MINUTES April 23, 2024 5:30PM  PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING  The City of Lake Wales Planning and Zoning Board held a meeting on April 23, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall, 201 W. Central. Ave. Lake Wales Florida.  ATTENDANCE  Planning Board Members (Shaded area indicates absence):  Chairperson Vice-Chair  Roy  Casey McKibben  Eric Rio Courtney  Bud  Kyra Love Larry Bossarte Wilkinson  McCrystal Colburn  City Staff:  Dept. of Planning and Development Autumn Cochella = Growth Management Director Jasmine Khammany Senior Planner Shannon Hancock- Recording Secretary Sara Irvine - Special Project Administrator  1. CALL TO ORDER - Ms. Love called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.  2. ROLL CALL - All members were present. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting March 26,2024  Mr. Colburn made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections and Mr. Bossarte seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. 4. ( COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - Ms. Love opened up the floor to communications and petitions. Seeing no movement, Ms. Love closed the communication and petitions.  NEW BUSINESS PROJECT: APPLICANT: APPROVAL: PUBLIC HEARING: attendance.  5. 13 Orange Park Boulevard - Special Exception Use Permit for Auto Sales & Repairs  13 Orange Park Boulevard Bruce Floyd Requirements have been met  Special Exception Use Permit for a Tire Shop & Repairs  Ms. Khammany explained location of the project and presented the staff report. The applicant was in  Ms. Love questioned about the parking spots and the dumpster. located if a dumpster is necessary at some point.  Ms. Khammany explained where the parking spots are located and where the dumpster would be Ms. Love opened it up for public hearing. Seeing no movement, she closed the public hearing.    Mr. Colburn moved to accept the staff recommendation to include waivers of strict compliance and  conditions of approval. Mr. McKibben seconded the motion. Ms. Love asked for a roll call vote.  Chair Yes  Vice-Chair Yes  Roy Yes  Casey Yes  Eric Rio Courtney  Bud Colburn Yes  Kyra Love Larry Bossarte Wilkinson Mckibben Yes  McCrystal Yes  The motion passed. 6. Lakeside Landing PDP PROJECT: APPLICANT: APPROVAL: PUBLIC HEARING:  Mountain Lake Cutoff Road Peterson & Myers, PA Residential Development Project Requirements met  Amendment to a Special Exception Use Permit for a  Ms. Khammany explained location of the project and presented the staff report. Ms. Cochella explained that this project was previously presented and passed. But with no market for alley loaded products, the applicant is coming forth with request for a modification of their PDP to remove the alley loaded townhomes and replace them with single family homes. The applicant was in Mr. McKibben questioned in regards to parking and sought clarification that all the updated homes  attendance. will have a driveway.  Ms. Khammany stated they will have a driveway.  Ms. Love questioned the buffer width along Mountain Lake Cutoff. Ms. Khammany stated the buffer width was previously approved. Shelton Rice with Peterson & Myers introduced himself.  Mr. Colburn commended Mr. Rice and the owner for decreasing the density of the project. Mr. Rice thanked the staff and explained that the developer triedt to propose the alley loaded products to all the builders in the area. They all had an objection toi the alley loaded lots. Mr. Rice explained the builder's concerns with the alley loaded products. He also explained that his client is losing money, lessoning the number of lots but the client felt this modification was necessary. Mr. Colburn stated that developers don't usually decrease density out oft the goodness of their heart. So, they must see it as a more saleable product. He questioned if it is more affordable. Mr. Rice explained that the affordability question is uncertain at this time according to his client. He continues to explained that the client did not want this modification out of the goodness of his heart,  the client just could not sale the alley loaded project to a builder in this market.    Ms. Love opened the floor for public hearing.  Mr. Charles Millen from Conner Road had a concern in regards to decreasing the buffer on Mountain Lake Cut Off. He stated he is waiting for the traffic study to be completed. He inquired about the Mr. Rice stated that the 10-foot buffer was what was proposed originally. He is willing to talk with his client about the frontage on the lots closest to that buffer and will talk to them about reducing the lots but does not want to commit to that at this time. He will evaluate the options and make changes Ms. Love asked if anyone else would like to speak during this public hearing. Seeing no Mr. Colburn moved to accept staff recommendation to include the waivers of strict compliance, conditions of approval, and resolution oft the buffer issue.  turning lane.  before City Commission.  movement, Ms. Love closed public hearing.  Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. Ms. Love asked for a roll call vote.  