordinance cannot require a building or trademark to look a certain way. A restaurant or gas station can look a certain way if that is they way their buildings look.  Mr. Crawford reviewed the Bert Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Act says government needs to reimburse property owners in an action of government has inordinately burdened a property owner. This allows a property owner to recover attorney costs. Mr. Crawford reviewed a statute on corporate branding identity. An ordinance cannot require a building or trademark to look a certain way. A restaurant or gas station can look a certain way if that is they way their buildings look. Mr. Crawford reviewed Transfer of Development Rights and how they work. They need to involve a willing seller. Commissioner Thompson asked once development rights are transferred it is a done deal. Mr. Crawford confirmed this. He said it is permanent. Mayor Hilligoss confirmed that the property owner doesn't get paid until the City finds a buyer for those development rights. Mr. Crawford confirmed this. He said that most communities in Polk County don't need to bank rights or exceed current densities. This should be done when the City knows they have a buyer. Mayor Hilligoss said his concern that this tool won't work as we won't have a market for that kind of density. Mr. Crawford agreed that the City may not and may have to change its plan to change its density. This is just one tool towards an overall goal. Mr. Slaton asked if they must be banked or if this can be a mechanism for two property owners or a property owner of two parcels to have this as an additional tool. Mr. Crawford said yes the City can do this and provided an example. This can help the City achieve certain goals. There would need to be some documentation of this. Mr. Slaton said the City can facilitate this but not mandate these or expend money. Mr. Crawford agreed. Mr. Crawford reviewed conservation easements what they are and how they are acquired. A Government or a charitable organization involved in conservation. They can't make someone give a conservation easement by condemnation or eminent domain. You need a willing seller. The City might be better to change their units to allow more density downtown. This would be difficult but it can be done. Mr. Crawford listed prohibited exactions which are conditions on development that lacks a public purpose. Deputy Mayor Gibson said if we want to require a green area in a development , a developer has to agree. Mr. Slaton asked about requiring design features like alleyways. Mr. Crawford said that should be in the code. The meeting was recessed at 2:50 p.m. 3.IV. Neighborhood Design Meeting reconvened at 3:02 p.m. Brian Hermann, Director of Growth Management, gave a presentation on good design. He shared comparisons of parcels in downtown and a strip mall. The tax revenue from downtown is greater. He shared pictures of good and bad designs. He compared traditional vs Conventional design with side by side slides. A traditional design has more entrances and parks with mixed use. Conventional has 1-3 lot sizes per community. He reviewed the concept of a missing middle types of housing. He shoed slides of traditional housing and commercial buildings with rear loaded or garage parking as opposed to front loaded parking. Traditional civic space has parks rather than ill defined open space. Small details can make a difference such as landscaping. He showed example of road diets and how to improve bad roads. He showed pictures of a true boulevard. He showed how traditional neighborhoods are more walkable. He showed a map to show how walkable the downtown traditional neighborhood is. He showed examples of hybrid developments in other communities. He showed examples of infill development. These neighborhoods are smaller with intense housing but fits in with everything else. He showed examples of alleyways. Mr. Hermann showed slides of Daniel Island in SC which is a hybrid traditional development which is dense, is walkable with several parks. James Slaton, City Manager, asked if this was one developer. Mr. Hermann said there was one master developer with multiple builders. He showed houses with the garage set back a bit. The neighborhood has skyrocketed. This was done over 20 years ago. Mr. Hermann showed slides showing infill development in Woodstock Georgia illustrating the downtown and public spaces. He showed pictures of Glenwood Park outside of Atlanta Georgia. The plan was a dense, is walkable with several parks. James Slaton, City Manager, asked if this was one developer. Mr. Hermann said there was one master developer with multiple builders. He showed houses with the garage set back a bit. The neighborhood has skyrocketed. This was done over 20 years ago. Mr. Hermann showed slides showing infill development in Woodstock Georgia illustrating the downtown and public spaces. He showed pictures of Glenwood Park outside of Atlanta Georgia. The plan was a DoverKohl project, a very intense traditional neighborhood. He showed pictures of I'on in South Caroline which is a very wealthy area. He showed pictures of Seaside, a resort community in Florida which started the traditional Neighborhood design movement. He then showed pictures of Park Duvalle in Kentucky as an intense traditional neighborhood. Mr. Hermann showed a diagram of a planter strip at 8 ft. wide. These can add value to the community. Mr. Slaton said that we are