Planning Commission on 2026-07-08 8:50 AM - Jul 08, 2026

purpose of reviewing our agenda and having staff indicate if there's any changes or anything we need to know about on our agenda. So I'll turn it over to staff. All right, good morning. A few notes. The meeting minutes from June, there were some technical glitches, I understand. It's not available to be voted on today, so it will be voted on at the next hearing in August. Two cases have been advertised but did not go on the agenda. They're being continued to August. These are LDCU 2026-3, the recreation high intensity, and LDCU 2026-11. It's in the bottom of the screen up there with being continued to August 5th. Two cases were advertised and placed on the agenda which were continued late yesterday. These are numbers 8 and 9, the Eloise Main Street Corridor CPA and the Eloise Main Street Corridor LDC text amendment. They're being continued to August 5th as well. Okay, is that all? Yes, sir. All right, thank you. So we'll adjourn the work session and wait till not 9 o'clock to convene our regular meeting. Why don't they order? And the first order of business is to have a roll call. Robert Beltran. Present. Merle Bishop. Here. Brooke Agnini. Here. Mike Hickman. Here. Angelic Sims. Here. Julie Jackson. Here. And Kevin Updike. I'm here. We have a form. Thank you. And next we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Chairman, I forgot to mention that Linda Schultz is also here today for the record. Okay. Thank you. And we have a new alternate member, Chad Behring. Welcome. Next, we normally have the approval of the minutes, but I think it's already been pointed out that, uh, we need to continue that, uh, till August the 5th meeting. So next we'll, uh, uh, next I'll ask for a motion to continue the four cases that have been, uh, presented to us by staff as continued. They've been advertised, but we need to continue those cases on our agenda. Do I have a motion to do that? So moved. Motion and a second. Mike. Clarify, um, to continue to August 5th. I'm sorry, to continue to August 5th. Yes. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. And now I'll ask our attorney to, um, go over the, uh, procedures. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll now go over the procedures for today's meeting. Uh, the Office of Land Development will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notifications, 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. If there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing, if the recommendation of the Office of Land Land Development is for approval and if all of the Commission members present wish to use this procedure. With regard to level three reviews, pursuant to section 906 of the Polk County Land Development Code, the Planning Commission may approve the applicant's request, deny the applicant's request, or approve the request with additional conditions. Pursuant to section 921 of the Land Development Code, the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners by filing a formal application with the Land Development Division and paying the application fee. The appeal must be filed with the Land Development Division within seven calendar days of the Planning Commission hearing. The Board of County Commissioners shall set a date and time for a de novo hearing. If a party decides to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to any level three review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings 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 failed to file an appeal, there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the Board of County Commissioners. The application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal. Please further be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the Board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application. And they must waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Regarding level four reviews, pursuant to section 907 of the Land Development Code, the Planning Commission's decision is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date. Regarding ex parte communication, the Planning Commission receives numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the Commission regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized oppositions, and the public may request the Commission to disclose any ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communications or site visits. Unless a Commission member recuses themselves, he or she has determined that they are able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial, competent evidence in the record. Mr. Chair, would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases? Yes, please. Thank you. If you intend to address the Planning Commission on any case today, please stand up, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. This applies to all cases, so if you believe you may speak today, please be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide to the Planning Commission today 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've been asked by our new recorder. If you would please identify yourself when you make a motion. Angel Sims. Yeah. Robert Peltry and second. Okay. Thank you. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. 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 now we will proceed with the first case. All right. Good morning, Ian Nance for Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDCT 2026-15, an applicant initiated request for an LDC text amendment to add vehicle service mechanical as a conditional use in regional activity center land use districts within the U.S. 20 selected, the U.S. 27 selected area plan. For the record, a legal ad was published on June 26th and staff has logged no responses. This is a level four review with board hearing set for August 4th and August 18th. U.S. 27 SAP is approximately 4,900 acres in the northeast corner of the county, as shown in the graphic on the far right, and is defined by higher density residential development. The regional activity center is outlined in the graphic in the middle and is approximately 4% of this SAP. This is mostly built out with vacant parcels located primarily along 192. An RACX district is in the Green Swamp, but it is built out with a resort. The RACX is intended to provide for regional tractors such as this with supporting commercial uses. Vehicle service is exactly one of those complementary uses. These are facilities that provide routine maintenance vehicles such as oil changes and brake work where these activities occur within enclosed structures and outdoor storage of disabled vehicles is not needed. This use is allowed in other RACX districts in the county, and the applicant is requesting approval to add it into the U.S. 27 SAP. Staff agrees, proposing to add this as a C-1 conditional use. This use is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. As a note, this is not applicable to the Green Swamp side of the RACX for two reasons. One, the applicant did not request it, and as I said, the area is already built out. With that, I thank you and will stand for questions. Any questions, staff? Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing up and ask if the applicant is present. Yes, sir. Come forward, please state your name and address. Yes, my name is Evan Futch. I'm at 333 South Garland Avenue over in Orlando, Florida. The application that we're presenting to the county has been well described by Ian and your staff and has been well received. Looking at the evidence of other activity centers, I am anticipating that this is a consistent use based on the information I provide and information that's been provided by staff. If you have any questions for me independently, I would love to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for the applicant? No. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the meeting and bring it back to the board for discussion or questions. And a motion. Robert Beltran moved to approve LDCT 2026-15. Second. By Mike Hickman. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Earl Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angelic Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thanks, Chase. Good morning, Robert Bolton with Land Development presenting LDCPAL 2026-3, a future land use map amendment from residential low 4X to linear commercial corridor X on approximately 1.49 acres of land in the transit supportive development area. The corridor of the transit corridors and centers overlay the green swamp area of critical state concern and Polk City special protection area. For the record, 66 mailers were sent to area property owners on June 19th. One board was posted on June 23rd. Legal ad was published in Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on June 24th. No response from the public has been received. The report, ordinance, application, impact assessment, as well as other documents have been submitted into the record. This is a level 4 review that will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on a transmittal hearing on August 18th and an adoption hearing on October 20th. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and staff recommends approval. The subject site is approximately 200 feet east of U.S. Highway 98 on Socrum Loop West, north of the city of Lakeland. This is a context aerial. The site is located on the northern side of the unincorporated Lakeland, just south of where U.S. 98 turns northwest towards Pasco County and 301. This is the area where FDOT is expanding it from a two-lane to a four-lane divided road. The local area has developed residentially east and west of U.S. 98 with U.S. 98 corridor creating a commercial corridor over the past 20-plus years. This is a closer view of the subject site and adjacent uses. The parcel to the west right here was originally zoned commercial 3 or C3. At the time, the adoption of the comprehensive plan received a future land use designation of linear commercial corridor X. This parcel has been several different non-residential uses over the years. The current one is the Botanical Brewing Cava Bar. To the north... I'm sorry, what did you say? It is called Botanical Brewing Cava Bar. It's like an herbal thing. I'm not that familiar with exactly what it is. To the north is the New Life Assembly of God. It also extends to the east here, which is the secondary entrance to the church. It's owned by the church also. To the south is a residential area of homes that date back some to the 60s, maybe prior. This southeast corner here is a trailer and shed retail location. This is the existing future land use map showing the adjacent LCCX to the west. This is the subject site. With LCC south of Socrum Loop and west of US-98. Part of the expansion criteria is that the expansion shall be limited to a depth which corresponds to the typical depth of existing development within the general area of the infill development. The depth that it would be is similar to that along the east side of US-98 and also typical of what's on the west side. This is what the future land use map would look like with the adoption of the expansion of the LCCX. This is looking west from the subject site towards US-98. The subject is on the right. This is the subject looking east from the site with it on the left. This is the subject site looking north. You can see the existing use, the church there in the background. This is the south side with the residential homes across the street from the existing site. This is the corner parcel, the LCCX, the use that is there. This is the trailer and shed location retail site. This is adjacent to the east. This is the access site to the church. So the parcel really is sort of surrounded by on the west, north, and east by non-residential uses. The request is a non-residential district that will not impact the school system, has adequate fire, EMS, and sheriff service. The site has water and wastewater infrastructure nearby, and connection to sewer would be analyzed at the time the site might be redeveloped. The request is to change from residential low X to linear commercial corridor X. With the adoption of LDCT 2026-14 yesterday by the Board of County Commissioners, expansion of linear