We will begin our work session to discuss the agenda and ask staff if there's any additions or changes that we need to know about on our agenda. Good morning. No changes to the agenda. Just one kind of procedural note. LDCU 2025-25, the Hudson Mobile Home case, it was originally advertised for January. It's been continued twice now. We've not spoken with the applicant, so we're going to continue it indefinitely until we're forced to make a decision on it or hear from them, probably by June. But since it has been advertised, we'll make that note. It'll have to be re-advertised as well. That's it. All right. Thank you. So we will begin our meeting. I'll end our meeting this morning of the Polk County Planning Commission, and I will ask for a roll call, please. Robert Beltran. Present. Cindy Janamasso. Present. Merle Bishop. Present. Brooke Agnini. Here. Angel Sims. Here. Julie Jackson. Present. Linda Schultz. Present. Adam Bass. We have a quorum. Thank you. And now we will stand for pledge allegiance. And we have our minutes on the agenda from our previous meeting in February and ask if there's any discussion, questions, changes to the minutes. If not, I'll ask for a motion to approve. Mr. Chair, move to approve the minutes from our last meeting. I have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. And we had staff at our work session just prior to this meeting indicated there's no changes to the agenda for us to consider. So the order of the agenda is as we have, is before us and we've received. Next, I will call on our attorney to explain the general procedures to the audience. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll now go over the general procedures for today's meeting. The Land Development, the Office of Land Development will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which were not already provided to the Planning Commission in their packets. The case planner will then present their staff report and recommendation. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in. The applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak. The applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony. The Planning Commission will then discuss the case and vote on the matter. Expedited hearing procedures may be used by the Planning Commission under the following circumstances. One, there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing. Two, the recommendation of the Office of Land Development is for approval. And three, all of the Commission members present wish to use this procedure. With regard to Level 3 reviews, pursuant to Section 906 of the Polk County Land Development Code, the Planning Commission may approve the applicant's request, deny the applicant's request, or approve the request with additional conditions. Pursuant to Section 921 of the Land Development Code, the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners by filing a formal application with the Land Development Division and paying the application fee. The appeal must be filed with the Land Development Division within seven calendar days of the Planning Commission hearing. The Board of County Commissioners shall set a date and time for a de novo hearing. If a party decides to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to any Level 3 review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made. The record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing. Each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise their right of appeal in order to preserve that right. A party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter. Please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the Board of County Commissioners prior to that de novo hearing. If one party withdraws their appeal and another party fail to file an appeal, there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the Board of County Commissioners. The application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal. Please further be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the Board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application, and they must waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Regarding Level 4 reviews, pursuant to Section 907 of the Land Development Code, the Planning Commission's decision is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date. Regarding ex parte communication, the Planning Commission receives numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the commission regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized oppositions, and the public may request the commission to disclose any ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and questioned the members regarding their communications or site visits. Unless a commission member recuses themselves, he or she has determined that they are able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial competent evidence in the record. Mr. Chair, would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases? Yes, please. Thank you. If you intend to address the Planning Commission on any case today, please stand up, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide to the Planning Commission today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. I'll now go over some housekeeping items before we get started. First, we need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses. They have all been accepted as experts in the past. However, if you would like to voir dire any of them as to their background or expertise, then you may do so at this time. Without any opposition to their admission, can we please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning? So moved. Second. I have a motion to second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Secondly, if we have any experts of applicants, then you may tender them at this time, or you may wait until your case is called. Finally, the Planning Commission must review quasi-judicial land use cases. Quasi-judicial means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner. The Commission's review is limited to two areas, consistency and compatibility. Regarding consistency, the Commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land development code. The staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria, as well as a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria. Regarding compatibility, the Commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. The Commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing, both written and oral. By law, the only evidence the Commission may consider is competent, substantial evidence, which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The following items are competent, substantial evidence. Evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria, staff reports, and staff presentations. Citizen testimony may be competent, substantial evidence, so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise, such as aesthetic and compatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear, or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development criteria are not competent, substantial evidence. For example, fear that the project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent, substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic, engineering, drainage, wetland impacts, school and utility capacity, light and noise pollution, or the application's impact on property values, citizen testimony is not competent, substantial evidence, unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. That concludes my comments. Thank you. Thank you. So, this time, we will begin with our first case and ask staff to introduce that. All right. First up is LDWA 2025-49, the Hatch Access V Easement Waiver Case. Kyle Rogus is your planner. Good morning. Kyle Rogus with Land Development presenting LDWA 2025-49, the Hatch Easement. The applicant is requesting approval to allow a newly split lot to have access via an easement exceeding a quarter mile in length on approximately 1.47 acres within a residential low future land, residential low one future land use district. On February 13th, 17 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property February 13th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven News on February 18th. We have received no response from the public. Staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan. Staff recommends approval. The subject site is located off Gaskins Road South, north of Highway 640, south of Clower Street, east of Highway 555, west of Norland Mine Road, surrounded by the city of Bartow in Section 13, Township 30, Range 24. The subject site is in a residential low one land use district within the urban growth area. The proposed use is believed to be compatible with adjacent land uses. Single family uses are to the north and west of the subject site. The lots are above the 40,000 square feet minimum lot size in the RL1, not including the man-made water bodies. The larger lot sizes result in a lower density than is