going to propose these. Mr. Hermann said there are minor things to do to streets to slow them down or make them more walkable. He shared pictures of parks and open spaces in well designed neighborhoods. He then showed a picture of a neighborhood fronting a street with a community trail in Orlando. Mr. Hermann then reviewed proposed Planned Development Project Regulations. Mr. Slaton said he wanted to review this before it goes to a Planning and Zoning meeting and then a Commission Meeting. We want to create a path to incentivize TND development. We want to make it easier for those guys to develop. Most development coming in will be conventional and will undergo scrutiny of the PDP process. We are going to take the best parts of good neighborhood design like green spaces, trails and amenities and apply those to the PDP guidelines to build good neighborhoods. Mr. Hermann presented a draft of proposed regulations. He said they are not insisting on 100% rear loaded. We are trying to get more civic spaces and things like that. [Begin slide text] Division 4. Planned Development Project (PDP) Regulations § 23-441. Purpose and Intent. a. A PDP shall be approved only if the proposed plan demonstrates that both its functions and fundamental design elements are superior to that which is found in a standard subdivision. b. Each neighborhood within a PDP shall be comprised of an interconnected, walkable grid of blocks and streets, expansive tree canopies, and accessibility to functional park space. These are core components of the desired development form within Lake Wales. In addition, c. The Residential PDP process is intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present plans that clearly enhance the community by incorporating these core components, along with innovative approaches to density and/or intensity that remain in keeping with the limitations established in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the standards conveyed within. § 23-442. Applicability. Planned Development Project (PDP) approval is required for projects meeting the criteria set forth in section 23- 224.1. A Planned Development Project (PDP) may be approved in any zoning district through the process set forth in section 23-224. 23-443. General to All Development. The Planned Development Project (PDP) process is intended to promote high quality site design that adheres to the following standards and guidelines. a. Density and intensity. 1. Comprehensive Plan. A PDP may not exceed the density or intensity limitations established in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the land use classification applicable to the property. Acreage for density calculations shall not include areas of open water or lands within the "Conservation" classification of the Future Land Use Map. 1. Comprehensive Plan. A PDP may not exceed the density or intensity limitations established in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the land use classification applicable to the property. Acreage for density calculations shall not include areas of open water or lands within the "Conservation" classification of the Future Land Use Map. 2. Zoning Standards. A PDP may not exceed the density or intensity limitations of the zoning district in which the property is located. b. Land uses. 1. Permitted and Special Exception Uses. The uses within a PDP shall be limited to those that are either permitted by right or permitted by special exception within the underlying zoning district in which the property is located. Exception: Residential Uses may be included in areas where “Mixed Use” is a designated use under the Future Land Use classification of the property in the Comprehensive Plan. See Table 23-421 for Permitted and Special Exception Uses. 2. Non-residential Uses. Non-residential uses are permitted as a subordinate part of a residential Planned Development Project (PDP) and are limited to those uses permitted in the C-4 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. c. Design. 1. Form and Character. A. Interconnected, Coherent, and Complete Street Network. To the maximum extent practicable, a coherent, interconnected, and complete network of thoroughfares shall provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the lots and civic spaces within the proposed community. Thoroughfares shall be designed in context with the urban form and general intention of the areas in which they pass. The requirements for vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, comfort, and access shall influence the character and design speed of the street and promote a variety of possible facilities within the Right of Way (ROW), including: the size of the vehicular lanes, turning (curb) radii, bus service, planter strips, stormwater treatment (rain gardens or bioswales), on-street parking, dedicated bicycle lanes, opposing sidewalks, and pedestrian trails. B. Building Types & Housing Types. Ideally, a mix of building types and housing types, including various intensities or densities, setbacks (both primary and secondary), and means of vehicular loading shall be conveyed. C. Open Space and Civic Space. Open spaces, civic spaces, and recreation areas, including pathways and trails shall be used to preserve and highlight the natural features of the property. The general design and acreage for such areas shall be calculated. To the maximum extent practicable, existing trees, wetlands, ponds, natural topographic variation, and proposed storm water retention areas shall be incorporated into the layout of these sites and showcased as unique design features and amenities for the enjoyment of the community. D. Utilities. Proposed connections with utilities shall be conveyed in such a way as to reduce their visual impact. E. Project Phasing. Any and all project phasing. d. Waivers. 