Chair Yes  Vice-Chair Yes  Roy Yes  Casey Yes  Eric Rio Courtney  Bud Colburn Yes  Kyral Love Larry Bossarte Wilkinson Mckibben Yes  McCrystal Yes  The motion passed.  7. CF Kinney Preliminary Subdivision Plat  PROJECT: APPLICANT: APPROVAL: PUBLIC HEARING:  CF Kinney Road - Oak Group Langan Engineering Preliminary Plat Requirements met  Ms. Khammany explained location of the project and presented the staff report. She also explained Ms. Cochella explained the history of this project and the changes that have been made. Andrew Eiland with Langan Engineering, spoke in regards to the project. He asked for the mechanical equipment to be allow on the side yard as there is a 10-foot side yard. He stated that he is working closely with the city board of culturalist to enhance the Scenic Highway buffer.  the waivers of strict compliance. The applicant was in attendance.  Ms. Love asked the board if they had any questions for staff. conditional approval with the removal of condition E. Mr. McKibben seconded the motion. Ms. Love asked for a roll call vote  Mr. Colburn moved to accept staff recommendation, including waivers of strict compliance and    Chair Yes  Vice-Chair Yes  Roy Yes  Casey Yes  Eric Rio Courtney  Bud Colburn Yes  Kyra Love Larry Bossarte Wilkinson McKibben Yes  McCrystal Yes  The motion passed.  8. Amendment to Chapter 23, Zoning, Land Use, and Development Regulations amending Division 4. Planned Development Project Regulations.  Ms. Cochella explained the changes that have been put in place for the PDP (Planned Development Project) ordinance as requested at the previous Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. She explained that the TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development), ordinance and the  PDP ordinance will be presenting to the City Commission together. Ms. Love suggested Dark Sky friendly lighting be presented in the ordinance.  Ms. Cochella agreed and will add that in the ordinance. and brought it back to the board for discussion.  Ms. Love opened up for public hearing. Seeing no movement Ms. Love closed the public hearing Mr. McKibben recommended the approval to City Commission of the amended PDP regulations.  Mr. Colburn seconded the motion. Ms. Love asked for roll call.  Chair Yes  Vice-Chair Yes  Roy Yes  Casey Yes  Eric Rio Courtney  Bud Colburn Yes  Kyra Love Larry Bossarte Wilkinson McKibben Yes  McCrystal Yes  The motion passed. Exemptions.  9. Amendment to Chapter 23, Zoning, Land Use, and Development Regulations amending Article VII Division 4. Public Facilities Impact fees, amending Section 23-767  Ms. Cochella introduced Sara Irvine, Special Projects Administrator.  Ms. Irvine explained that the ordinance was previously just utilities and now it is all impact fees sO they have changed the definition of fees and impact fees. She explains that there is a change in the spec building definition to reduce it to 20,000 sq ft from the previous 50,000 sq ft, as 20,000 sq ft is more common square footage. Ms. Irvine explains the changes with the exemptions ini the ordinance. Mr. Colburn expressed how he spent a lot oft time going over this ordinance and he stated some of  itis confusing. He quotes a couple sentences within the ordinance.  Ms. Irvine explained what the sentences meant.    Mr. Colburn asked if there is a way the city can make this any simpler. Ms. Irvine explains that she will review the ordinance further. Mr. Colburn asked if this ordinance only applicable to new construction.  Ms. Irvine stated no, if someone expands beyond their usable square footage, they can be eligible. Mr. Colburn stated that with the application process and the $500 processing fee, going exclusively to the Office of the City Manager who is the sole approving authority, it can give a negative impression for you know if something looks not right, then it probably isn't and all the word smithing you can do doesn't positively affect the process itself. Mr. Colburn plans on looking at that and states there has to be check and palances somewhere. He noticed there was no inclusion of the role oft the P&Z Board at all. He questioned how the elimination of the P&Z Board's participation serves the public interest. He questioned why the board is being asked to recommend this if they have no role. Ms. Irvine explained that the ordinance falls under the Land Development regulation, Chapter 23, sO ithas to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. She further explains that there are several other impact fee mitigation opportunities that do not go to Planning and Zoning board. Mr. Colburn expressed that it seems that there has been elimination of some transparency and opportunity for public comment. He is not sure if that serves the public interest. He questioned if Ms. Irvine explained that there isn't because at this point in the process they are already pulling permits to build buildings and that is not a public comment, it is between staff and the builder.  there is a place for that, if so, where?  Mr. Wilkinson inquired about the 50% reduction in impact fees.  