lotted in the RL1. A one-time lot split consistent with the lot size and density requirements of the land development code may be permitted through a level one review, provided no more than four lots access the easement and the easement does not exceed a quarter mile. The existing easement exceeds the quarter mile maximum length. Therefore, Planning Commission approval is required for any additional lots gaining access. While the existing private access easement exceeds the maximum length of a quarter mile, it does not serve more than four lots, and the easement exceeds the minimum width requirement of 25 feet, which enhances safety, accommodates emergency vehicles, and is in compliance with ingress and egress standards. The City of Bartow provides utilities and services in the area. However, running utilities to this existing and proposed lots on narrow strips of land surrounded by old phosphate mining pits is impractical. While the site is designated RL1 and within the UGA on a map, this property is on a small tract of land that is surrounded by lakes, once used as phosphate pits. The nearest public road is Gaskins Road, approximately 0.5 miles northeast, and the nearest fire hydrant is 0.6 miles to the northeast off Gaskins Road. This site is rural in nature and will utilize a private well and septic system. When the lot was created, it landlocked the parent parcel. As one of the conditions of approval, the applicant is required to apply for access via easement prior to occupying the proposed single-family residence to allow access over, on, upon, and across the property to the parcel to the west. Although both lots are under the same ownership, this condition places the burden on the current property owner, not future owners, with the sale of any lots, provided it is the site plan, and then the following slides are from site visits. Staff recommends approval. The easement will be privately maintained. The development maintains compliance with the county's density requirement of one dwelling unit per acre allotted in the RL1 future land use district. The easement exceeds the minimum width requirement by providing 25 feet, which enhances safety and accommodates emergency vehicle access in compliance with ingress and egress standards. Given these factors, access via easement is the best alternative, and with that, I will stand for questions. Any questions of staff? So I'm looking at the parcel map. So there will be a total of three parcels accessing the easement, correct? Correct. This, it doesn't have the parcel lines, but this is the original parent parcel. This is the newly split lot. And then this here, this land is one entire parcel that extends outwards to that Gaskins Road access point. These roads here all have access off of Gaskins Road frontage. Okay. There's a little bit better of a lot lines. Is the applicant present? Okay. If you would come forward, please. Just state your name and address for the record. My name is Joey Manning. My address is 1990 Magnolia Street, Bartow, Florida, 33830. And this is the property owner, Jim Hatch. Okay. Do you have anything to add to what was said or? Oh, no, sir. It's just, you know, we just split the parent parcel. We're just trying to build another single family house for him to use, like, for his family and for worship. And that's pretty much it. Any questions from the board members? Yes. Of course. Thank you. My name is Jim Hatch. I'm the owner. 1031 South Gaskins Road, Bartow. Just for your information, I want to share with you very quickly, actually, what we're building out there. On the outside, it looked like a house, but it's a special house. My wife and I bought the house on six acres just outside of Bartow in 2020. It was going to be our retirement home. Just four months after moving in, Kathy was diagnosed with ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. During her two-year fight with the disease, we met people from all over the world in the battle with us, other fighters, caregivers, family. The journey was exhausting, but we had a beautiful place to find peace. In the midst of the chaos, a place that she could finish her days on earth. Just a few weeks before she died, Kathy shared a vision with me about a place where others in our situation could have a place to go for respite, even just a weekend of peace, where they could come with no cost. It's a guest home for special guests. So the dream was born and lives today. We want to build a place. We're calling it Sabbath house for people who need a Sabbath, and I believe we're stewards of what God's given us. We have that beautiful place, and we want to steward it well. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you. So at this time, I'll open up the—you can be seated. I'll open up the meeting for public comment. Is there anyone here to speak in favor or are in opposition to this request? I would like to make a note with this new information here. This waiver is eligible for one single-family home, and for use is that. If we come back in for short-term rental or a religious institution, it will require a different level of review. So just what this approval is for, to make it known, is just going to be for a single-family home for that use only. So please reach out to staff if you go advertising or anything of that nature, please. That's it. Thank you. But if he uses it for—I'll say retreat, but if he uses it for a guest with no charge and his functions as a single-family home, would that be acceptable? We'd need to sit down and talk to them a little bit more. We could be trending in the short-term rental approval there, which is going to require further review and hearing. With it being on the same parcel as a guest home, we would have an ADU situation, but with it being on its own parcel now, it's a single-family dwelling. Okay. Any comments, questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve. Second. Motion second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Moving on to the next case. Next case is LDCPA-S 2025-38. It's a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to Institutional and Neighborhood Activity Center in Point Siena. Robert Bolton is the case planner. Good morning. Robert Bolton with Land Development presenting LDCPA-S 2025-35, the Tahoe Marigold Avenue Institutional and Neighborhood Activity. The applicant is requesting a future land use designation change from development of regional impact to Institutional and Neighborhood Activity Center on approximately 12.5 acres. For the record, 111 mailers were sent out to area property owners on February 13, 2026. Four boards were posted on February 13, 2026. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on February 18, 2026. No response from the public has been received. The staff report, ordinance, application, and impact assessments are all submitted for the record. This is a level four review and will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on April 21, 2026. The subject site is an existing vacant parcel designated within the Point Siena DRI for single-family residential use. The request is consistent with comprehensive plan and land development code and staff recommends approval. The subject site is located on the northern quadrant of Marigold Avenue, also known as Point Siena Parkway, and Hemlock Avenue, north of Lake Hatchinahaw Road. This is a 2023 context aerial. The site is located on the north side of Marigold and Hemlock. This intersection is one of the most, one of the more significant intersections in the southern Point Siena area. This is a closer view of the subject. At the intersection of Marigold and Hemlock is a family dollar, a 7-11, and in this area, it doesn't show up, but there's an auto zone, auto parts store. In this area, right over here, is Toho's Huron Water Treatment Plant, and on the other side is there the Toho Wastewater Treatment Plant. The request will allow for the expansion of the water treatment plant to add an additional well and a future possible relocation of an existing well at this corner of the property. This represents the existing land use districts in the area. This is the Point Siena DRI map for the subject section. The subject is outlined there in blue. To the west of the site, as we saw previously, is the water treatment plant, the 7-11, over here, family dollar. This is where the wastewater treatment plant is in what was originally designated as commercial use. This was also originally designated as commercial use, but has never been developed. It has the entitlements, but in the decades, nobody has ever pursued development on the parcel. One thing to note also is the northern side of the subject is the green line here. It is an open space within the DRI, which provides also greater buffering for the requested land use. This is the proposed land use. The institutional, this is where one of the wells will be. This is a location for if they do relocate the existing well. This is just access between the two sites. This is that greenway drainage space that creates even greater buffering from