1. A Planned Development Project (PDP) shall adhere to the following standards, as these establish a baseline regarding both the form and function for a residential community within the City of Lake Wales: d. Waivers. 1. A Planned Development Project (PDP) shall adhere to the following standards, as these establish a baseline regarding both the form and function for a residential community within the City of Lake Wales: A. Traditional Block and Street Pattern: Neighborhood Edge (23 – 443.a) B. Traditional Block and Street Pattern: Internal to the Neighborhood (23 – 443.b) C. Dead–end Streets and Cul-de-sacs within a Neighborhood (23 – 443.c) D. Future Street Connectivity into a Proposed or Adjoining Neighborhood (23 – 443.d) E. Establishment of Lots within a Neighborhood (23 – 443.e) F. Neighborhood Parking (23 – 443.f) G. Neighborhood Open Spaces and Neighborhood Amenities (23 – 443.g) H. Neighborhood Sidewalks (23 – 433.h) I. Neighborhood Street Trees (23 – 443.i) J. Private Lot Planting Standards (23 – 443.j) K. Private Lot Driveways and Garages (23 – 443.k) As such, a Waiver shall not be conveyed for the aforementioned standards. EXCEPTION: Where a specific site constraint prevents the required standard from being achieved. In such case, the applicant may request a waiver to be granted so long as they have demonstrated that they have addressed the required standard to the maximum extent possible. 2. An applicant may request a waiver for lot sizes, setbacks, or any other development standard not specifically addressed above. 3. Under no circumstance shall any of the following provisions be eligible for a waiver: A. Concurrency pursuant to article VII, div. 1, B. Public Facilities impact fees pursuant to article VII, div. 4, and C. Resource Protection pursuant to article VI. §23-444. Residential PDP – Neighborhood Development Standards. The following provisions set forth the standards and guidelines for a Residential PDP. The image below depicts a standard 126 acre, &1/4; mile radius pedestrian shed laid over top of a proposed neighborhood. The &1/4; mile radius depicts a 5 minute walk from the neighborhood’s “center” to its “edge”. The overall acreage that is proposed within a neighborhood’s pedestrian shed (as well as its radius) may fluctuate. This is anticipated. However, a neighborhood shall never exceed 200 acres in size. Should this occur, the proposal shall be re-drawn to depict two (or more) neighborhoods – each with its own “ped” shed. §23-444.1 Traditional Block and Street Pattern: Neighborhood Edge a. New developments proposing a street network shall adopt a traditional block pattern and ensure the proposed streets connect to the existing street network surrounding the development. For example, any Arterial, Collector, or Local Street that runs along the edge of a newly proposed neighborhood shall be §23-444.1 Traditional Block and Street Pattern: Neighborhood Edge a. New developments proposing a street network shall adopt a traditional block pattern and ensure the proposed streets connect to the existing street network surrounding the development. For example, any Arterial, Collector, or Local Street that runs along the edge of a newly proposed neighborhood shall be incorporated into the structure of the neighborhood, with lots fronting directly upon it. b. “Reverse Frontage Lots” shall not be permitted. All blocks shall be comprised of two tiers of lots that front upon a street or greenspace. Therefore, as conveyed above, a new neighborhood’s first tier of lots shall front directly upon the aforementioned Arterial, Collector, or Local Street. Such a street shall serve as the edge of the neighborhood, with these lots either “loaded” from the thoroughfare or “rear loaded” from an alleyway or lane. c. A Parallel Street. 1. If the aforementioned development pattern is not permitted a neighborhood’s first tier of lots may front directly upon a parallel access road that runs adjacent to the aforementioned Arterial, Collector, or Local Street. 2. In this case, the manner in which the individual lots are loaded (front, side, or rear) shall be determined by the width of the lot. 3. The area between the primary thoroughfare and the parallel access road shall not be screened, walled, or fenced. Rather, a civic space (greenway or park) and / or appropriate landscaping (i.e. street trees) shall be established in order to provide an inviting frontage for the first row of homes as well as the neighborhood in general. d. A Perpendicular Street. 1. In addition to incorporating “existing” or “parallel” streets into the fabric of the neighborhood, and forming its “edge”, the neighborhood shall also contain one or more streets that run perpendicular to the neighborhood’s “edge” and provide vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access “into the community.” Depending upon their width, lots that front such a perpendicular street may be served by a rear alleyway, side loaded, or front loaded. §23-444.2 Traditional Block and Street Pattern: Internal to the Neighborhood. a. New streets shall connect to existing streets and create new street grids and patterns. The street layout of a new neighborhood shall provide for the continuation of streets already existing in adjacent areas. Stub-outs to adjacent undeveloped parcels shall be provided with a spacing of no greater than 1,000 feet. b. As conveyed above, all blocks shall be comprised of two tiers of lots that front upon a street or greenspace. c. Blocks shall be composed of straight-line segments with preference given to rectangles. d. Block Face and Perimeter Length. 