Ms. Irvine explained that she reviewed other communities within the county and most of them do a reduction for 50% and up to 90% reduction. She continued to explained that this portion is not part  oft the amendment being presented.  Mr. Wilkinson questioned about a sliding scale on the percentage.  Ms. Irvine explained that there is a sliding scale table that shows there is an initial investment that needs to be made and the sliding scale is based on the wage the employees will receive. Mr. Wilkinson expressed his concern in regards to waiving impact fees to the point that the city can no longer maintain infrastructure. He stated that right now the city isi in a negative state infrastructure wise. Mr. Wilkinson brought up the age oft the vehicles that the city has to use for everyday work. He mentions the age of the city buildings and how they have not been repaired. He explains that all of that comes from the money, the impact fees are used to improve infrastructure. Mr. Wilkinson expressed that we are. in a rapidly growing time in the city where we need infrastructure money and Ms. Irvine explained that the capital improvement budget has al lot oft the infrastructure improvements and explained that the city is replacing water lines throughout the city. Ms. Irvine explained that all Mr. Wilkinson explained that he would rather spend more time to make sure we develop a great plan  we are "giving away the farm again".  amendments can be revisited and changed if needed ini the future.  then toj just enact something and change it later.    Ms. Irvine explains that the plans are based on what Lakeland does. She also explained that she ran Mr. Bossarte explained that he thinks the point is that we will more than get back in taxation on  itby the Central Florida Development Council. property taxes and putting the people to work. Ms. Love opened the floor for public comment.  City resident Catherine Price stated her concern in regard to impact fees. She stated there are a couple of things in the city in regards to things we are passing. One of them is water and the other isi impact fees, in which there seems to be a lot of mystery and sort of complexity, which shrouds their ability to see as citizens what is really going on with some oft this stuff. She has a basic concern about impact fees in regards to how much is being collected and how the money correlates with the infrastructure. Ms. Price would like to see a town hall where our current impact fee structure is laid out to the citizens and then see some kind of a rational of why would we would give certain impact fee reduction. She feels like it is easier to reduce impact fees and more complicated toi increase the impact fees. She is encouraging the Planning and Zoning Board to ask some serious questions City resident, Charlene Bennett stated that they really don't know what it means financially down the line to make these decisions right now and they are not provided with the kind of information they need to make the decision. She would like someone to give her a better understanding of how this all fits together and how it plays out in the future. She wished the board would ask for more Ms. Love asks if anyone else would wish to speak on this. Seeing no movement, she closed public Ms. Love asked for clarification in regard to if the City Manager wants this and he is the one Ms. Irvine stated that the City Manager does want this and she clarified that the city has to have an impact fee study completed. She further explained that businesses pay different impact fees Ms. Cochella stated the city has to do a full complete impact fee study every 3 years, last one was adopted in 2021. They look at capital improvements and make sure the fees that we are charging support what the city is trying to do and needs to do. The next study is in October oft this Ms. Irvine addressed the water concern and that they are working to look at what they should Mr. Colburn stated that he agrees with what Ms. Price suggested, not sO much a town hall but maybe the utilities department can set up somewhere on the city website in regards to the water and impact fees. He expressed his concern on the information and stated that the professionals know about it but if he has to spend 4 hours to dig through it to find out more to make a decision,  about this before this ordinance goes through.  information before they have to vote on something like this.  hearing.  already in charge of fees.  than residential and that this ordinance is just in regards to businesses.  year.  consider to alternative water, whether it be a separate impact fee or not.  how would the citizens get ahold of that information.  Ms. Irvine explained that department is always available for questions.  Mr. Wilkinson would want some examples oft the money and what the numbers might possible be.  He understands they can't be exact.    Ms. Irvine stated she will try to do a table to show examples.  