the NAC use. This is an exhibit provided by Toho showing within the institution of what they're looking at doing. This will require, this is a level three utility and will require a level three site plan to come in, approval, conditional use. So this is not what we're looking at specifically here, not what we're talking about, but this is the intention for the land use. The pink is the NAC. The family dollar, when it was constructed, was already planned and has cross-access interconnectivity with it for future development of this area. It has frontage on two urban collectors, Marigold and Hemlock right here. This also shows all of the water, wastewater, reuse water here, well provided for in the area. These are pictures of the site. This is the subject site looking sort of north from Marigold Avenue. This is Marigold Avenue looking toward Hemlock. This is the site looking basically east from Hemlock, and then on the lower right is Hemlock looking south toward Marigold. This is the family dollar. This is the 7-Eleven with AutoZone, the existing uses there at that intersection. This is the existing water treatment plant. This is the greenway tract that is on the north side of the subject site. The use goes to non-residential, so there really will be no impact to schools other than possible relief from students. It has park facilities. There's the new Ridge Command District about two and a half miles from there, which provide the sheriff. EMS is right there at the same location. Toho is the provider of both water and sewer on this. There is Marigold is in the process of having all kinds of different improvements made to Marigold, so this is not seen to impact negatively on any of the public resources. The request from institutional or to institutional will allow for expansion of Toho's water facility, which can help the whole area. NAC will allow for non-residential uses at one of the main primary intersections of the area. It is located at the intersection of two collector roads and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Any questions of staff? Mr. Chair, I'm going to refuse myself from this case. We are the engineer. The firm I work for is the engineer of record on this. Okay. Seeing none is the? Staff is, or excuse me, the applicant is here. They don't have a presentation, but they'll answer any questions also. Okay. Yeah, if you'd just come forward and state your name and address, please, for the record. Morning. My name is Micah Smart, representing Toho Water Authority. Okay. Do you have anything to add? No. That was a good presentation. Pretty accurate for what we're trying to do. Okay. Thank you. I'll open the meeting to the public. Is there anyone here to speak in favor or in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for any discussion or question, any additional questions or consideration and a motion. I was just going to say before my fellow commissioner said he was in on this, I remember as an alternate that Poinciana just needs stuff badly, badly, badly. And as we were sitting here watching how this played out, I'm like, boy, that's a great use of that land to me, just between, you know, the water that's desperately needed and the other services that are needed. So that's my two cents on this one. So that just brought to mind, there's no use intended for this right now. This is just a change to amend the comp plan. When they originally came in, they were looking at doing the whole parcel as institutional. We had discussions with them, and they realized it was more than they needed as institutional and had discussions for the NAC to be able to provide uses. And they're looking at surplusing this land at some point in the future, not developing it themselves. All right. So, motion? Do I have a motion? I move to approve. I got to get glasses on. LDCPAS 2025-38. I have a motion approved. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. Oh, yes. Cindy Janamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. So, we'll move on to the third item under our new business and ask staff to present the case. Next case is LDCPAS 2025-37. And Andrew Grahowski is the case planner. Good morning. Andrew Grahowski with Land Development presenting LDCPAS 2025-37, the Highway 1792-37, the Highway 1792 LCC-CPA. The request is a small-scale comprehensive map change to change the future land use designation from leisure recreation to linear commercial corridor on approximately 1.32 acres. And just to call out, this should say 1.32 acres on the table. The site is located northeast of the city of Lake Alfred. In terms of notification, one board was posted on the subject site on February 13th. 16 mailers were sent to area property owners on February 13th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on February 18th. There have been no public responses, and staff is recommending approval. The subject site is approximately 1.32 acres, located south of Old Haines City, Lake Alfred Road, east of Experiment Station Road, west of Lake Lowy Road, north of U.S. Highway 1792, and northeast of the city of Lake Alfred in Section 27, Township 27, Range 26. Here is a context 2025 satellite image with the approximate location of the subject site outlined in red. The site has approximately 250 feet of frontage on U.S. Highway 1792. There is a railroad line just to the north, and there are non-residential uses to the east and west of the property. This is a map of the current land use designations in the surrounding area. The subject site is designated leisure recreation in the urban growth area. Most of the surrounding area is surrounded by the city of Lake Alfred. As you can see with the close-up area of the property, it's flanked by the highway to the south and the railroad to the north. According to the property appraiser, the site was a former motel constructed in 1940. It's important to note that the property directly to the west of the site is a market which receives similar approval to go from LR to LCC in 2024. The case number is LDC-PAS 2024-6. The Planning Commission at the time unanimously recommended approval, and it was passed by the board in October of 2024. So currently, the site is flanked by Linear Commercial Corridor to the east and west. You can now see where the prior land use change was made to the west right here with my cursor. According to Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.11-A3, the LCC corridor cannot be expanded along the roadway unless it's considered infill. Since LCC is on both sides of the subject site, staff considers this infill. Although leisure recreation is still shown to the north and south of the site, Section 1.107 of the Comprehensive Plan denotes that when land use changes are made, the new boundaries generally run along the center lines of the road, or in this case, the railroad to the north. So in this case, LCC will be illustrated in the rights of way if this case is adopted. So here are some photographs of staff's site visit. As you can see right now, it's a former motel that I've shown in my previous aerial photographs. This is looking north of the site. You can see 1792 right here. You can also see there's a bus stop, number 208, right in front of the site as well. In terms of impacts, the land use is not expected to generate any students and trigger school concurrency. Parks are nearby under the city of Lake Alfred's jurisdiction. Water and sewer is within Lake Alfred's jurisdiction as well, which provides services to the Northeast Government Center further east of the property. Fire and EMS is nearby, and there is available transportation capacity. At this point, there are no known environmental impacts in terms of wetlands and floodplains. So staff finds the request compatible with the surrounding land uses and adjacent to the railroad. It's in the urban growth area, which advocates for higher intensities and a mixture of uses. It's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy for infill with the linear commercial corridor. And with that, I thank you and stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, I'll ask, is the applicant present? Good morning, Planning Commission Chairman. Hey, everyone. Thank you, staff, for doing a great job. For the record, Tom Woodridge, TDW Land Planning, here with my clients. Andrew did a fantastic job highlighting all the points that I would probably just repeat to you. So we'll say on the record we are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy for establishing or expanding LCCs and the compatibility policies 2.102, all those sorts of things that should make the Planning Commission feel confident. This is a great decision amongst the obvious nature that we are infill in between two LCC existing land uses. So are there any questions that I can answer? I just, is there any intended use right now for the property? Given the location, as you saw from Andrew's most current aerial photo, that was impactful to see. There's quite a few residences coming directly to north across the tracks. We think a good use could be something like a self-storage in this location, something that doesn't necessarily generate a lot of ongoing traffic or demand for a lot of water and sewer usage. Even though those services and the capacities are available for those infrastructure, we just think perhaps could be the best use to put some self-storage on site, but that's not been committed to at this time. Any questions? None. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'll open the meeting up to the audience and ask, is there anyone present to speak in favor or in opposition to this case? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Motion to approve LDC-PAS 2025-37. Second. Motion to approve. Second. Second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Angel Sims. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Our next case. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Mark Bannon Land Development, I'll be presenting LDCT 2026-1 Juanita Main Street Corridor Overlay Land Development Code text amendment. One ad was published February 18th in the Polk Sun. No response. The purpose of this request is to establish a set of regulations to implement what is known as the Main Street Corridor Overlay in Juanita. Before I get into the details of the case, let me briefly explain the idea or the concept behind an overlay. As you're all very familiar and aware, we have land use districts. The idea with an overlay, as the name implies, is that it's on top of or overlays the existing land use districts by providing additional or different types of standards. So that's what's proposed here. This amendment also is correcting what we call a scrivener's error by putting a table back in the Juanita neighborhood plan that was inadvertently taken out. So we do believe the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code. Here's the current situation. Staff had received inquiry request from a property owner in this corridor requesting the ability to do commercial uses. So staff did a study, examined the corridor, recommended to this board and ultimately the county commission that a comprehensive plan, text amendment, be adopted. That was done in late 2024 to establish the overlay district. The purpose, the intent was to allow for revitalization, redevelopment along the corridor by allowing certain non-residential activities to occur in keeping with the concept of having a main street, if you will, in Juanita, which also implements the basic principles in the Juanita plan. Next couple slides, I'll go through briefly what's in the proposal. Next couple slides, we're listing allowed uses that would be considered within the overlay. Each use has specific standards, additional requirements in some cases. In some cases, the specific uses have exemptions from other provisions in the code. So in other words, each use has a specific set of rules. And generally, the intent is to ensure compatibility. We do outline a process for certain types of uses that are allowed in the overlay that are not otherwise allowed within the NAC and LCC, which are commercial type districts. I want to focus for just a minute on number four and number five. One of the key points of the overlay is that we're allowing for reductions in the front setback, or excuse me, the right-of-way setback. And the concept is allow flexibility in site design. Put another way, under this proposal, you could move the building closer to the street. The rationale behind that is, one, allow more flexibility in designing these lots, because there's not a whole lot of depth on the lots between rifle range going back to adjoining residential areas. And part of the reason why we wanted to have flexibility was to ensure that the requirements of the compatibility zone could be met. You see on the slide there, generally, within 50 feet of a residence, we have additional design requirements. So the idea is that if you can move the building closer to the street, then there's more room in the back to ensure that compatibility zone requirements are met. Secondly, the idea with having setbacks close to the street is it allows for a different type of design, which is more urban-oriented, promotes more walkability. And this picture here shows the difference between traditional setbacks and reduced setbacks. So that's a key takeaway with this set of regulations is more flexibility in site design. We do have a provision where if a property owner wants to reduce the size of the compatibility zone, they can request a variance from the land use hearing officer. It doesn't exempt them from other requirements, such as landscaping, lighting plans, et cetera. But there is a provision to allow for a reduced compatibility zone, again, recognizing the fact that these are existing lots and there's not a whole lot of depth. Signage, pole signs would not be allowed, only ground-mounted signs, and I'll explain where that came from in a minute. And then also there's been concerns from the community about the need for enough parking. That's why the last provision is in there. And then we sort of attached this. Again, this is the Scrivener's error. There's a reference in the code to this table, but the table ain't in there right now. So we're just proposing to put the table back in. This slide here, last April we held a community meeting. And you'll see on there there's the symbol for the Central Florida Regional Planning Council. They assisted us with bringing the meeting together. And they're a big help with community meetings and such. So, anyway, the key points of the community meeting was that there's interest in the community to see new businesses and revitalization efforts. There's an interest in having flexible development regulations that are simplified. For example, staff had thrown out a proposal to perhaps have some sort of building design standards, roof types, things like that. No interest at all from the community. And I understand if you're trying to get a new business going, that can be overly burdensome. Simplified regulations to encourage investment revitalization. There's a lot of talk to me about rifle range roads, primarily from a traffic perspective. And while the concerns were expressed and heard, you know, we'll address traffic through our regular development review and approval processes. Last bullet, community is eager for positive change but mindful of the need for balanced context-sensitive planning that protects local character, ensures accessibility for all. So, with that, I'll complete my presentation. And, again, staff is recommending approval of land development regulations to implement the Main Street Corridor overlay that was approved late in 2024. So, I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. Any questions of staff? I have one. Yes, sir. Would you characterize this change as making it more easy to do commercial development along rifle range road or about the same or more difficult? I would say it's easier because right now there are some residential designations. And you can see by this map, and I'll defer to Mr. Ziskell's comment about it looks like colors of the rainbow because there's all sorts of different designations. Some residential, some residential, some institutional, this will allow more types of uses to go in the corridor. So, from that context, it is easier to do development or redevelopment in this case. Is it harder? Is it harder? It depends. I say it depends because if an applicant comes in and says, I don't want to have to meet the 50-foot standard for a compatibility zone. I want to go to 25. Then they have to go to the hearing officer. But at least there's a mechanism for them to do that. I would also say this is easier because we're allowing for a reduction in the street setback by right. So, again, that gives you more flexibility in how to design the site. So, overall, I would say it's easier recognizing that if you do want to reduce the compatibility zone, there's an additional process. Signage, some could make the argument that a monument sign is more difficult. To me, it's 50-50. So, hopefully I answered your question. No, you did. I mean, I know there's been a struggle in this Juanita community to find a way to get some revitalization started. And I know that there was an attempt or a start with a new shopping center, I'll say. It was going to replace the old market. And that, I guess, funding ran out for that and they weren't able to finish it. So, I know there's – I don't know that there is a strong – how strong the market is right now. But I just know there is a desire to see something happen here. And I just would like to think that we're making it – we're encouraging that through any changes as opposed to making it more restrictive. Right. Two points to that. One, a new McDonald's recently opened up under rifle range. And about a block or two south, a dollar store, I believe, is about ready to open. So, there is some activity occurring. And, again, the original intent with the comprehensive plan amendment was to expand the list of allowed uses. So, I think that will accomplish that goal. Any other