1. The length of each block face shall be a minimum of 200 ft.; 2. The length of each block face shall be a maximum of 600 ft.; and e. Many of the desired aspects of urbanism, including walkability, adequate street frontage, and adaptable land subdivision are a distinct function of block size. However, on occasion environmental, topographic, or other physical constraints may limit the establishment of a new block. As a result, the length of one or more block faces may be extended to a maximum of 800 ft. and the overall perimeter length may be extended to a length of 2000 ft. 1. When such a case arises the thoroughfare shall be designed to implement measures that will interrupt and slow vehicular travel speeds. The applicant and Growth Management Director shall work topographic, or other physical constraints may limit the establishment of a new block. As a result, the length of one or more block faces may be extended to a maximum of 800 ft. and the overall perimeter length may be extended to a length of 2000 ft. 1. When such a case arises the thoroughfare shall be designed to implement measures that will interrupt and slow vehicular travel speeds. The applicant and Growth Management Director shall work together to determine which of the following devices are most appropriate: A. A curvilinear road segment; B. Jogs or off-sets; C. Street chicanes or neck downs; or D. A roundabout. f. If a street is designed in such a manner that it will terminate into a thoroughfare that runs in a perpendicular direction, the developer and staff shall work together to seek out opportunities to establish a building, statue, source of ornamentation, or natural feature within the sight lines where the two streets intersect. §23-444.3 Dead-end Streets and Cul-de-sacs within a Neighborhood a. Dead-end streets with no potential for vehicular connection shall not be permitted unless the proposal provides the only means for accommodating a site specific environmental issue that requires protection and/or preservation on one or more sides of the thoroughfare. b. The dead-end street shall not extend more than 600 feet from the nearest cross street and shall be terminated by utilizing one of the following “cul-de-sac” designs (listed in priority order from most desirable to least desirable below): 1. “Loop Road” – Internal lots shall front outward onto a “loop road” that is surrounded by open space. 2. “Close” – Lots shall front upon the three sides of a centrally planted “rectangular” or “oval” median. 3. “Close with Vista” – Lots shall front upon the two longer sides of a centrally planted rectangular or oval median. The side that is parallel to the main street shall remain open with no lots. 4. A “Planted Court” – If one of the “alternative designs” cited above can be incorporated into the neighborhood, it shall be utilized in favor of this proposal. If not, the lots in this proposal shall front a centrally planted ”circular” median or court. c. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum right-of-way radius of 50 feet and a paved circular area with a minimum radius of 40 feet; d. To the maximum extent practicable, a cul-de-sac shall provide at least one pedestrian access easement and paved walkway between its head and the sidewalk system of the closest adjacent street or pedestrian pathway. This is in addition to the sidewalks that are required within the right of way of the thoroughfare that terminates into the cul-de-sac. §23-444.4 Future Street Connectivity into a Proposed or Adjoining Neighborhood a. The arrangement of streets shall provide for the alignment and continuation of existing or proposed streets into adjoining lands where the adjoining lands are undeveloped and intended for future development, or where the adjoining lands are developed and include opportunities for such connections. b. Street rights-of-ways shall be extended to or along adjoining property boundaries to provide a roadway connection or thoroughfare stub for future development. c. If a street terminates with a stub at a property boundary, the Site Development Plan and / or Subdivision Plat shall include a notation that the stub shall connect with a future street on the adjoining b. Street rights-of-ways shall be extended to or along adjoining property boundaries to provide a roadway connection or thoroughfare stub for future development. c. If a street terminates with a stub at a property boundary, the Site Development Plan and / or Subdivision Plat shall include a notation that the stub shall connect with a future street on the adjoining undeveloped property. §23-444.5 Establishment of Lots within a Neighborhood a. When Resources Make Normal Lotting Difficult. Where natural resources or property shape make normal lotting difficult, common drives or shared easements may be considered. b. Flag Lots. Flag Lots are prohibited and may only be permitted when the following three provisions are met: 1. Connectivity and circulation via a network of streets, alleys, pathways, etc, will be maintained; 2. There is no reasonable alternative due to extreme topographic conditions or other physical conditions; and 3. The lot has an access strip with a minimum width of 20’ serving the main building site of the property. The front setback on flag lots shall be measured from the front property line within the main building site as opposed to the property line adjoining the public right-of-way. §23-444.6 Neighborhood Parking a. Commercial, Office, Multi-family, and Civic Buildings and Sites – All such buildings and Sites shall front directly upon the street. In no case shall a vehicle be able to drive between the street and the front entrance. 