commercial corridor within the Green Swamp area of critical state concern, and the Polk City Spa is to meet the same requirements of the Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.11 for expansion of the LCC as the rest of the county. This request meets that policy. The subject parcel within the TSDA and the corridor of the TCCO, it is approximately 200 feet east of the intersection of U.S. 98 and Socom Loop West, and would be a part of that LCCX at that intersection. This site has all public services and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. I submit this presentation in for the record, and staff recommends approval, and I'll stand for any questions. Any questions, staff? Okay, thank you. I'll open up the public portion of the meeting and ask if the applicant is present. Good morning, Commission. For the record, Bart Allen, Land Use Attorney with Peterson & Myers. My address is 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. I'm here this morning on behalf of the applicant and property owner, Sokin Room 7, LLC. This is the second smallest large-scale comp plan amendment I've ever done. My last one was just shy of one acre, but the Green Swamp necessitates it to be a large-scale comp plan amendment. The site, again, as Mr. Bolton has given you, basically a similar presentation to the one that I prepared, so I'll save everybody my presentation for this time. But I appreciate all of staff's efforts and work. The board did adopt a policy or amendment to the Land Development Code yesterday to allow this to move forward. The property owner is continuing to use it as it exists today. This will just help for some future planning, some future opportunities, maybe even some combination with adjacent parcel to create something a little more beneficial on the 98 corridor. So this is meet your comprehensive plan. It's compatible with the area, and we would request favorable recommendation this morning. Any questions to the applicant? Seeing done, I'll ask, is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Kevin Updike moved to approve LDCPAL-2026-3 in its entirety. Second, Mike Hickman. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angelic Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Kevin Updike. I'm for the motion. It's unanimous. Thank you. Next case. Number three. The next case is LDCPAL-2025-2. It's a large-scale conference plan amendment from phosphate mining to agriculture, residential, rural, and Robert Bolton is the case planner. Good morning. I'm Robert Bolton with land development, presenting LDCPAL-2025-2, U.S. 98, and Peace River PM to ARR-CPA. This is a county-initiated future land use designation change from phosphate mining to agricultural, residential, rural, on approximately 116.5 acres. For the record, 48 mailers were sent to area property owners on June 19th. Five boards were posted on June 23rd. Legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on June 24th. No responses from the public have been received. The staff report, ordinance, application, and impact assessment are submitted for the record. This is a level four review and will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners for a transmittal hearing on August 18th for an adoption hearing scheduled for October 6th. The request is a county-initiated as part of a prior request from the Board of County Commissioners to identify historically used land within the PM district to provide the properties with rural residential entitlements. The subject site is comprised of 20 lots of record, 14 of which are developed with residential dwellings, some dating back to the 1960s. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code, and staff recommends approval. Mr. Chair, move to expedite. Robert Beltran. Motion to expedite. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, we are able to... Yes, sir? Oh, if it's not opposition, then the Board can still elect. I'll recognize you after we take care of this. Is there a second to the motion? He second. Okay, sorry. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Yes, sir. Come forward with your question. I think we should wait until the presentation... Is the presentation finished? That can be the presentation. Oh, okay. It pretty much hits the... Okay. I apologize. My name is Richard Vaughn. I live on the residence at 1455 Highway 90 East, adjacent to this piece of property. And I was just... I didn't realize it was the county that was making the change. I just thought it was the individual. So that's... I kind of got confused. But I had just across the road got the zoning change on a piece of property I had purchased. How long had this been in the works? Yes, sir. I took that piece for you across the street back in 20... It's in my notes here. It's in the staff report. January 2024... Yes, sir. ...is when it was adopted. This came about nine months ago that the board... That was just... That was the second part of my... Your case may have brought it to their attention. It was that one and the one a little while after that that sort of brought this to the attention. Right. The only reason I had brought that up is because I wish they would have said that instead of me paying to have all this done and it just come aboard. So, okay. Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Do I have a motion? I move to approve LDCPAL 2025-2. Second. Mike Kickman. Robert Beltran on the proposal. Okay. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Merrill Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Kickman. For the motion. Angelic Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Evan Updike. For the motions. Unanimous. Thank you. Next case. I wanted to... This is John Bennett for the record. I just wanted to mention briefly. There was a case that Robert brought through an applicant-initiated case, I don't know, a year or so ago, that it was an applicant-initiated from PM to phosphate mining. I'm sorry, PM to ARR. It was owned by the phosphate industry. But the board directed staff specifically to try to analyze parcels that need to... That have residences on them. Right. So, that's part of the timing. We wouldn't have done that otherwise. So, I just wanted to... Okay. Thank you. ...add that. So, in line with that, the next case is in that same vein. Large-scale LDCPAL 2025-3 from PM to ARR. And Robert Bolton is the case planner. Good morning. Robert Bolton with Land Development presenting the LDCPAL 2025-3. The Parish in Keller, PM to ARR, CPA. Again, this is a county-initiated future land use designation change from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rural on approximately 66 1⁄2 acres. For the record, 27 mailers were sent to area property owners on June 19th. Seven boards were posted on June 23rd. Legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on June 24th. No response from the public has been received. The staff report, ordinance, application, impact, assessment are submitted for the record. This is a level 4 review and will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners for a transmittal hearing on August 18th and for an adoption hearing scheduled for October 6th. The request of cash county-initiated request prior from the Board of County Commissioners just like the previous one. I'll just skip all that. The subject site is comprised of 15 lots of record, seven of which are developed with residential dwellings, some dating back to the 1960s. The vacant lots are owned by the adjacent improved lots. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and staff recommends approval. Mr. Chair, move to expedite Robert Beltran. Motion to expedite. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in opposition to this? Seeing none, this can be expedited. Do I have a second? Second. Mike Hickman. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. We will expedite. The only difference on this one that I feel like I probably should bring up is this was a previously mined land that has been reclaimed. It was reclaimed back in the 70s and has been built out. Like I said, seven of the 15 lots were built out starting in the early 70s and has continued to be built out, some of them up until the recent 2020s. Okay. Thank you. This is part of where they also were okay. Like Ms. Bennett sat there and said, the one that really brought the attention was one that had been previously owned. Okay. Do I have any further discussion and a motion, please? Move to approve LDC-PAL 2025-3 in its entirety. Kevin Updike. Second. Robert Beltran. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Earl Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angelic Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Thank you. Next case. All right. Number five on the agenda is LDCU-2026-15, the Grove Sand Mine. Kyle Rogus is your planner. Good morning. Kyle Rogus with Land Development presenting LDCU-2026-15, the Grove Sand Mine conditional use. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to modify LDCU-2024-39 to reflect the abandonment and dedication of rights-of-way to the surrounding roadways. On June 19th, 14 mailers were sent to area property owners. Ten boards were posted on the property June 23rd. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun News on June 24th. Staff received no response from the public. Staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. The subject site is located south of Tyndall Camp Road, north of Masterpiece Road, east of Lake Mabel Loop Road, west of Lake Pierce, east of the city of Lake Wales, and Section 12, Township 29, Range 27. All the immediate land use districts around the property are either residential, suburban, or agricultural, residential, rural, and the area has long been citrus groves. This region of the Polk County is rural. Sand mines are not nearly as intense as phosphate mining and critical in growth areas like central Florida. Non-phosphate mining is listed as one of the limited uses allowed in agricultural, residential, rural, and residential suburban land use districts. The mine has undergone numerous modifications since its original approval by the Board of County Commissioners on July 18th, 1995. The mine received 7-0 approval with conditions to expand the existing sand mine operations for an additional 70 acres in June of 2007. The mine received 6-1 approval with conditions to expand the existing sand mine operations for an additional 466 acres in February 5th of 2025. Today, the mine is requesting approval with conditions to expand the existing sand mine to reflect the abandonment and dedication of rights-of-way to the surrounding roadways. While St. Helena Road is classified as a local roadway, the future use is anticipated to be a collector roadway, resulting in substandard right-of-way width. As a result, part of the modification is dedicating rights-of-way along the frontage of St. Helena Road to meet land development code requirements. The newly proposed right-of-way width will result in reduction from the previously approved 100-foot setback, however varying right-of-way widths along St. Helena Road results in different setback reductions. As a result, staff has added as part of the condition of approval that mining activity be set back 110 feet from the measured centerline of the roadway. This ensures mining activity will remain consistent distance from St. Helena Road. Provided as a side-by-side comparison of the reclamation plan illustrating the minimal change to the previous conditional use. A few residential uses, seven homes are near the mine, which requires mining activity to be 200 feet away. The vacation and dedication of rights-of-way do not change or alter the 200-foot setback from residential uses in any way. And staff finds the request is compatible and meets the criteria set forth in the code. The request is to reflect the abandonment and dedication of rights-of-way to the surrounding roadways. The vacation of JL Massey Road from the intersection of Big Tank Road and St. Helena Road will increase the total acreage of the mine from 551 acres to 554. The dedication of rights-of-way along St. Helena Road will reduce the previously approved 100-foot setback, which is allowed per Section 303 of the Land Development Code. I request that this presentation be submitted to the record, and with that, I will stand for questions. Any questions, staff? Seeing none, you can proceed. That's it. Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Bart Allen, land use attorney with Peterson & Myers Law Firm. My address is 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. Here this morning on behalf of the applicant, Blue Water Industries Florida, LLC. I also have my entire team here, just for purposes of introducing everybody from the cleanest group. I have Mr. Matt Mouncey and Mr. Mark Stevens, who have been providing the engineering, design, planning efforts for this project since its inception. I also have Mr. Nate Goddard from Verdandis, who has handled, and Verdandis has handled the environmental, the bugs and bunnies type review of matters. Kim Lee Horn has handled transportation. Ms. Amber Gartner, she is not here this morning because we're not changing anything as it relates to transportation. And then I'm sure I'm missing some, oh, Tracy Mouncey is also with us as well, who handles a variety of issues for us. Mr. Rogus has really given you everything you need for this morning. I do, again, have another PowerPoint presentation, but I'm going to keep it on the desktop without showing it. One of the things that, you know, we were in front of you in 2025 getting this approved, we've been in the Level 2 process, getting all of our water use permits, all our ERP permits, doing all of that secondary permitting that is required after the Level 3 is approved. Part of that, with working with your county, there was a discussion regarding St. Helena Road and an additional right-of-way beyond what a typical request is from a project. One of the reasons of that is there's a high-pressure gas line on the other side of St. Helena Road, so to the top of the screen is east, and to the bottom of the screen is west. On the west side there, there is a high-pressure gas line, so the road couldn't expand that way any further. So, we are giving additional right-of-way on the east side to accommodate that future expansion. We're also vacating J.O. Massey, and that just helps unify the mining activity on this site, rather. And J.O. Massey is just a grove. It's a dirt, clay, old grove road. It's not paved. It's not used by anybody. That's going through the right-of-way vacation process now, and so far has received no objection from any utility companies and things of that nature. So, this is really a big, it's a major modification to accommodate really some right-of-way dedication and an additional three acres of mining activity on this site. So, with that, we would request a favorable vote this morning. Any questions on the Alpkin? So, the existing sand mine is that area to the southwest? The southwest, yes, Commissioner. Okay. That was originally a borrow pit. That was an old C.C. Calhoun borrow pit that Blue Water, who's our client, acquired from that organization and is converting it into a wet sand mine. So, tell us briefly about that enclave. Those are some, it's an enclave of residential homes. We, as we went through the initial permitting process on this, we did a public outreach, and we met with every one of those residents out there and talked, discussed with them what was going on, and quite candidly, the response was, we'd rather you be a sand mine than future homes. So, okay. One more question. Are you dedicating more right-of-way on the, I'm confused because of the orientation of this, on the west side of St. Helena Road? We're dedicating some right-of-way on the west side of St. Helena. I know you can't. It's already been completed through the Level 2 process, but we will be dedicating even more right-of-way on the east side to get St. Helena to a full collector road standard, was what the request was. Okay. Thank you. I'll open up the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chairman, Kevin Updike, move to approve LDCU-2026-15 in its entirety. Second, Robert Beltran. Motion and a second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angelic Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Thank you. Next case. All right. Ian Nance Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDPD-2026-4, a planned development request for 170 dwelling units consisting of single-family detached and townhome lots on approximately 17 upland acres. The subject site is located east of the Polk Parkway, west of Berkeley Road, south of Berkeley Knights Drive, and north of Pace Road, north and south of the city of Auburndale in section 17, township 27, range 25. For the record, 15 maithers were sent on June 19, two boards were posted on May 15, and a legal ad was published on June 24. Staff has logged no response. This is a context area of the subject site. It is located north of the Pace Road and Berkeley Road intersection near the Polk Parkway and I-4. This is an urbanizing region between the county, Auburndale, and Lakeland, where decades of planning goals are beginning to be realized with completion and improvements to the Parkway, Pace Road, and other surrounding roadways. Florida Poly is off-screen but located to the west. SunTracks and Auburndale's Innovation District are located to the southwest, and large distribution centers are located to the north and west. Two school sites are located east, and this location is not far from multiple parks and recreation facilities, including the Tico Trail along its western border. The site is currently mapped within a residential low-1 future land-use district, but it is also recognized by the comprehensive plan as being within the Transit Supported Development Area's Transit Center Overlay. These are areas where the availability of infrastructure and other community facilities and services promote and support the location of higher-density, compact, mixed-use development of up to 12 dwelling units per acre. Essentially, the future land-use district guides allowable uses and development criteria, and the overlay provides for density where appropriate. This is here today for those uses and development criteria required in RL1. The request is, again, for 170 units split between single-family detached lots and multifamily townhome units. The LDC requires planning commission approval for the townhomes in RL1, and in the TSDA, these structures are allowed to exceed four attached units per structure with planning commission approval. The maximum proposed by the applicant here is six units per structure. The single-family detached units are a bit different. These have been described in the past as detached townhomes or cottage units, but these are small lots down to 2,850 square feet. Side setbacks are reduced to 2.5 feet for 5 feet between structures, and rear setbacks are being reduced from 15 to 10 feet. All these units are intended to be platted in the fee-simple lots, and no short-term rental is being proposed with this application. Access is on to a state highway, and the location meets the criteria necessary to achieve this density with its proximity to schools, recreation, utilities, and availability of sidewalks. The site plan will meet the necessary 20 percent of open space and provide the required amenities, mostly in the form of passive recreation, such as trails and dog parks. A connection to the Tico Trail will be provided, and a small wetland area to the southeast corner of the site will be preserved. As the code requires, each unit will have two off-street parking spaces, not including the garage space, and additional parking areas will be provided. Any garages will need to be set back 25 feet from rights-of-way. To the right is the site plan overlaid on an aerial. An existing home is to the north and will be buffered and screened by landscaping and fencing, as well as increased setbacks for the units located here. Instead of it being 10 feet, as a request, these northern ones will be set back 15 feet. Again, the Tico Trail is to the west, and the school is planned to cross the street to the east. The single-family lot sizes are unconventional, but they speak to the comprehensive plan's goal to promote and support higher-density, compact, mixed-use development where the services are available. Here's a quick look at those services as they currently sit. Capacity is currently available at the zone schools. Numerous parks and recreation opportunities are located in proximity to the site. Emergency services are operating at expected levels of service. Potable water and wastewater connections are required and available through the City of Auburndale and reportedly have capacity. Again, access is onto a state highway that has capacity, but this number of units will trigger a major traffic study. In short, this request meets the timing policies of the comprehensive plan. If this is approved today, the project will need to go through the Level 2 review process before construction. Staff will again review the school concurrency at that time, review flood studies and wetland delineations, and require a species walkover. Again, staff recommends approval of this application. This site is mapped for higher-density development in an area that has experienced significant public investment into the services necessary to support this growth, as well as the surrounding uses. This site is near major transit areas, schools, a university, and major employment centers, the exact areas where higher-density development is planned. Staff finds the application compatible with these surrounding uses and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. With that, I thank you and will stand for questions. Any questions from staff? Is this the—I don't remember, but is this the first time we've considered the county's considered a 30-foot wide lot? No, sir, we had one in—I can't remember if it's in our staff report or not—August 2025, I want to say, was a project off of Wabash, southern Wabash area, where we had a very similar layout to those townhomes and then to the interior of these detached townhomes. So am I reading this typical lot right? Is it five-foot setback between the—total setback between the units? It's the setback between the units, so it's two-and-a-half feet from the structure to the lot line. Okay. That's going to require some building code considerations, I'm sure. Yes, sir. Okay. What's surrounding it? Is there anything—I mean, residentially, what's in that area? There's one home border to the south. I believe this parcel's vacant. You have the Tico Trail, and then this is BPC 1, Business Park Center 1, and these are larger lot residences across the street. As I said, there's a private school or charter school going in here, and kind of these parcels, this general area here. And that to the northeast is the school? Yes, sir. It's Berkeley Elementary, I believe it is. Are there any other identified parcels around that would be suitable for this type of density, then? I'm sorry to say again? I mean, I'm just thinking what the direction of this area is going to be. Is this the first of, I mean, many of higher density for that area there? Potentially. If you look at the graphic here in the middle, your green circle is where it's really encouraging higher density. You can see just the corner of Pace, and I can't read what that road says right there. But that's kind of the center where it was mapped once upon a time to get up to 25 billion units per acre, and it kind of works out from there, or I'm sorry, decreases from there. You see some of the densities that are potential through here. Thank you. And there's another core up by Polytechnic, too. It's just off screen. Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant present? Put your name and address, please. Yeah, good morning. Logan Opsall, 215 North Eola Drive. I'm just going to pull up points briefly. You said Eola Drive, that's in Orlando? Yes, sir. Okay. So I have a brief PowerPoint, and some of which I'll just skip over because Ian was pretty thorough, so I appreciate that overview. But we'll dive right in. Here's the site, which we've been discussing, and I want to address some of the questions the commission had as well. It's just shy of 18 acres located at the intersection of Berkeley and Pace. There is some multifamily south of Pace, and as we'll get to in a couple of these slides. To borrow from Ian, this is the result of decades of planning for higher intensity, and we have, which you'll see on some of these aerials, too, some pretty substantial institutional uses, industrial uses, commercial, and so at this point, that residential, that more dense residential is finally caught up with what we're seeing on the non-residential side to support those employment centers and, again, within the transit center and corridor overlay and the transit supportive development area. So, again, here's the site plan, and some of which I'll do this at a pretty fast pace since we've gone through most of this. But the site is along the TECO Trail. We've also worked with the city to provide an easement to them, which is a benefit they've asked for. We have reserved capacity as it relates to utilities. Of course, your staff report outlines the ample capacity on the roadways. Again, an area that is ripe for some more dense development to support the non-residential uses. And this is what I wanted to offer the commission as well. I think this captures a bit of what's going on out there. Of course, we have the existing Berkeley Middle, the private school going in across the street, which Ian mentioned, this higher intensity, over a million square feet of industrial park, and some commercial out parcels, as well as, again, this multifamily component here just on the south side of Pace Road. And so what we're offering here is a mixture of housing types that differ from a multifamily development, excuse me, the apartment use, but instead offer a mix of housing types that can support these employment areas. And I just outlined some of these here on this slide. So above is some conceptual renderings on the elevation level. Below is some real-world pictures we wanted to offer you of some successful projects we've had. And so we can demonstrate just conceptual being effectuated into real-world examples and some of the townhome product as well on a conceptual level. So I won't dwell on these too long. This is just nitty-gritty. This is all outlined in great detail in your staff report. But, again, we're in the TSDA, TCCO overlays. Through that and the bonus point criteria and the residential low, we can get up to 12 units an acre. Here what's being proposed is 10. And some various components of what that all means in practicality that get us to our plan development process and the mechanism for getting there as it relates to the site plan. And we've taken great care dealing with and working with your staff as it relates to the open areas, amenities, again, that TCCO trail, and then, again, the easement with the city of Auburndale. A quick note on concurrency. You heard me state the utilities is going to be provided through the city of Auburndale. Sewer lines are available along the TCCO trail, water lines along Berkeley. The city has actually reserved capacity for this project, roads, ample capacity, again, a long-term vision for supporting and inviting these higher, a bit higher density uses, along with PsyDoc network, public safeties at urban levels, and the schools have available capacities, lots of schools in the area, both private and public. I beat this up pretty good, so I'll clip past this. But a few quick highlights, again, this is in your staff report. As it relates to open space, recreational opportunities, this is intensity and density that's going to provide some additional alternatives to the apartments that's going in south of Pace, again, to support these employment areas. We have supporting infrastructure, reserved utility capacity, and a mix of housing products in line with the goals of your comp plan, and particularly this area. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. There's representatives from the project team as well, if you have any specifics. What's the anticipated square footage on those units? The lot size is like 2,500 square feet as it relates to the units. Evan, do you have that information? The commissioner is asking for the square footage of the homes. There was mention that there were flood zones present, but I'm not seeing any flood zone overlays over your plan. Where do those fall? Sure, so I'm going to pull up the site plan here. The wetland is, there's an existing portion that's wetland areas. That's in your bottom right corner here, your southeast corner. It's a bit small, but it is labeled as the wetland areas. And then the stormwater pond is placed, you know, as well strategically there in that lower area. So the only flood zone is just your wetland corner of that, all of that, that's the only flood zone that's being affected? That's correct. It kind of clips the parcel there. So I'm looking at your site plan, and I see only one area for parking. I know you got, I guess, a double garage for each unit, so that takes care of parking of the residents. But is that enough parking for, like, visitors and guests that come in? I mean, usually apartment complex or multifamily have parking for guests and different people. I'm just, I'm a little bit concerned that there's not enough parking on the site, albeit I know that each unit has two-car garage. And I'm not sure if the setback would take care of any other parking. And I'm not sure if that's parallel parking, on-street parking. It looks like it could be, but I'm not reading their site plan well, maybe. Yeah, we did talk about parking quite a bit, you know, at the DRC level and even in the pre-app. So, yes, you have the garage parking. There is some on-street parking and an additional parking area. Again, it's kind of small up here in this area as well. So, we had quite a bit of conversation with your staff on parking, and the site plan was tweaked to accommodate the vehicles for these units as well. So, where is the extra parking? I mean, is there additional parking? 30-foot-wide lot, you're going to be able to park one car on the street and two in the driveway. Well, that was why I didn't see it on the site plan. Two potentially in the garage, but I've never seen that happen before. Right. That bottom left picture shows two cars out parked on the road. Yeah. But, you know, Merle, that's no different. I mean, there's some townhome projects that are single-car garages, I know, off of Shepard Road. I realize that. I just, but there's, usually they provide parking somewhere. I didn't see it here. I've been into some developments. Where's the garage in that picture? Parking's just everywhere. In the back? That was my question for the applicant. Where is it? The top two are renderings. The bottom ones are actual projects. Right. What's the proposed unit structure? The Volusia project. Come on up here, Evan. While they're walking up, real quick, the Land Development Code is going to require 25 additional parking spaces to accommodate this number of units for plan development approval. And those are outside of the garage or the parking space. So my question is, where are those? They'll be mixed between parallel parking, on-street parking. So those are, what I'm seeing is correct. I mean, I couldn't tell. It wasn't labeled. Those are parallel parking spaces. They're up to the northeast or northwest. Yeah. Okay. Hello. My name is Evan Futch, for the record. Basically, the parking that we were just discussing is exactly that. It's on the east and west side of those 30-foot proposed lots, and there's approximately five parallel spaces at the end of each of those rows, and then also the five spaces that you see to the north that's associated to the, that's closer to the Tico Trail there. So that's where we're actually meeting that, 25 required parking spaces on the site plan, just for clarification. It is a little hard to see on this one, but. I suspected that, but it wasn't labeled, and I just wasn't clear where they were. I see them, yeah. Yeah, I absolutely want to be clear about that. The images that you're seeing currently on the screen, too, as obviously you're concerned with the parking in front out on the street, so was staff during level two, and that's where we started getting into adding these parallel spaces and making sure there's room for guests. As far as the actual units that they're showing as examples, those examples were meant to demonstrate the closeness of those buildings and not so much the design that's being proposed here today. As far as parking is to be concerned about, I'd be happy to turn it over. Yeah, I was just going to say the conceptual at the top, you know, captures what's being proposed, and the bottom, you know, wherever we have these successful projects, we want to be able to demonstrate some real-world pictures, but different than what's being proposed here because of the parking, you know, that's an important point for staff as well. Yeah. Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Anyone in the audience to speak against this application? Thank you for your time. Thank you. If I may, real quick, too, back to the parking, they're going to be required to have two off-street parking spots per unit here, so either they provided the house or they're going to have to come up with 340 spaces somewhere on this property that's, you know, available to all, so they're going to have to provide for that. These are just renderings. Can you clarify that again? I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear what you just said. By our code, they're going to be required to have two off-street parking spaces per unit that don't count the garage. Not meaning in front of the unit. Which is... That means on your driveway. Oh, on your driveway. On your driveway. You can't have a tandem arrangement. They have to be side-by-side, and you can park whatever you want in the garage, but it's not going to count. So we require by code now to have two... The driveways have to be washed up, is what I'm hearing. Okay. And the guest parking, of course. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I'll bring this back to the board for further discussion. And a motion. Okay, I'd like to chat for a minute. This is... I've lived in Auburndale for 30 years, so I'm very familiar with this area, and this is exactly what we don't want. This is the epitome of ram-jam-cram as much as we can onto a piece of land. And we've got renderings of buildings, houses, in wide-open, nice areas, and then a tiny little shot that's kind of showing how two-and-a-half feet, to take a 10-foot setback from the side to two-and-a-half feet, you're asking for almost an 80% reduction. Just speaking for my little community of Auburndale, and I'm saying this is not what we want, and it's not going to get my vote. But, Ian, have we heard anything back from the city? I've not heard anything recently from the city. Where's the city notified? The city's been notified, and they've been in contact with the applicant, maybe. Well, I saw the letter from utilities, but I'm just wondering if Auburndale Planning Department had any comment. I have not heard anything from them on this particular case. I presume that this is utilities. If it gets approved and built, it will ultimately be annexed at some point. That's correct. Any other comments? Yeah, I'd just like to comment that, you know, we approve apartment complexes all the time with limited parking spaces, and here I understand your concerns about, you know, density, but what's the alternative? We see more apartment complexes. At least people get the opportunity to have home ownership. And, unfortunately, that's the direction it's going because it's, I don't know what price point you'll be at, but I'm sure they're going to be expensive to buy them, even these little houses that they're on. What I can tell you, watching Auburndale doing what it's doing, there are lots of homes going in, and nothing looks like this. And this is what people don't want. We don't want to be able, you know, can you have windows on those sides? You know, how is it going in that community that someone approved this here? Or, you know, I just, this is not what we're looking for. Townhouses are townhouses, but, no, I just, this is not what we're looking for in Auburndale. Commissioner Sims, thank you. I mean, you live in the area, and your point's well taken and valid, so I'm not going to contradict you. But I'll just note as it relates to the setback, because I want to speak to that. The PD process, as you