questions? Yes. With that reduced 25-foot ability, is it still going to require the 50 feet from any residences on the backside of the property? Let me try and answer the question this way. You can see that there's a 50-foot standard there. If a property owner wanted to reduce that, first they would have to go to the hearing officer. Staff would have to make an analysis and a recommendation of appropriateness. Hearing officer would have to sign off on it. But, what could happen is that potentially a building could be closer. But, again, the flip side is that there's no setback requirement from this street or this street, which allows the building to go closer. So, there may not be a need to have a reduced compatibility zone. And, one more point is that the only consideration would be to reducing the width of the zone would still be the requirement for fencing, landscaping, a lighting plan, signage a certain distance away, things like that. So, there's no protection for the families in those residences to maintain that 50-foot? Well, there's still the protection because, one, there's fencing, two, there's landscaping, three, there's lighting that's shielded away. And I would also make the point that right now there's no protections in place for existing development next to the residences out there. So, as the area redevelops, there will be the effect of having more buffering in place. For example, that occurred when the old convenience store was renovated up by the light into the Hungry Howeys. At least a fence was put in, landscaping, shielding of the dumpsters. But allowing a 25-foot reduction could prevent those homeowners from securing home insurance because most carriers require a minimum of 30 to 40 feet. Okay. So, if we're cutting that back to 25, that could put all of those homeowners. Okay. But, first of all, we would have to go through a public hearing. So, those adjoining property owners would be provided notice, and they could, you know, state their objections. Most homeowners aren't aware of those types of restrictions to know to rebuke them. I just... Okay. I mean, it sounded like the 25-foot setback was for the Main Street side, but it didn't have to be set back from the... Buildings don't have to be set back at all, but the compatibility zone still has to be there. But what is the current setback for commercial properties? So, if a commercial building came to build one of those lots now without this, what would the setback, the rear setback be from the residents? I couldn't tell you. Okay. I don't know the exact... For any residential building, it has to be 50 feet away from a residential property line. And they would have the ability to ask for a variance from that? It would be particular just to this overlay. We don't have the setback. No, I know, but now I'm just talking about without the overlay. I mean, if somebody had... What would be the rear setback today without the overlay of a commercial building from the property line? The setback I think you're talking about is different than the compatibility zone. It is. Right. I mean, just what is the setback compared to the compatibility zone? Like 15, 20, 10 feet, something like that. Significantly less than the 50. So, the 50 feet is introduced by this overlay? No, the 50 feet compatibility zone is already in land development code, section 220. It's been in there for a very long time. It was recently strengthened a few, several, I don't know, a few or several years ago. Eric was the case planner on it. So, it's been in there for quite a long time, but this is a relaxation just for Juanita of section 220, not regular setbacks. Relaxation from the standpoint of getting the variant or getting a variance from the hearing officer? Correct. Okay. Because people currently do not have that option to get a variance from the hearing officer on the computer zone. Is there any criteria that is being proposed for getting that variance? Or is it, would you, I mean, there's currently criteria in the code now for getting a variance, any variance. I'm just wondering, is there any criteria in the code now for getting this variance? We didn't add any. No. Okay. To that point, though, what I would envision happening with this amendment, this set of regulations, it is a little different because it allows more flexibility in site design. Right. What I see happening is over the next year or two, we'll have a case or two come in. We'll see how it works. I would anticipate perhaps coming back, we've all heard the term glitch amendment, and if there's any adjustments that are needed, we can deal with that at that time. If we see a need to perhaps have variant specific standards, we can deal with it at that time also. So I would think as of now, the existing variant standards we have could address any issues and be used for the review of this. I do feel, I guess, an ethical obligation to say that I was not aware of the insurance item that you're talking about, Commissioner Jackson. That's surprising to me. And I, honestly, I agree, I don't think those homeowners would know. I don't, I don't, I'm a little, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure you're talking about that. Right. The minimum. Just being honest. The minimum is 30 feet on any of my carriers. So, and, and, and I mean, and I represent over 15 carriers at any given time actively writing. So, you know, if you're, if the language is allowing up to 25 feet, I mean, we're, we're five feet off of that. And it's, you know, could potentially, it's a long stretch of a lot of single family residents. Did I hear you say, Commissioner, that you, the carriers you have require 35 feet? 30. 30 feet. A minimum of 30 feet. If, if there's a commercial structure within 30 feet, it can make it ineligible for coverage. I mean, that's even with citizens' property insurance, which is the last resort that has to take everybody. They don't have to take that. So, perhaps we could. Yeah, I'm wondering, is that something we would want to, we would be comfortable addressing now to change that variant, that language that you can request a variant, or is that something we'd want to take back, or? Just a suggestion. I would, I'm, I'm, I'm kind of okay with this, but if that is a concern, I would kind of rather staff research that and determine if that, what the reference is for that, and make a determination, rather than just saying, okay, let's change it now. I mean. I don't, I'm, I'm kind of leaving it up to you guys to decide. Yeah, and, and Ben and I were talking, and wanted to clarify the point that, you know, we're talking structures. You know, the residential use has a, has a setback also. Right. Which adds to the different distance between structures. Right. And my understanding is the concern is about structures, not necessarily property lines. Is that correct? It seems like we might need to research on the insurance if it's the property line or the structure, if we're not clear. Well, it, it, it, I mean, the question reads, does, is the property, so it doesn't read as the dwelling. So, I, I mean, I can pull that manual and provide it, but I just, I wouldn't want to see a blanket proposal that, you know, could potentially harm that many homeowners. The first, so text amendments require two hearings before the board. The first hearing is April 21st, which is after your next planning commission, so. So, we could, the suggestion might be to continue, or do we want to, I'll let you all decide how you do it, but would we want to revisit this after we've had an opportunity to research? Is that staff's request, or? I think it's best we revisit it. In my experience, it's really difficult to try and rewrite regulations from the dais and the podium, so. So, yeah. So, we could still be on schedule for the board meetings if we, we'd have another planning commission meeting to bring it forward before it's scheduled to the board? I guess I'm still a little bit concerned that if it wasn't in this, so, it wasn't for this overlay. If it wasn't in Juanita, if it was anywhere else, you got a, what'd you say, 15-foot setback? Huh? No. I'm saying, what is the setback, the rear setback for commercial development on other commercial property outside of this area? Yeah. It's both the regular setback of the district, but they also have to comply with the 50-foot compatibility. I know that, but I'm saying outside of this. If you're not in Juanita, if you're somewhere else in the county and you're commercial, what is your rear setback? It's standard 15, I believe. Okay. Then, again, against residential, it's 50. Okay. So, if it's residential, it's 50. Yes, sir. Okay. But I would ask the board to keep in mind that Juanita is a redevelopment district. Right. Juanita has a separate neighborhood plan. Juanita has been recognized as an area of need of redevelopment. So, the concept here was to adjust the regulations to facilitate redevelopment by allowing flexibility in the site plan. And it may still be that all of that can happen if it's a matter of five feet. Right now, how it's presented, it allows