1. On-street parking shall be encouraged. Parallel and in some cases angled parking shall be encouraged, with the design primarily depending upon the type of thoroughfare and its width. 2. Parking facilities (parking lots) comprised of drive aisles and parking spaces shall be located to the side or rear of a commercial, multi-family, or civic building. §23-444.7 Neighborhood Open Spaces and Neighborhood Amenities a. When combined the acreage that comprises all Neighborhood Open Spaces and all Neighborhood Amenities shall equal a minimum of 20% of the overall acreage within each neighborhood. Roadways and parking areas shall be excluded from the calculation. b. EXCEPTION: If Raingardens or Bioswales are installed within and around a “parking area” or “on- street parking area” for a Neighborhood Open Space or Neighborhood Amenity, the parking area shall be counted as part of the minimum 20% open space. c. Each neighborhood shall consist of a minimum of: 1. One Neighborhood Open Space AND 2. One Neighborhood Amenity (may be included within a Neighborhood Open Space). d. All residential lots shall be within 1,320 feet of at least one Neighborhood Open Space OR one Neighborhood Amenity. 1. Neighborhood Open Spaces shall include the following: Greenways: 5 acres minimum A natural landscape available for unstructured recreation; Greenways should generally be fronted by adjacent buildings with regular public street access. The landscape shall consist of trails, meadows, waterbodies, woodland, recreational fields, and / or open shelters, all naturalistically disposed. Greenways are often irregularly shaped but may be parallel to creeks or other 1. Neighborhood Open Spaces shall include the following: Greenways: 5 acres minimum A natural landscape available for unstructured recreation; Greenways should generally be fronted by adjacent buildings with regular public street access. The landscape shall consist of trails, meadows, waterbodies, woodland, recreational fields, and / or open shelters, all naturalistically disposed. Greenways are often irregularly shaped but may be parallel to creeks or other corridors and designed to connect to adjacent open spaces. Landscaping shall follow Florida-Friendly Landscaping guidelines. Applicants are encouraged to work with the Polk County IFAS Extension Office to determine a site appropriate landscape plan. Benches and trash receptacles shall be provided. Parks: &1/2; acre minimum A park is an open space whose landscaping shall consist of lawn or vegetated ground cover and informally arranged trees and shrubs, typically furnished with paths, benches, and open shelters. Parks shall be fronted by adjacent buildings. Landscaping shall follow Florida-Friendly Landscaping guidelines. Applicants are encouraged to work with the Polk County IFAS Extension Office to determine a site-appropriate landscape plan. Benches and trash receptacles shall be provided. Squares: 5,000 s f. minimum A square is a formal open space available for recreational and civic uses and spatially defined by abutting streets and building frontages. Landscaping in a square shall consist of lawn or vegetated ground cover, trees, and shrubs planted in formal patterns. It is typically furnished with paths, benches, and open shelters. Landscaping shall follow Florida-Friendly Landscaping guidelines. Applicants are encouraged to work with the Polk County IFAS Extension Office to determine a site appropriate landscape plan. Benches and trash receptacles shall be provided. 2. Neighborhood Amenities shall include the following: i. Recreation Fields and Buildings (section 23-310) ii. Community Gardens iii. Pocket Parks iv. Playgrounds and v. Stormwater Retention Ponds (an open space amenity) Neighborhood Amenities vary in size. Landscaping shall be provided and shall follow Florida-Friendly Landscaping guidelines. Applicants are encouraged to work with the Polk County IFAS Extension Office to determine a site-appropriate landscape plan. Shade trees are strongly encouraged. Amenities may be fenced in order to provide safety and security, but is not required. Benches and trash receptacles shall be provided in any space that exceeds 2,000 sf. e. If possible, one or more buildings shall face a Neighborhood Open Space or Neighborhood Amenities. f. As conveyed previously stormwater retention ponds shall be designed as a Neighborhood Amenity rather than a segregated single-purpose flood control or stormwater management device. Such amenities: 1. Shall be integrated with other site features, as opposed to being isolated on the periphery; 2. Shall provide pedestrian access such as pathways and seating around the edges; 3. Shall avoid the use of fencing, except where mandated by code; 