know, in the county allows for increasing densities and intensities using innovative design techniques, right? It says things like providing a mixture of land uses, gain project design flexibility. And so that's what we've accomplished through this. Commissioner Sims, I think, rightfully notes and discusses the side setbacks, and that there are a lot of stuff going into Auburndale that's just different than this. And I think from our perspective, if I may, we are providing something different, and it's going to be, it's different. That's the reality. And that's also, I think, the point of our asset class and what's being put forth to this commission. This is an area that has, again, high industrial uses, a lot of employment centers, and so we do offer an alternative to what's going in for folks that want to experience home ownership. It's not an apartment. You know, this is considered multifamily by your code, but it's different. It's not an apartment building. It's something that's multifamily but laid out in such a way, as you see before you, that allows folks to have some home ownership. And with that and those design flexibilities, you're going to have some smaller side setbacks. And that's what's being proposed, but, you know, I appreciate you conveying that. So let me ask this. Is there will be a homeowners association and all the property will be maintained by a management company? I assume, I mean, these individual homes aren't going to be on their own. I mean, it's going to be kind of hard to maintain a two-and-a-half-foot, you know, yard, which is essentially what they have. Yeah, yes, sir. And, you know, we're seeing that more and more like it, hate it, or love it. It's folks want less upkeep and less of a yard. And so this is a response to what's both desired and also needed in this particular area to support those non-residential uses. And it speaks exactly to that, these side setbacks, these design standards are responding to that. How many other projects similar to this have you done? And, I mean, heck, me personally with y'all about, yeah. I'm sorry. About 10. Those in the Orange County area or? No, we've done quite a few in Polk. Oh, really? This is in Volusia. Yes, sir. Okay. I want to go back to the flood zone. So I'm just looking at the acreage. 17.62 acres is the full parcel size of the project. Yes, ma'am. In the staff report, it shows that AE zone is just over 11 acres. So how are we getting this tiny corner as the only, you said that's the only flood zone? Well, I want to be clear. That corner is the wetland area. And I should. I asked flood zone. Yeah. And I should have had a flood zone. Yeah. I mean, typically we have flood zone overlays over the parcels. Why aren't we seeing it on this project? So, like you said, I think maybe there's 11 that's within the AE. This is, well, Evan, why don't you come tell me when you get that in front of your notes. But notwithstanding, part of it is within the AE and the compensating stormwater pond, you know, properly accommodates that. And, again, the wetland, of course, is going to be within the AE as well. And that's undisturbed. Staff report, page 16, shows approximately 11 and three-quarter acres of the site are within AE flood zone. I'll go there. So it's a much larger consideration of the flood zone. Are there any, do we have aerials of what type of trees are currently in the site? Do we? I don't have an aerial. I mean, what kind of impact are we doing here environmentally? Well, a lot of the properties open on the northern portion. The environmental impact, that sort of thing happens at level two. So we'll do those assessments. Shonda, are you able to share that screen over here? No? Okay. I'm seeing it on her screen. I will just go ahead and add to make sure that we're focusing on compatibility and consistency because, like the applicant said, the floods and things will be considered at level two. So we're focusing on consistency with the land development code and the comp plan and then compatibility with the surrounding area. So I assume you would bring in Phil and bring that to bring that area out of the floodplain? I mean, how are you going to deal with a floodplain? If it is, well, assuming that it's in the floodplain, because if you did a detailed survey, I recognize that line could change. Yeah. So, Evan, if you want to address just how we're going to handle that. But, again, those will be addressed at level two. But we want to speak to them now as well and how we're handling the field. Hello again. So, basically, the site will be filled in to bring it up to the required finished floor elevations as it's being determined through the level two process. Now, and also, I want to get back to the floodplain issue. So there are floodplain portions on the southern portion that extends. I don't have that exact data in front of me right now. But let me explain to you our process in designing this pond. And this pond is overly large for this size of a development. And the reason for that is compensation of the floodplain. Because in the state of Florida, you affect floodplain. You have to put it back cup for cup. So what we're doing is we're oversizing our pond to be able to provide for that floodplain compensation. So we're not going to be negatively impacting properties around us by filling in and not compensating for it. It's required by, you know, our permitting process. Do you anticipate this will be a wet pond? I do anticipate it to be a wet pond. Currently, there's some surface water out there. The little segment that you see closest to Berkeley is actually a small wet pond there. And we're actually expanding on that pond, just making it larger, making it encompass. We'll give that retention pond more of a natural look, being part of that existing water body that's already out there while preserving the wetlands. Sorry. Are you a registered engineer or what is your... No, I work for an engineering firm. I'm sorry. I am an AICP planner. Okay. Thank you. The engineering firm. Any further discussion or questions? I guess I have a quick question. And what's the lane used just south? Just looking at this area, I see a lot of single-family homes, larger lots. What's the lane used to the south and north, if you can remind me of that? And I know you showed it earlier, but I can't, off the top of my head, think of what it was. Yes, it's R01 to the south. And if I could go back to the flood thing real fast, what I was showing earlier is the flood map. And there's an error in the staff report. It's 11 acres wouldn't be correct. Where I just doodled is right there is where the floodplain is. And it overlaps with the existing wetlands there. Yeah, but is that the extent of the floodplain? Yes, sir. It looks like they're a flood zone. So the 11 acres is incorrect. That's correct. So what would you think it is? I would say just under an acre probably, three-quarters of an acre maybe. Maybe you've got the decimal in the wrong place. You've got the – that could be tough picking up other people's projects on the fly sometimes. But is there anywhere outside of that green circle that you showed that I assume is the overlay, the density overlay, is there anywhere outside of that that this could be done? I assume this type of a project could be done anywhere in that green circle if you had the right property, the right land area. Is that correct? Yes, sir, as far as the circle extends into the RL1 and RL2. Okay. But beyond that, there's no other place this could be done without a land use change. That would be correct. Okay. And also for the record real quick about conversations with Auburndale. Well, when this project first came to us, they had been in discussions with Auburndale about annexation. They came to us while in the county in our development regulations. We were in contact with them and spoke with the city about providing that utility easement to the rear of the property. I know that was a big part of the discussion for them at the time. So just for the record, we did discuss this with the city. Well, it's not contiguous. They couldn't annex. Is it? It's not contiguous, is it? Yeah, that's kind of where conversation went. The only contiguous area is the TECO Trail, which is technically within this. Okay. Okay. Ian, real quick. Yes, sir. We have other areas where we have five-foot setbacks like this. Again, they're two-and-a-half-foot setbacks from structured property lines. They're five feet between buildings. Off the top of my head, I can't come up with one. I know there's what? Up in the northeast would be, I think Eric left an example up here. And typically when we have those cases, and maybe it's more for Shandra since she knows the examples, are those outside landscape areas managed by the HOA? Because to Merle's question earlier, two-and-a-half feet is awfully tight between property line and structure. I can see where that would work if the HOA was professionally managing the outside. Especially if you own the property, you own the lot, and you put up a fence. Yeah. I mean, that's tight. Right on it. So I guess is that the intent for this development? I don't know if you quite answered that question. I didn't quite hear that. I'm sorry. What was the? I think it was a question for the applicant. It was a question more for the applicant. I was just wondering if she knew other examples. But if she doesn't know, then it's a question for the applicant. We're concerned about the two-and-a-half-foot because, like I said, I guess, hypothetically, if I own the lot and I want privacy and I put up a privacy fence, I've got two-and-a-half feet. I'm not sure I can get a riding lawnmower down that area. So how is the property, the lot, is going to be managed? How much landscaping and main nuts and so forth? Yeah. So on the landscaping front, it needs to meet the code requirements for minimum landscaping. For the maintenance requirements, each home is going to maintain their home. That's – they mow their yard. That's not something that's maintained by the HOA to answer your questions straight on. Yeah, and this, to me, speaks a little bit more to the compatibility and how things will look after the development's done. I understand Mike's point, too. This is – right? It's kind of a – Yeah. We just get this proliferation of apartments because that's the only cheap housing that we now have available to us. So, I mean, I'd love to see one-acre lots with, you know, custom homes on every acre. But, you know, the market isn't there for that. So this is – I find this quite interesting, and I think it's probably a solution to, you know, affordability for people that want their own homes. Commissioner Beltran, do you mean these little strips? Yeah, the strips in between homes. I think the concern is each single-family lot has a setback of two-and-a-half feet. We're concerned about, I guess, the long-term maintenance of this area. If I own a lot, I've only got two-and-a-half feet, and I want to landscape that area. I want to put some bushes or shrubs or trees in that area. What's going to happen in terms of how this is maintained? Because I'm going to have to have either a – I guess a push mower or something like that, because I'm not going to be able to do it with a riding mower. Weedwhack it. Weedwhack it, yeah. You know, but the market decides that. There's going to be – how many homes you got there? A hundred and – Up to that. There's going to be 170 families that figure that out and want to buy in there. Well, I've seen some developments that – I mean, they get run down after a while because they aren't maintained. Well, I've seen some high-end developments get run down because they're not maintained. So that's just inherent in the people that are in there. I don't think that's a reflection of someone that's buying an affordable house. So here's what I want to do so we can cover these – cover all of them, okay? Sean, I appreciate you pointing this out. These green areas, those are part of the particular parcels, right? So those in-between areas that break up the structures, those – that's not open space. That will be maintained. So let's – I'm talking back here. Let's do this because I think that there's a comfort level that can be achieved from what I'm hearing. Currently, what's being showed is the two-and-a-half per lot for a total of five. And so we would be willing to get there to put the 2.5 per lot up to five, okay, five foot for the setback. So we can double that so we can get Commissioner Bishop's riding lawnmower in there. I'm not concerned about the attached townhouses. I'm more concerned about the single family. The single family and the yellow. Those five-foot in-between strips is what they're talked about. It's left to each individual homeowner to do. That's what I'm – Sure. I mean, that's no different than any project I'd be presented on. It's up to the homeowner to maintain their home. Well – What's the rear setback between – because there's two-and-a-half feet in between the homes. Are those – I'm looking at two rows of homes that – The rear is 10. So there'll be 10 feet – so 20 feet between homes on the backside? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, again, can I get some clarification on what you just said? Are you saying between the yellow area there's going to be five feet between homes? Are you saying between the orange areas there's five-foot homes? I'm trying to understand what you just proposed. Yeah, so going from the 2.5 to 5, so that's on the townhomes. Sorry, single families. It's on page 27 of 29 of our staff report. It shows a diagram of single family, and it shows five feet between each unit. That's correct. Or two-and-a-half feet from the property line. And so each homeowner is going to have a two-and-a-half-foot yard, side yard. Yes, sir. And that's going to get increased to five feet is what I'm hearing. That's correct. No, I don't understand. You have a 30-foot-wide lot, and you're going to put – now you're going to put five foot on either side, and you have a 20-foot-wide product, and you're going to get a two-car garage and a 20-foot-wide product? Where does the front door go? Yeah, they'll become 35 feet. Oh, so what you're saying is you will increase the size of those sites. Yes, sir. Well – Comes off of what? So you'll have fewer home sites. That would be the consequence of increasing those. Yes, sir. Okay. So we need a new – I mean, they're developing projects with zero lot lines, Merle. Right. Zero lot lines. I don't have a problem with zero lot line. I have no problem with that. I'm just concerned about – No, it's no different. They put five foot on one side and zero on the other side. Then you've got five feet to maintain as opposed to two and a half. I'm just going to add, if we're considering reducing the number of lots and increasing setbacks, I think we'll need a new site plan. So we may need – this might be a change we cannot make today. I think staff may need time to reevaluate. Let's see if we have a motion. I mean, I'm – Let me see what the applicant would like to do. So their other solution is they could come back at a zero lot line. You'd have your five foot on one side. They would give them access to the backyard. I mean, that's the other alternative. I've seen zero lot lines where you've got a, I don't know, two-and-a-half-foot bay nuts area or something. So because you have to maintain the side of the house. So you have an easement to maintain it. I've seen those done. All right. So we're back to the two-and-a-half then in that example. You know, they make a good point. And we've got to buy an exciting plan. So, you know, what's being proposed is the two-and-a-half feet. We just wanted to speak to the setbacks to see if there was a comfort level there. But we can continue to discuss this to reach that. Is the applicant requesting a continuance to reevaluate the site plan, or would you like the board to consider the site plan as it's been submitted today? Well, this is ultimately going to go to the commission. Is that correct? No, this is a level three. This is a PD, level three. So have you done any projects with zero line line? Yes. Stay tuned. I like this case. Personally, I would prefer that. Are we voting or are we? I think we need an applicant to tell us what they want. It is. It's up to the applicant. Yeah, it's up to him what he'd like for us to consider. Would you give me just a moment? Sure. We made it hard. I think we're in suspense. We're under contract on this, so we're just looking at the business terms to make sure we can accommodate the additional time if necessary. Thank you for the time. I apologize for the wait. It sounds to me like we're getting a consensus. I don't know. We can get a date. I can't tell. But, I mean, you may have a majority here that will approve it the way it is. Sure, sure. And if that's the case, I mean, if there's a motion to do that, I mean, I don't want to speak too much here. But if there's a motion to do that and that were to fail, then the next motion could be to continue to come back with a more acceptable site plan along the lines of what some of us talked about. I hear some of us, and I don't know, can't predict what the vote would be, but some of us don't like the density and the site plan. So you're going to get some votes against that. So I'm just not sure what the board would decide. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Okay. Unless you want to. Commissioner, I apologize. I just leaned over to Ian in the back 10 words of your statement I didn't catch. So you said right before I'm proposing. I'm not sure what to pick up. I think the chair said you may want to request the board continue to have a motion to see what happens. Sure. And then if a motion to approve, if there's a motion to approve, if it fails, there could be a motion to continue for you to have an opportunity to bring back a site plan that might be more palatable. Yeah, I think that's right, Commissioner. Commissioner, we've put a lot of time and great care into this site plan, so we'll submit it forth to a vote, and to the extent it's denied, you know, without prejudice, we can discuss alternatives. Okay. Yes, sir. I move to approve LDPD 2026-4, Mike Hickman. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. I'm against the motion. Merle Bishop. Against. Brooke Agnini. Against the motion. Angelic Sims. Against the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Julie Jackson. Against the motion. Kevin Updike. I'm for the motion. Okay, so the motion fails. The motion fails, so now we could have a new motion. I'll indulge me there. I propose a continuance of LDPD 2026-4, Mike Hickman. Let's continue to August the 5th. Would it be the next, the next meeting? August the 5th. If you all think you're ready, would you like a continuance to August 5th? August 5th would be great. We can get on this right away. August 5th. That's a motion to continue to August 5th. That's correct. By Mike Hickman. I second the motion. Robert Beltran. Okay. Motion and second to continue to August the 5th. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angelic Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. All right. Number seven on the agenda is LDPD 2026-8, Schoolhouse Road PD, and Aaliyah Anglima is your planner. Good morning. Aaliyah Anglima with Land Development presenting number seven on the agenda, LDPD 2026-8, the Schoolhouse Road PD. The applicant is requesting approval for 92 multifamily and single-family units to be located on 14.83 acres within a residential low three future land use district, and the request includes reduced lot sizes and setbacks. The subject site is located at 940 Schoolhouse Road, north of Yule Road, west of South Florida Avenue, east of Old Highway 37, and south of the city of Lakeland, and section 13, Township 29, range 23. On June 19th, 48 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two signs were posted on June 23rd, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on June 24th with no response from the public. So the site is surrounded by established single-family neighborhoods and a nearby apartment complex. Maddola Elementary School is located immediately adjacent to the property on the north. Again, the property is within the residential low three future land use district and located within the transit supported development area. The RL3 designation allows up to seven dwelling units per acre by right within the TSDA. The proposed development is approximately eight dwelling units per acre. This is due to wetland density transfer and a portion of the property located within the TCCO. The TCCO allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre. In areas where the TCCO overlay overlaps within the TSDA, compact mixed-use development is encouraged. So this slide shows the breakdown of the project area. Section A represents the site within the RL3 and TSDA. Which allows that seven dwelling units per acre by right. The Section B represents the on-site wetlands. The LDC allows the residential density to be transferred from preserved wetland areas to the developable uplands, provided that the wetlands remain undisturbed. In this case, one dwelling unit is transferred through that wetland density transfer. Section C is a portion of the property within the TCCO. Which the TCCO encourages that compact mixed-use development and allows densities up to that 10 dwellings per acre. So this is the site plan. The site will consist of 92 dwelling units with multifamily and single-family detached patio homes at eight dwellings per acre. So the amenity plan identifies both type 1 and type 2 amenities to provide recreational opportunities. The type 1 will include trails that provides opportunities for walking, exercise, and passive recreation while improving pedestrian connectivity throughout the development. Type 2 amenities will include a pavilion and park benches, which create a gathering space for residents. In addition to the internal amenities provided within the development, the project will extend sidewalks to provide a connection to Medulla Elementary School. This connection will improve pedestrian accessibility and provide a safer route between the development and nearby facilities. So this slide shows the typical layout for the proposed development and highlights the reduced lot sizes and setbacks proposed as part of the design. So here's a view of the site, a view of Schoolhouse Road, and this is kind of where the sidewalk will be extended to reach Medulla Elementary School. Overall, the site is located within the TSDA, where existing infrastructure and community service provided service are available to support this development. The project aligns with the TSDA's goals of providing a variety of housing choices while utilizing the TCC overlay to encourage compact development. The proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses, including the adjacent school and nearby apartment complex. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. I request the presentation be submitted to the record, and I'll stand for any questions. Any questions of staff? So this is the same applicant. This is the same situation we just discussed. Correct. Okay. Anyone, is the applicant's present? Do you wish to comment, add anything? I do have a presentation, which I'm happy to entertain, but these are larger setbacks. They are? They are, yes. Okay. For the single family? Yeah. These are five, and that's intentional because it's also taking water and flow from the school property, so we need that bigger spacing. And then again, we discussed putting the sidewalk connection up to the school as well. So what are the widths of the lots, the single family, detached? Yeah, so what's on the screen, and this is the staff presentation, so you have side setbacks of five feet from the townhome structure. On the single family, you have seven, and then the zero lot line on the other side. Okay. Just for clarification, what I'm looking at, and I'm looking at a blowup of what you've got there, it shows five feet for the zero lot lines. That's right, five feet. I'm sorry, I transposed these. You said seven. Yeah, I did. Thank you, Commissioner. I transposed these numbers here on the screen. It's fine. Thank you. Any questions? Anything else to add? Well, I can give my full presentation, but I'm happy to just have a discussion with you too. You don't want to hear the presentation? So all things relatively similar other than you now have zero lot lines with five foot on. Well, I'm going to dive into my presentation. All right. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. We don't want to cut you short here. So it's your time. Again, some of these I'll skip over, but I want to address some of these. So yes, we have the area here. We have, as being shown, about 14, which are developable high and dry, about three and a half, 3.24 are wetlands. This is in the TSDA. The eastern portion is within the TCCO. So here's our site plan. It's 92, a not too exceed of 92 lots. And you can see here our stormwater, the preserved wetland areas to the south, and also our amenities. So here's the area. We have the multifamily to our east, the Medulla Elementary School to the north, and then the Krenzer Woods subdivision further to the north. We have worked with the school and the multifamily projects to bring down the necessary utilities and easements. So we've had a lot of outreach and cooperation there. This is showing those easement areas with the county and Duke, and then, of course, our off-site sidewalk, which is going to help with pedestrian safety and connectivity to the elementary school. You've seen some of these, but here's the conceptual renderings of the product type. So this is outlined in your staff report as well. This is just a snapshot. But in these types of areas, this compact mixed-use development is encouraged. These higher-intensity uses and workforce housing is specifically this location where they should be located. So when we're talking about the nitty-gritty of the site plan, I think it's important to talk about the long-term planning of this area for high-intensity residential development. This is just a quick graphic of how we got there, looking at the wetland transfer and what's available to us in the TSDA and TCCO. I'm happy to discuss this further, but I think it's been pretty well outlined by staff. Looking at capacities and concurrences, and again, this is in your staff report, the conclusion is the area is well-located for a development of this intensity, but it's also well-timed. And this is why. So we're looking at the locational eligibility score, things like the compatibility and what we're doing with the sidewalk connections. I'll speak to the compatibility of the area. All right. I think this is topical, too. So on the north side, we have our type B buffer from the school. With the apartments, we have our 100-foot electric easement, which I noted at the top of my presentation, and a modified type B. So that's the five-foot buffer without the fence being proposed. On our south side, that's BPC2. That's preserved wetland area, so quite a bit of setback and natural buffer. And, of course, to our west side on Schoolhouse Road, and you have the CSX railroad line, that's a six-foot type A buffer. And then there's the additional stormwater buffering, too, which was shown on the site plan. Some highlights from the staff report. The site's well-timed, well-located for the development and this intensity. So a lot of focus on the intensity and density here because this redevelopment area is specifically where this density should be located. The townhomes and zero-lot lines are compatible with surrounding development, so the school, the apartments. And, again, I talked a bit about the buffering. The proposed setbacks allows for compact development, desired by the applicant, encouraged by the comprehensive plan policies. And the project is precisely where the comp plan directs higher-intensity opportunity. So it is not like-for-like. This is in a different area that Medulla Redevelopment District is a place identified in the comp plan to have a variety of affordable and workforce housing. And so the density and intensity there, the 92 proposed lots, is exactly where they should be. Now, how we get there is site design and that zero-lot line, and then also we have some areas that have the larger setbacks as well to take that flow. So from a compatibility standpoint, I think the comp plan specifically contemplates this use, and then how to get to that density and site layout while preserving the wetlands is the side setback and what's being proposed. That's all I got for this. Well, I got a question. I see Steve Sloan's on here as the applicant. Is he planning on speaking today? I'd like to hear his story on this one. They like you better. Go ahead. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Steve Sloan. I am employed with Sloan Engineering Group at 150 South Woodlawn Avenue here in Bartow. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I would like to clarify a few things, maybe address some of your concerns, and then answer any questions. So this is a similar product type. What we're really trying to do here is to bake in some flexibility, some flexibility for a townhome product, flexibility for a patio home-type product. And we're doing that via the PD for the reasons of density and setbacks. The big difference, let me clarify the setbacks on this particular project. It's a single-family home, okay, a patio home. The side setbacks will be five feet. That means ten feet between buildings, okay? Five feet, ten feet between buildings. If we do a zero lot line, it'll be zero feet and ten feet. If we do the normal development, it will be five feet and five feet. That's for the single-family home product. As Ian alluded to in the previous project, we're required to have two parking spaces per unit in this entire development. They cannot be in a garage. I agree with you guys. Some of these developments, the garage is their best storage place. The cars don't end up in there. We have to have two. The way you construct that is you do zero lot line. You have a 30-foot wide lot. You're going to have probably a 20-foot driveway, and you're going to not be tandem parked. You're going to be parked side by side. Your wife may have to come home and tell you to back your car up, but there's plenty of room to, by the code, get two parking spaces in that driveway. And I believe, you know, as far as the entryways go, that will be dealt with either via side entry or it will be dealt with by zero lot line so that people can actually enter their house. Driveway could actually be 18 feet wide because your parking requirements are nine feet in width. Floodplain, we've got some on here. We're staying away from it 100%. We've got a wetland. We're buffering it, staying out of the wetland. We worked hard with the neighbors to get a sewer easement. We're coming into the city's sewer system. We've worked with the city of Lakeland, I mean the county's sewer system, excuse me. We've worked with the city of Lakeland who's providing water. There is a water line right there. We've got, as you see, we're adjacent to the school, to our north. Historically, that school's had some flooding problems. We're taking all their water. It drains to us. We're taking their water, putting it in a swale, piping it into our pond and into the and or the wetland. So I think that's it, but I'd be glad to answer any questions if you have any. So these are 30 foot wide lots and five feet on either side? Well, we're actually having a mix of 30 and 35, so the minimum would be 30. But we envision some of them to be larger. It's really driven by trying to, as you know, especially South Lakeland, the housing is becoming more and more limited. And so we're trying to give ourselves as much flexibility for product type to meet whatever that market demand. But the single family resident lot size would be what? A minimum of 30 feet wide. And we typically call it a single family, but it's one of the smaller patio homes. So you'd have a 20 foot wide product that would be five feet on each side or a zero lot line with 10 on one and zero on the other. Any questions? More questions? Is anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, is there anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Yes, ma'am. Come forward, please. State your name and address. Were you sworn in? Okay. If you'll just please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you present to the Planning Commission today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Now I can state your name and address for the record. My name is Brenda Byrne-Semini. I live at 5810 Hendricks Road. I'm less than two miles from the school. That's okay. I can be brief. I know it's just not working. Yeah. What the developer may not know, since they do not live in the area, I do see that they proposed a sidewalk from this community on Schoolhouse Road to Medela. The problem is, on the south side of Medela Elementary is a car rider line. That car rider line, when the gates are not open, parks on Schoolhouse Road. I was at this commissioner meeting before when a proposal for a 79-home development was proposed on Cherry Lane. That development was not approved because it's not going to work. We have too many vehicles in the area. If the car rider line already creates a hazard on Schoolhouse Road, and the school has been remodeled, and there's another car rider line that comes from the other way. So I don't know why we still have a problem with Medela Elementary and the car rider line being on Schoolhouse Road. I'm concerned with 94 houses being put in this area. That's going to be 20 to 30 school-aged children for Medela Elementary. That will more than likely walk to school because it's a hop, skip, and a jump. They will be in danger of these vehicles being parked there, especially ones who are going to need the breakfast in the morning. They're going to have to walk through these vehicles that are parked along the roadway. We've seen it time and time again, even with high school students getting hit by vehicles when there's too much development, not proper lighting, not proper development standards put in place. I'm concerned that a child will be injured if this development goes in. I plead from this board, please keep to the current zoning standards for this property because the developer does not live in this neighborhood. I do. I drive the road. My son went to Medela Elementary. He also went to CFAA where a student was killed crossing the street from Riverstone to walk to CFAA. There was no crosswalks. There was no lighting to let that kid get to school safely, so I don't want to see anything bad happen, and the area is already overly dense with traffic. This would add almost another 300 cars to our neighborhood. We do not need another 300 cars in that area. Pipkin has already been widened as much as it can be. Schoolhouse backs up during high traffic times. Ewell backs up so far down the road because it's two lanes, and I'd hate to see that get to four lanes. So please keep to the standard zoning in this area. It's zoned this way for a reason. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. And the applicant might have an opportunity to respond to any opposition. Thank you. Just a quick note, I don't live on Schoolhouse Road, so I'm not sure how the school manages their traffic flow, but I will note that the sidewalk connection to allow that safe travel was a request of the county, and we're happy to accommodate it for specifically student safety to get to the school. So that's my comment there. Mr. Chair, we've got a follow-up question for Mr. Sloan, if he's got a second. So just for my clarification point, I'm looking at your lot layouts, lot layout three. It's the zero lot line for single-family home. It's listing a 30 by 95 lot, and it's showing five-foot separation on one side. I thought I heard something different from you, so I just want to make sure I'm on the same page. If you're referring to the yellow area, I'm not sure exactly. I'm looking at the detailed site lot layouts. On page 25, typical lots. Yeah. Sorry. Not even the glasses I'm wearing. I know. I'm struggling, too. I had to zoom in on my screen. It's the only reason I can see it. I'm sorry. What was your question? I thought I heard you say there'd be 10-foot between structures on zero lot lines, but it looks like when there's zero lot line, there's... Well, if you're referring to a townhome, then what I was talking about was the single-family homes, because that was kind of the... Yeah. So, type three, zero lot line, single-family home. Yeah. The intention there was to show the normal zero lot line setback, so that where you're seeing that five feet, if you would let the record show that we would like that to show 10 feet, then that, I think, answers your question. Let me follow up and ask staff, do you understand that the application is for what Mr. Sloan represented, five-foot setback with a normal setback on each side, or a zero lot line with a 10-foot setback, which is what I thought you said. That is what I said. And I want to make sure staff... That is what I said. I want to make sure staff understands that's the application. That is... That was the application, and I want to clarify that what we would like that... That application to read now is your typical zero lot line setback. Okay. Because the typical lot size on the diagram that we have in our staff report, I think, shows something different. And I want to make sure the application reflects what was represented by the applicant. Yes, and I have conferred with my client, and they are aware that we are requesting that, so... I don't want there to be a problem in the future if we end up approving this and we go down the road and then staff says, well, wait a minute, this is... Yeah. Yes. Okay. Yep. Okay. That's correct. Yep. Okay. Where are we? Other discussion or a motion? And I'll make a motion to approve LDPD 2026-8 with the condition that the setbacks be a total of 10 feet, however it's applied, zero lot line or whatever you want to do. Setbacks or distance between buildings? Distance between buildings. No, setbacks or distance off the property. 