for the variance request. And it's just a matter of five feet that we're talking about once we research the insurance provision, especially if, well, 30. I mean, right now, it would allow the variance to 25. And we're saying potentially the insurance is 30, requires a 30. Yeah, I guess, but I heard Commissioner Jackson say if a structure is within 30 feet, so it would have to be beyond 30 feet. It might have to be a 35-foot or a 15-foot reduction instead of a 25-foot reduction. Which leads to the sense that we're confusing building distance from compatibility zone distance. So, is it your recommendation, then, that you research this and come back with it? Or is five feet, are you okay with changing it to five feet now, or do you want us to go and consider the 25 feet? It seems like there's some confusion. I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to revisiting it. Okay, I think the legal advice is going to be that we, based on these really great comments and feedback, we just take some time before the next meeting to make sure we're all on the same page and comfortable with whatever staff proposes, would be my recommendation. Okay, continue it until the next meeting? Which is? Yeah, to April. April 1st. April 1st. Not that this matters, but is there anything pending right now? I mean, you've got somebody that's ready to go that needs this? Okay. And I'll just say, Ben Ziscoll, Land Development Director, for the record, we'll go back and research it, but understand the reduction is a case-by-case basis. So we would be looking at what's next to the subject site during a waiver request. So by saying 50 feet and it can go up to 25 feet, we would only grant the 25 feet in a unique situation where there was not a residential structure next to it. So if we set a hard line that we can't reduce it more than 15 feet, then even in a case where there's no residential structure, we're locked into only reducing it by 15 feet. So I understand the concerns, I understand the debate, but understand each request to deviate from the 50 feet requires a unique analysis and a case-by-case recommendation. This just sets the absolute maximum we could reduce that buffer by. But to make the board feel more comfortable, we can certainly come back next month with what we've researched and have a little bit more description about property line and structure. But this proposal is that the compatibility zone is 50 feet with a potential maximum reduction to 25 feet on a case-by-case, unique site-by-site analysis. Yeah, and I'm thinking to address that concern, we might consider putting in a specific, if the variance is granted by the Lujo, if there's a residence, you know, that's one of the criteria. It would have to be 30 feet. So just a little bit more specificity to make everyone comfortable so there's not the situation where we unintentionally grant something that hurts a homeowner unknowingly. And just to add one more, again, the property line and the structure line are different. So understand that a residential property also has a required setback. So even if a commercial property was at the 25-foot line, you've got 25 feet, the residential setback is more than 5 feet. That residential structure should be 5 feet off of the property line. You're at your 30 feet unless they somehow were given permission to build closer to the property line. So understand setbacks apply on both sides of the property line, and you end up getting a building separation greater than your individual setbacks because they're added together. But we will research it, and we'll come back with some modified information for your next meeting. Yeah, Mr. Chair, just a follow-up question to the comment that was just made. Does that also include ancillary structures? So if the homeowner has to have insurance for his ancillary structures, would that be an issue? Just something for you to think about as you do your research. Yeah, what we can say is, you know, ancillary structures, secondary structures, you know, have to have a 5-foot setback. I can't speak to what insurance requirements are, Mayor. Yeah, so when you do your research, just think about that. That's my only point. But again, I'll emphasize the point. We recognize the fact that there was potential compatibility issues. That's why we also are reducing the street setback to allow the buildings to be closer to provide more distance. Yeah. Mr. Chair, I move to continue LDCT 2026-1. I have a motion to continue. Second. Motion is second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion is continued. Next case, please. All right. Good morning, Ian Nance, Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDCT 2025-28, a county-initiated LDCT text amendment to add definitions and standards for flex space and retail plazas. For the record, a legal ad was published on February 18th with staff logging no responses. This is a Level 4 review of board dates set for April 7th and April 21st. The Land Development Code does not do well addressing how multiple uses within one proposed structure should be reviewed and approved. Too often, the structure is used to justify the uses within a given future land use district. One prominent example is with warehousing. There is a difference between a warehouse as a structure and warehousing as a use, as the LDC defines it for distribution purposes. Many, many businesses use a warehouse structure for storage and equipment and vehicles, but are not warehousing and distribution. At times, though, especially with these flex-based structures, a development is reviewed as warehousing when it is convenient. Or if the parking or landscaping requirements are too restrictive, there is a pivot to calling an office. There is a substantial difference in parking and landscaping requirements between these two uses, neither of which might not accurately reflect what is going in these flex-based suites. This leads to a cumbersome review process. The retail plaza is thrown in here because it's very similar to flex-based buildings, one structure with the capability of serving multiple users and functions. The proposal here is to add definitions and standards for flex-based and retail plazas to LDC with standardized landscaping requirements and the requirement of a parking assessment that will analyze the potential uses within these buildings. Within the flex-based, there is a need to provide language to cap what uses belong in certain future land-use districts, as required by the comprehensive plan. For example, commercial uses are allowed up to 15% of a business park center's acreage. This text will limit the uses within flex-based in the BPC to 15% of the square footage of the structure or one suite, whichever is greater. However, when kept at this limit, it will not affect the cap for the overall district, as it will not be the primary function of the building. The goal of that standard is to provide for more inclusiveness for smaller users and businesses while maintaining the integrity of the land-use district for its own purposes. I want to point out this is not intended to create more regulation, rather to consolidate standards already in the LDC and to improve customer service by providing clear guidelines for citizens and staff when these applications are proposed. And finally, as a note, this is one component of a larger goal to update the land development code for warehousing, offices, and retail amendments that will hopefully be in front of you in the coming months. With that, I thank you and we'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? You said that this is, without knowing the details, but you said that this improves customer service. I'm just wondering if, under the current circumstances, in terms of managing and approving flex space, you have to apply different sections of the code. So if this consolidates it all, does that make that easier on? It's really an all-in. The user and the staff to say, this is what you do? Yes, sir. Yes. This is going to go in Chapter 2 under Buildings and Structures, where if you come in and propose some structure like you see here in the bottom right, which can be called warehousing or can be called office, no matter what it ends up being. Right. You know, what's on your bottom right could be a special interest leisure school for our stakes. So when you have these come in, we kind of go to one or the other. Here we say, this is what you need to do for your landscaping. You have a Type A buffer. Instead of having to decide whether it's a Class 4, Class 3, all this other stuff for all these multiple uses, pick one and run with it. And that's the least restrictive is the Type A. Same with parking. If you have multiple users coming in here, we want to see, you know, let's say BPC, 15% commercial. We want to see that you can accommodate a restaurant on the end here and not just office or whatever the less intense is going to be. Just have a better idea as they come in as opposed to trying to figure out down the line. Or, you know, as they switch users through the building department and find out they don't have enough parking for whatever they intend. So it's, like I said, it's been a struggle. This is alternately called, to the bottom right again, alternately called warehousing or it's called office. It just depends on where you are and what the argument is. So the use would be called flex space? It's not even going to be a use. It's not going to be a use table. It is going to go in Chapter 2 under section 2. There could still be a warehouse, but it will be... Correct. You can still do warehousing in it. You can still do fabrication in the certain zones and you can do research and development. And if you're in the... It's going to still be gathered. And what goes inside these bays is still going to be governed by the use table. But the structure itself isn't going to be in the use table. Okay. Any questions, discussion, motion? Move to approve LDCT 2025-28. Motion to approve. Do I hear a second? Second. Motion and second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Next case, please. Good morning. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. LDCT 2025-29 is brought to you to introduce a new use table. When the Land Development Code was adopted back 26 years ago in one week, the, we went through a change. The zoning ordinance had a storage yard use in certain districts. The Land Development Code said you could not have storage without some other use. That storage was only accessory to another use of the property. What we found over the last quarter century is that there is some demand for using a property, maybe temporarily, often, often temporarily, just to store big items, especially, you know, in the industrial context with, like, large pipes and culverts and big transformers and things of that nature. You don't have a business there. You just have some property, and you just need to store it there for a temporary period. One day, when the market gets there, the property will be probably utilized in some other fashion. But in the interim, the landowner can reap some of the benefit out of the property without a lot of investment into it. And so we've created the storage yard category. It's only for the industrial area. It's going to require screening and buffering. You know, one of the things about a storage yard is it can get ugly quickly. You know, if you just go store stuff out there, the weeds can get overgrown, and it just looks bad. So to screen it from the roadway was one of our first things that we wanted to accomplish. To screen it and separate it from any nearby residences is important. Fortunately, in most of our industrial districts currently, we are a good ways away from residential development. There's often a lot of stuff in between. But where there isn't, a 100-foot setback would be required for the yard. And then where that is, a fence, fencing the materials in. So you'd have a 100-foot open area with plantings of the type C requirement. We are also concerned about the effects of roadways. So we don't want someone just hopping the curb and throwing stuff on the ground. We want a good, firm, wide driveway. Most of the stuff that's going to go into these yards are going to come in on semi-trucks, long trailers. So we wanted the driveway to give a wider radius so it doesn't chip at the road. And to also there be a setback. These things will probably be fenced in and that gate be at least 80 feet from the right-of-way, which would enable a tractor-trailer rig to come off the right-of-way before opening the gate, rather than our current standard of 60 feet, which ends up the trailer still in the roadway lane. And so we brought that into it. We made a clear distinction about the separation from a salvage yard, which is a whole other level of review with a whole other set of standards. But this is for finished goods. This is not for junk. This is not for junk cars or junk vehicles. This is for equipment that's being used for materials that have not been deployed into some way, shape, or form. Then lastly, if you're going to have bulk material, it needs to be in a container. It needs to be in some form of container. You're not going to have just aggregate or bulk material spread across the property, which would, once again, put it into another category. So that was the distinction. Just to graphically show you what we're talking about, we're talking about 100 feet of setbacks, buffering, and a fence between residential development, if there's ever any. We're talking about, along the roadway, a 25-foot setback, which was, in a lot of the counties and municipalities we looked at, that was a common element, that everything would be set back 25 feet, which gives you proper room for the buffering and the fencing and the separation from the right-of-way for the throat depth on the Type 1 driveway with a 50-foot radius. We surveyed all kinds of counties and cities that are like us along the I-4 corridor and abutting us, and we found it was mixed, but we found some good examples of where they were utilized, and the storage yard was in there, and certain standards were in their place. So we're pretty consistent with the area. So I recommend this for your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, because it's in the right place. It's just industrial. We're not talking any other land use category. Industrial is the category where, you know, things we don't want near us go. So that would be one of the best. The standards are in place to protect the infrastructure, to promote public safety, and it makes beneficial use of the property. So with that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions, staff? Eric, I had a quick question for you. On this, is there a time limit that you're going to be using this property for? No. We thought about something of a time limit or a review, but really it's a market-driven type of this type of use. A lot of businesses own industrial properties, but the market isn't there for it. This gives a kind of temporary use to that. And we're thinking, well, when the market gets there, when it's more valuable to another company, the storage aspect will go away. It also, you know, if you have commercial property elsewhere and your parcel's cluttered up with too much storage there, it gives you an alternative to seek maybe a lower rent so you can expand your commercial business in another location. I guess the question is, is there a time limit on the other side if you're going to use the site temporarily for storage? And I'm thinking of construction jobs, right, where you're laying pipe along a linear roadway and you have to store your pipe while you're laying it. It may be going off for a year. We have that exception in the code for roadway projects, for utility projects under our temporary use. You can actually do that on residential under a temporary period just for the construction. Okay, so there is that. That's always there. This is more for the company that might be bidding on a job here, might be bidding on a job there. Right, and they have home-based storage. Yeah, they're stockpiling. You know, in our up-and-down supply chain dilemmas that we have, sometimes it's beneficial to go ahead and purchase it now, store it, before the price goes up. This gives them that option. But it doesn't impact the ability to do the other stuff. No, it does not impact that. I have a question. Just considering finished, you said finished product, are railway ties considered a finished product? If they come off the railroad during maintenance, that would be more likely to be in the salvage realm. But if they were new railroad ties intended to go on the railroads eventually, that would be the finished goods we're talking about. So salvage and finished goods, there's always this balance. If it has value to it, then it's in a storage yard. If somebody's trying to get rid of it, then it goes in the salvage yard. All right. I'm just thinking environmental concerns. Any type of even heavy equipment that's long-term stored in a yard like this could potentially leak. That's why when it came to bulk material, we wanted that in containers. So you didn't have any type of threat of contamination. If it's in a container, it's not going to leak on the ground. We're mainly looking to stuff that would be on the ground anyway rather than stuff that would be accumulating. Or, you know, sometimes it could be gas. You know, it would be in a gas container, obviously. But liquid gas, something like that, that is stored, would have to be in a container. Any more questions? Do I hear a motion? Move to approve LDCT 2025-29. Motion to approve and second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Morrow Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay, Eric, next one. This is LDCT 2025-30. Like the other text amendments, all advertised in the Polk Sun News on February 18th. This was required by the legislature. As a matter of fact, it's actually, we're implementing it now through a resolution. And this is to codify it into the code. A bill introduced in the legislature last session gave the ability for