4. Shall maintain gentle slopes of 3:1 or less, and avoid sharp drop-offs to the water line; 5. Shall ensure that all plants in the basin area that are prone to submersion are hydrophilic; 6. Shall include shrubs, native grasses, groundcovers and trees providing a minimum coverage of: 4. Shall maintain gentle slopes of 3:1 or less, and avoid sharp drop-offs to the water line; 5. Shall ensure that all plants in the basin area that are prone to submersion are hydrophilic; 6. Shall include shrubs, native grasses, groundcovers and trees providing a minimum coverage of: i. 50% of the feature’s sloping area; and ii. 50% of the flat area that extends 10 feet outward from the top of the slope. iii. Shall vegetate area adjacent to the pond with turf grass; iv. In an urban setting such a basin may be paved and shall contain planted shade trees around its edge; g. Rain Gardens and Bioswales. If possible rain gardens and bioswales shall be installed to infiltrate runoff from parking lots, streets, civic spaces and other impervious surfaces. §23-444.8 Neighborhood Sidewalks a. Sidewalks constructed in accordance with this section shall be provided in all new developments and along all streets on which a development has frontage. 1. Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all streets. 2. The sidewalks shall be concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet wide. §23-444.9 Neighborhood Street Trees a. Street trees shall be planted on both sides of the street. b. There shall be at minimum an eight-foot wide strip of landscaped area (as defined in section 23-307) located in the Right of Way (ROW) between the sidewalk and curb in front of each property. A street tree identified in # 5 below shall be planted here. c. A street tree, planted within the Right of Way (ROW) in front of the adjacent property shall be sited no closer to the aforementioned tree (in number 2. above) than twenty-five (25) feet, and no further apart from the aforementioned tree (in number 2. above) than fifty (50) feet. d. If a single lot is wider than fifty-five (55) feet, two such street trees shall be planted in the minimum eight-foot wide strip of landscaped area that is located in the Right of Way (ROW) that fronts the lot. e. Allowable street trees species include: 1. Bluff Oak 2. Live Oak 3. Nuttall Oak 4. Allee Elm 5. Red Maple All street trees must have a 2 &1/2; inch caliper at planting. f. Street trees shall provide a diversity of species within each neighborhood but maintain the same species for the street segments of each neighborhood block. g. Street Trees shall be required to have root barriers. Root barriers shall be approved by the Administrative Official prior to planting. f. Street trees shall provide a diversity of species within each neighborhood but maintain the same species for the street segments of each neighborhood block. g. Street Trees shall be required to have root barriers. Root barriers shall be approved by the Administrative Official prior to planting. §23-444.10 Planting Standards for a Private Lot a. Each residential or commercial lot within a Planned Development Project shall ensure that the appropriate trees and shrubs are provided within the Required Landscape Area (as shown in light green to the right): 1 overstory tree (a min. of 2 &1/2; inches caliper at planting) and 1 understory tree (a min. of 1 &1/2; inches caliper at planting) shall be planted for every 30 linear ft. of lot frontage (a corner lot includes two street frontages). See 23-000 for appropriate overstory and understory trees. 1. Overstory Trees: those conveyed above along with: Red Cedar, Sycamore, Magnolia. 2. Understory Trees: Crepe Myrtle, Loquat, Plum-Chickasaw, Privet-Japanese, Redbud, Wax Myrtle, Weaver Dogwood. A continuous, unbroken, hedge row of three (3) to five (5) gallon evergreen shrubs shall be planted 8 inches in front of the building. Shrubs shall be spaced three (3) feet on center and achieve full size within 3 years of planting. If the building fronts a parking area or drive aisle that is not depicted above, the same requirement for a hedge row shall apply to that frontage. §23-444.10 Driveways and Garages on a Private Lot a. General to All One, Two, Three, and Multi-family Driveways (lot width shall determine driveway location). 1. Curb cuts shall be located at least two-thirds (2/3) of the distance of the lot frontage or one hundred (100) feet, whichever is less, from any intersecting roadways. 2. Driveway aprons shall be located within the planting zone and not exceed a 12% grade. b. Specific to a Lot that is < or = to 50 Feet in Width. 1. The driveway and garage shall be rear-loaded from an alleyway. 2. The front most façade of the garage (front or side) shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the rear property line. 3. The width of the driveway surface shall not exceed 20 feet. 4. The garage building shall not exceed 24 ft. in width by 30 ft. in depth. 5. One or Two (9 ft. wide) single car garage doors; OR One (18 ft. wide) two car garage door shall be utilized. a. Specific to a Lot that is > 50 Feet in Width. 