Mr. McKibben wants a calc that shows the next 5-10 years based on where we currently are and then a calc based on where they are talking about making changes and what the calc difference looks like over the course of 5-10 years and how we would replenish it potentially. Mr. Bossarte stated that this is an incentive to attract qualified target businesses and that there is an minimum of 5 million cap investments in order to qualify. He doesn't want the board to lose track Mr. McKibben would like the know in the past 5 years, how many businesses qualify. Ms. Love mentioned ADS and asks if this passed now, would they get their impact fees reduced. Ms. Irvine stated they can apply for it but under her understanding they feel as if it would be a Ms. Cochella explained that impact fees are collected during building permit issuance and if they Ms. Love just wanted to make sure the city was not tailoring this for a specific thing. She agreed with Mr. Bossarte. She stated she feels like the intent is there to bring in more businesses and see where it gets the city and thati iti is what is lacking in our town because we get small businesses Mr. Colburn felt like they should make sure they understand it before they recommend this to the Mr. Bossarte moved forward with the motion to recommend that City Commission to adopt  in site of what the purpose of this ordinance is.  hassle.  wanted too, they could.  that come and go. city commission. Ordinance 2024-01.  Mr. McCrystal seconded the motion. Ms. Love asked for a roll call vote.  Chair Yes  Vice-Chair Yes  Roy No  Casey Yes  Eric Rio Courtney  Bud Colburn No  Kyra Love Larry Bossarte Wilkinson McKibben No  McCrystal Yes  4 yay = 3 nay votes. Motion passed.  9. Amendment to Chapter 23, Zoning, Land Use, and Development Regulations amending Article VII Division 4. Public Facilities Impact fees, amending Section 23-771 Ms. Sara Irvine explained that the next ordinance is based on the TND ordinance that would offer mitigation incentives. She stated it falls under the section 23-770 of the public facilities impact fee developer contribution credit. She further explains the incentive and language within the ordinance. Ms. Cochella stated that this idea of incentivizing a TND came directly out of the Lake Wales Envisioned. The Lake Wales Envisioned Plan adopted by resolution a map that had a planned  Developer Contribution Credit.    growth area, limited growth area and the priority area. The idea with the ordinance was to prioritize at traditional neighborhood ini the priority and planned growth area. Ms. Cochella further explains the ordinance. She explained that this is an ordinance that can changed at any time. Mr. Bossarte asked about what we would doi if we get slammed with request and what it will take to Ms. Cochella stated that it can be changed at any Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. McKibben stated that the optimistic side of passing this now and then doing the study in 6 months, ift there are adjustments that need to be made because they just passed this, it can be Ms. Irvine further explained that if the City Commission doesn't adopt the TND ordinance, then  amend it.  made.  there will be no need to amend this ordinance. Ms. Love opened up the floor for public comment.  Catherine Price spoke and stated she is going back again to the concept of the impact fees. She thinks the thought behind this is relevant to get some more creative developments within the city and she highly approves of. She is concerned because a couple months ago 4-millon-dollars in impact fees were given back toi the developer because literally in the memos about those 4-million- dollar impact fee credit, they were meeting aspirations of Lake Wales Envision and because they might not get the development if they did not get these impact fee credits. She feels like the whole issue with the impact fees needs to carefully considered and she think with the TND they are trying to take it out of the purview oft the Planning and. Zoning Board sO that this would be totally passed by staff. She has confidence in our current staff but recognizing Autumn's resignation and the coming staff needs to have the backbone to say no when things are not right. She thinks the impact fee things are a slippery slope and need to be considered very carefully. Ms. Love asked if anyone else would like to speak on this. Hearing nothing, she closed the public Ms. Love mentions a change in the TND ordinance where it comes to Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Cochella explains that the change within the TND ordinance is that if a project deviated from the ordinance at all, it has to come in front of the Planning and Zoning Board for any waivers. Ms. Irvine addressed the comment about the 4-million-dollar impact fee being waived. She stated that was half of what the impact fee was and it was the Iron Mountain and Steeple Chase project.  hearing.  She further explains why it was waived and what had to be met.  Mr. Colburn accepted staff recommendation and refer it to the City Commission.  Mr. McKibben seconded the motion.  Chair Yes  Vice-Chair Yes  Roy Yes  Casey Yes  Eric Rio Courtney  Bud Colburn Yes  Kyra Love Larry Bossarte Wilkinson McKibben Yes  McCrystal Yes  The motion passed.    The meeting adjourned at 6:59 PM  Oan doacoe  Attest:  bAtt  Recording Secretary  Chairperson