Platts to be, have their final approval, administratively, rather than with a elected body. So, with that, we would go from the Platts, the final signature on the Platts being the County Commission Chairman to the Land Development Director. This is one of the things that we had to do with this administrative approval was realize that there are certain things when you sign a Platts that the commission is doing that administrative staff doesn't have that authority. One of those is vacating easements or vacating any type of dedication, which would mostly come through a re-Platts. So, if we had a Platts come in, the dedication or the vacating of easements would have to be done prior to it being signed through administrative review. That was one of the things we put in there. What about accepting dedications? So, if a Platts dedicates a roadway or an easement or something? Our Platts approval does not accept them. Acceptance actually comes through our surety and acceptance process. So, when there's dedications, roadways, and things of that nature, that is actually a second step in the process after the construction is completed and we go from a performance security bond to a maintenance bond. And that's when the board officially accepts that infrastructure, that easement. Up until that point, it's merely an offer, it's a one-sided offering. The developer said, I'm giving you this, and we haven't said thanks yet. So, the approval of the land development director's signature is not doing that. And that was one of the things we had to make clear with this legislation as well. So, we got those two issues covered and we think we safely got to it. When it comes down to it, you know, the bill was intended to speed up the Platting process. So, there were some other caveats in there. A seven-day review, currently, in the past, our review periods have been 10 or 15 days for almost everything. We had to separate the sufficiency review. There's a certain amount of things that have to be provided when you're seeking Platte approval, things like homeowners, covenants or deed restrictions and stuff like that. Another thing is title insurance. We have to have title insurance on the owners, and that expires within 45 days. So, these are kind of things that, during the Platte review, could take longer. This has to be compressed into seven days that we are not officially in the Platte review until all of the components required for Platting are brought in there. It doesn't change our process much. The administrative approval really doesn't change our process much. We had already written into the code that we had a pre-approval. That was my slide on the acceptance and dedications. So, it doesn't, our old process didn't, you know, didn't really slow anything down because we would get the Platts pre-approved by the Board of County Commissioners while the review was taking on. Platte review can take on a while. Getting the math right. Making sure every property you create closes and it's not open-ended. This is a very, that's one of our biggest functions in land development is checking that plat to make sure there's not errors in it. While that was going on, we could get the Board to pre-approve it, and thus, when it was finally said and done and the surveyor provided the MILRs for signing, all we had to do was just gather signatures and, you know, pick a good day when the Board Chairman was in town to have them sign it. What this does is it really eliminates that window of time in which, because the land development director is usually here most often. And so the platte could be signed immediately on that respect. You know, if the commissioner is in District 5 and lives in Bartow, it didn't take that long. But if the commissioner was in, say, District 3, I think, or 4, they could be way over in Point Siena and it could take several hours to come and drive all the way to Bartow to sign the plat and go. So that could delay the plat. So it really didn't shorten our process. But there are other counties and jurisdictions that did. A lot of counties and jurisdictions, the plat had to be approved by the Planning Commission. The plat had to be approved by this board, that board, and the elected body. And those processes are the ones that are really shrunk from it. We probably won't see much change other than the fact that there's just one fewer title block on the plat. With that, we recommend approval. It improves efficiency. It's consistent with the state. It's consistent with our comprehensive plan. And that's the guy who's going to be signing plats from here on out. Any questions? I hear a motion. Motion to approve, LDCT-202530. Second. Motion and second to approve. Rogol, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso, for the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay, Shonda, you're up. Comprehensive plan updates. Good morning. Shonda Bennett with the Land Development Division. Ian is passing out your next installment. It's the economic element. It's an underlying strikeout version of the changes made. You can ask any questions you have of the other elements you received, which is the intergovernmental and, I think, the housing element. So, I stand for any questions on any of that. Okay. The committee is really getting into the future land use element now, and one of our biggest items on the docket for them to consider is an urban service boundary and incorporating the public's comments on the growth vision that we've received with our public engagement. And then we'll really start getting into the development areas and the future land use districts or designations policies in the future land use element. And we've got – we're meeting three days this month, today, next Wednesday, and the last Wednesday of the month, and then another day in April. But I'm pretty sure we're going to have to extend that and have some more meetings because this is the hardest part of the whole conference plan is the future land use element because you spend all of your time in that element with your cases that you review, mostly in the code. But anyway, I'll stand for any questions. I'll stop babbling. Were there any significant – I mean, without having the opportunity to read this – were there any significant changes to the economic portion? I mean, anything that – I don't think from a policy standpoint – There's a lot to ask. Yeah, there's a lot of red here. A lot of redlining. It's kind of difficult to – there's a lot of strikethrough, but there is some underlining. But what is the gist of this? The beginning part of the element on the first page is a lot of contextual information that was happening in 1991, which doesn't exist much anymore. Some of the nomenclature is different. We provided a different summary, a more collapsed summary, if you will, of the economic situation today. Our Central Florida Development Council is a member of the Conference of Planned Advisory Committee. They were there to provide some contextual information. And we condensed some lists, if you will, in the economic element. The economic element is not a required element of the Conference of Planned Per Florida statute. It was an optional element that the board decided at that time, or I guess his staff decided at that time, to implement. So I wouldn't say there was major policy shifts. But the beginning part of it, yes, there's a big deletion, if you will, in terms of a summary. It looked like it was more repetitive. Yes, ma'am. That you struck out. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're trying to, not that this is dictating the changes, but we are mindful of, one, not making the document any bigger, and two, trying to even make it a little shorter to make it easier to understand, but still putting in threads of historical information. And that's, I have to say, hard for me to remove since I've been here so long. But got to, got to make it modern. So I assume that the data analysis report was a lot of consultants' work? Yes, correct. Okay. And our consultant, Inspire Placemaking Collective, hired a sub-consultant on economic. Who was that? Forgot his name, but it's, okay. I forgot his name, I'm sorry, sorry. Okay. But the depth and breadth of it, you know, just covered basic information in the snapshot. It didn't go into every single detail that you might find, say, Gary Ralston going into. Thank you. So. Yeah, if it was Gary Ralston who wrote it, it would be. Gary might not be proud of it, but we're proud of it. It would be less redlining. Or at least the. A lot of underlining. The data and analysis might be longer. Definitely. Okay. Any questions? Any other questions? And you're allowed to ask questions at any planning commission moving forward because it's on the, on the agenda. So it's advertised so that you can ask questions. You just can't make any decisions yet. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other business to come before the commission? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion to hear a second. Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you.