1. So long as all criteria can be met, anyone of the following driveway / garage designs may be utilized: 2. Rear-loaded Driveway and Garage. A. The driveway and garage shall be rear-loaded from an alleyway. B. The alley facing façade of the garage shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the rear property line. A. The driveway and garage shall be rear-loaded from an alleyway. B. The alley facing façade of the garage shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the rear property line. C. The width of the driveway surface shall not exceed 20 feet. D. The garage building shall not exceed 24 ft. in width by 30 ft. in depth. E. One or Two (9 ft. wide) single car garage doors OR One (18 ft. wide) two car garage door shall be utilized. 3. Driveway Runs from the Front Yard to a Garage Located in the Rear Yard. A. A garage that is located in the rear yard of the property shall face towards the front or side of the property and be loaded via a side driveway that crosses both the front yard and side yard of the property. B. The side of the garage addressing the rear of the lot shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet. C. The driveway surface shall not exceed 12 ft. in width between the front property line and 20 ft. from the rear yard. 20 ft. from the rear yard line the driveway surface may begin to expand outward 1 ft. in width for every 1 ft. in length until it reaches a maximum width of 20 ft. D. The garage building shall not exceed 24 ft. in width by 30 ft. in depth. E. One or Two (9 ft. wide) single car garage doors OR One (18 ft. wide) two car garage door shall be utilized. F. The garage and driveway shall be constructed simultaneously. 4. Driveway Runs to a Garage Located in the Side of the Main House. A. This side–loaded driveway option provides access to a garage that is located within the side of the main house. B. The primary front façade of the house shall be set back a minimum of 15 ft. C. The driveway surface shall not exceed 16 ft. in width and shall extend from the front property line to the primary front façade of the house. The front of a front porch or stoop shall be considered to be a secondary façade. D. At the primary front façade of the house the driveway may extend outward in total width to a maximum of 30 feet. E. 10 feet past the deepest garage door opening, the driveway surface shall end. F. One or Two (9 ft. wide) single car garage doors OR One (18 ft. wide) garage door shall be utilized. G. The garage and driveway shall be constructed simultaneously. A. The garage may take a “ j loaded” form. Such a garage shall be attached to the front of the house, but turned to the side so that the garage door(s) face the side yard directly in front of the primary pedestrian entry. This option is only available if a garage shall be constructed along w/ the driveway. B. The J-loaded garage shall have a minimum front setback of 15 ft. C. The driveway surface shall not exceed 16 ft. in width and shall extend from the front property line until it reaches the front most edge of the garage structure. B. The J-loaded garage shall have a minimum front setback of 15 ft. C. The driveway surface shall not exceed 16 ft. in width and shall extend from the front property line until it reaches the front most edge of the garage structure. D. At the front most edge of the garage structure, the driveway may extend in width from the garage door to the side of the house (shall not exceed 30 ft.). E. The garage building shall not exceed 24 ft. in width by 30 ft. in depth. F. At least one window with a vertical opening (similar in size to others) shall be sited on the front most side of the garage, facing towards the street. G. One or Two (9 ft. wide) single car garage doors OR One (18 ft. wide) two car garage door shall be utilized. 6. Front – Loaded Garage. A. garage is entered from the front yard via a driveway and is the most conventional garage found on houses today. B. The primary A front-loaded front façade shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet. C. The secondary front façade shall be setback a min. of 15 feet. The front of a front porch or stoop shall be considered to be a secondary façade. D. The garage door(s) shall be setback a min. of 25 ft. from the front property line and 10 ft. from the secondary façade. E. While not required, the Growth Management Director may consider the overall architecture of the home’s façade, the landscaping of the lot and neighborhood, or other items impacting the form and character of either the lot and/or neighborhood as a potential substitute for the garage’s min. 10 ft. setback from the secondary front façade. F. The driveway surface shall not exceed 16 ft. in width. G. One or Two (8 ft. wide) single car garage doors OR One (16 ft. wide) two car garage door shall be utilized. [End Slide text] Deputy Mayor Gibson asked can we waive impact fees. That could be a good incentive to get what we want. Mr. Slaton said these are guidelines for a PDP, they have to do them. Mr. Slaton described a frontage road between a road and the house. Commissioner Krueger asked if there would still be gated communities. Mr. Hermann said not the way this is written, they aren't ruled out. Commissioner Krueger said many retirees want security of a gated community. Mr. Hermann said we can allow those but they would defeat the purpose of what we wrote. He suggested including a provision for those. Mr. Slaton said we want to eliminate walls as they are unsightly. Many people want different things. Autumn Cochella, Assistant Director of Growth Management, said this is our PDP which is a special exception use permit overlay of the underlying zoning. Under the standard subdivision rules if you have property in the R1B zoning district you can still by right come in and build to R1B standards with a subdivision wall if you want to. This is the PDP section which is different. So we can still have gated communities with large lots or things like that. They can still build to the zoning assigned by the City Commission. Mr. Slaton confirmed this third option. Commissioner Thompson asked what the difference is between an open space and an amenity. Mr. Hermann showed examples of open spaces such as a greenway, a square, and a park. An amenity could be recreation fields and buildings, community gardens, playgrounds, and retention ponds. Commissioner Thompson asked to confirm that retention ponds are an amenity? Mr. Hermann said yes if it is part of a park space like with trails around it. Deputy Mayor Gibson said the retention ponds are critical. They have potential to enhance the neighborhood if they are designed properly or creatively. Mr. Hermann agreed and said that we are trying to provide an incentive to have those areas to meet the open space criteria if designed correctly. Deputy Mayor Gibson said they qualify as pleasing open  Commissioner Thompson asked what the difference is between an open space and an amenity. Mr. Hermann showed examples of open spaces such as a greenway, a square, and a park. An amenity could be recreation fields and buildings, community gardens, playgrounds, and retention ponds. Commissioner Thompson asked to confirm that retention ponds are an amenity? Mr. Hermann said yes if it is part of a park space like with trails around it. Deputy Mayor Gibson said the retention ponds are critical. They have potential to enhance the neighborhood if they are designed properly or creatively. Mr. Hermann agreed and said that we are trying to provide an incentive to have those areas to meet the open space criteria if designed correctly. Deputy Mayor Gibson said they qualify as pleasing open space. For the most part they are wasted space. Mr. Hermann showed the provisions on how to build these where they meet our standards. Mr. Slaton asked the Commissioners their opinion on requiring alleys. We need to decide if we are going to require alleys on the homes if they are on 50 ft. lots or under. Or if we will allow them to be front loaded if other elements of the neighborhood are right. This issue has been tough. We need input on this. Mayor Hilligoss asked to confirm that this is the PDP. Mr. Slaton confirmed this. Mayor Hilligoss said most national builders, even the local ones, their models don't match this. So we will get push back. Mr. Slaton agreed. Do they increase the size of there lots or just not build here. Mr. Hermann suggested we could reduce the number to 45 or 40. At 50 they will have trouble. Deputy Mayor Gibson said that we need to sell this concept to developers. These are designed to enhance the marketability of the homes. The developer will make money. Commissioner Thompson said we need to find builders to build these houses. The marketplace is tough now. Changing designs will affect builders profitability. We need to find builders to build these kinds of houses. Mr. Slaton said these requirements are reasonable. We aren't precluding anyone. The alleys and rear loaded garages are the main hang-ups everything else is doable. Mayor Hilligoss asked about push back on the front facing design. Ms. Cochella said they don't know yet because we haven't taken it that far. We have had some success in having people agree to not doing walls but do a landscaped berm instead. We have had push back on the extra expense on a frontage road but Leoma's Landing did it. Mayor Hilligoss noted that they still did a wall. Mayor Hilligoss asked if getting rid of the wall is what we are looking for. Mr. Slaton said yes. Deputy Mayor Gibson said they save money and build a wall. Mayor Hilligoss recommended that we should pause the discussion. He recommended that the Commission take this information home for review. He supported incentivizing the TND developments. The main thing causing concerns are the alleys. He would like more time to review this. James Slaton, City Manager, agreed to wrap this up and we will continue the discussion another time. Commissioner Thompson agreed saying we are close on this. Deputy Mayor Gibson said these homes will have more appeal than standard stuff. We are providing supply for this demand. The marketability is better in Lake Wales. Commissioner Thompson said where is the market for traditional neighborhoods? Its not there. We can't say there is a market for this. Commissioner Krueger said that market study that was done said about 10%. All the requirements we are demanding, can people in this area buy these homes? Deputy Mayor Gibson said we need to prove marketability. Mayor Hilligoss said that we need to spend more time on this. He has questions that are not answered. Mr. Slaton said we need to incentivize these things. Deputy Mayor Gibson said we need to find incentives for alleys. Mr. Slaton said developers don't think builders will build these homes. Ms. Cochella said a few projects have been approved with alleys so we are about to see if people buy them. Mayor Hilligoss said he is concerned if residents can afford these. We have a housing shortage here. Mr. Slaton agreed. 4. CITY COMMISSION AND MAYOR COMMENTS 5. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m. _____________________  The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m. _____________________ Mayor ATTEST: ____________________ City Clerk