10 feet setbacks? 10 foot setback total. Total on both sides. 5 foot setback. On either side, depending on how he does it. So, the math is 5 on either side or 0 lot line with 10 on one side. Right. Okay. I'm going to second that motion. I have a motion. Robert Beltran. Motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Roald Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. Against the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angelic Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. Against the motion. Kevin Updike, I'm for the motion. Motion passes. Amen. Thank you. Last case, number 10. All right. Last case is LDCPAS 2026-8, the Kathleen Government Center, and Eric Peterson is your planner. Good morning. Planning Commissioners. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. This is a request for a comprehensive plan future land use map change from residential low to institutional on approximately 29.62 acres. 110 mailers were sent to area property owners on June 19th. Two signs were posted on the property on June 23rd. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on June 24th. We received no public response to the hearing prior to this hearing. This is part of a larger plan to decentralize a lot of the government services that are only, for the most part, provided in Bartow. And most recently, some of that was moved to the Northeast County Center, and I'll go into depth about that. The site is located in the Kathleen area, thus called the Kathleen Government Center. It's currently in a smaller, much smaller building in the city of Lakeland. That lease is going to expire, and we need more room as well. Here's the site. It's in an area of a lot of substantial growth over the last 20 years near Hunt Fountain Park. Kathleen and both middle and elementary school are nearby. A fire station was recently constructed. Kathleen Road has been widened to four lanes and will continue widening in the future. This is the site. We always, for CPAs, we like to show a before and after. So I, this is before, and this is after. And as you can see, it's very compatible with the other institutional land uses in the area. This is Kathleen Middle and, or Kathleen Elementary and Kathleen Middle. This is the fire station here. This is a commercial enclave, some of what used to be the downtown area of Kathleen. About two, 15 years ago, this commercial node was placed there. It has a Publix and a gas station and a dentist office and, I think, an Ace Hardware, too. And this is looking more closely at the site. It'll incorporate an existing stormwater pond that takes the runoff from Kathleen Road. It'll, it'll be expanded. There's been pest drainage issues in the area, especially during outstanding hurricane events. This will be an opportunity to mitigate some of that that happened before because of the large area and the pond expansion. This is the current center at 930 East Parker Street in Lakeland. It's rather small. And, once again, our lease is expiring, and the developer would like to go in a different direction, so we need to find it. Is that where the old Sears town used to be? Yes, yes, the old Sears town. There was a Publix there at one time, too. I had a great member, Earl, on the Publix as well. Yeah, tile mural. Yeah, long ago. This is part of the plan. The existing government center here, we're moving it out there. There's going to be another government center planned in the southeast. We just recently opened the northeast government facility in between Haines City. And, as you can see, long ago, you'll remember that we established the central government facility, which is where most of the sheriff's operations have moved to. It's all a part of moving our government services out to the population rather than requiring everyone in this very large county that's about the size of Rhode Island to all come to Bartow for a lot of services. So, this is a step in that direction to decentralize a lot of our county services. So, the staff report had to do the worst-case scenario. If we built to the maximum floor-area ratio that the comp plan would allow, we would build something twice the size of the courthouse across the street, you know, the nine-story courthouse. This is – we did our assessment on what the northeast government center is. It's a 73,500-square-foot facility on about the same size, actually a little smaller piece of property than this one, just slightly smaller. We probably won't build something that large in the Kathleen area, but it'll be approximately similar to that type of facility. So, we did a lot of our estimates on traffic and water and wastewater and things of that nature based off of this building. Here's a site that has plenty of frontage on Kathleen Road, a four-lane, slightly divided highway. It's got a lot of slope to it. We're looking south. You see the abutting Ridgemont subdivision and the Wheeler Road state subdivision. The pond is here in between them, and you can see this – there's a rather significant slope on the site. Currently, it has a knoll in the middle. The elevation changes from about, you know, around 20 to 25 feet from one end to the other. So, it's going to be some significant grading. It will not be 172 feet above sea level. It'll be more towards the 150 area along the roadway frontage when the design comes through. There's, you know, the Wheeler Road – Wheeler Ridge subdivision across the street and the Kathleen Road – or the Kathleen Fire Station nearby. There's at least – there's 990 feet, which would, by our standards, would give us at least three access points along Kathleen. Probably won't be that many, probably two. One access will probably square off right at the intersection where Willow Ridge Boulevard goes there. Sites in a great location, close to Commerce. You could walk to the Publix. I nearly did. It got a little hot, so I got back in the car. But if my office was up there, maybe November, I might walk to the Publix. There's a Burger King and things of that nature. It's also very close to the elementary and middle school, close, but not too close that it would interfere with car rider lines or things of that nature. So, there's a good bit of separation there. So, it works well. There's a good sidewalk network in the area, and we're improving it each year with our sidewalk allocations. To sum up its efficiency, this decentralization plan is going to make our government much more efficient in the delivery of services. It will provide access to the residents that need it in a much more close proximity. It's also going to provide connections for the other constitutional officers at this facility as well. So, we'll be able to spread more of the government services out in those respects. The current facility is too small to expand the courts, to expand the tax collector and sheriff's operations there. This will give them much more space to do that. By making it institutional, it gives everyone clarity. That's going to be a government facility, nothing else, and it's supported by infrastructure. There's ample water, wastewater available, and the traffic counts on the roads. There's plenty of capacity for what we project to be similar to the Northeast government facility. With that, I'll stand for questions. I submit my staff report and this presentation for the record. Any questions of staff? You did have, I think you indicated to me earlier, you had a community meeting. Yes. Can you briefly summarize that, briefly? Well, February 17th was quite a night. There was a lot of people who discussed the establishment of it. And based on our public outreach, it's dwindled. The opposition has dwindled to it. And there was a lot of things that the commissioners and staff that were there stated that they would incorporate into this project. One of those is to utilize a lot of the drainage area and open space for passive recreation, bring something more to the community. They really want to make this an asset for the community, something for the Kathleen area to build on, not be a detriment. So no data center? We do have a data center on the fifth floor here. It's, it's, I don't know what people fear about it. If they're small, they're fine. Okay. Well, there was a lot mentioned at that meeting too, about it being more community services, also such as libraries. They'd like, you know, a lot of the neighbors, neighboring area spoke about that. Yes. And maybe small park, walking trails around the facility. Yeah. With the amount of work that will be done with drainage and grading of the property, it'll open up a lot of opportunities for those things. As far as the neighboring subdivisions, when the grading comes down, they're going to be a little more elevated above. It won't seem as, as like a, a big castle on a hill. It'll be a lot lower. I don't, we don't have any designs on how many floors it will be, but I believe they did commit to not do anything more than two floors. Two. Yeah. Right. There was also a lot of talk about it being sinkhole prone property. Yes. Most of the, most of the, this area has that problem and with all, all development. So we'll be on the lookout for that. There'll be some geotech work done. Okay. Any more discussion? Anyone in the audience, we can favor this application. Anyone in the audience speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. I move to approve LDC-PAS 2026-8, Robert Beltran. Second. Mike Hickman. Motion, second to approve. Roll call, please. Merrill, uh, sorry, hang on. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Merrill Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agniti. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angelic Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Kevin Updike, I'm for the motion. Thank you. Ms. Bennett. Your name wasn't. All right. I'm playing update. On this last case, you know, call out. Hello. Shonda Bennett, for the record. I passed out the recreation open space element, the next, uh, uh, installment of your monthly elements that we're passing out. Um, I think we're going to be wrapped up by August with the Comp Plan Advisory Committee. So how many elements have we been given now? This is number, sorry. I thought you'd know that off the top of your head. I, I do before I start speaking. Then it goes out of my head. Five, six. I just want to know where we are in the process. Um, this is the sixth element you've been given. Okay. And there are one, two, three, four, four left. But I passed out a table last time. Okay. Um, I had to separate the future land use element into its appendices because the future land use element's actually very large when you put all the appendices together with it. Um, so really there's only about 11, uh, elements and you've gotten what? One, two, three, four, five. You've got the sixth one today. Um, and what the committee is grappling with right now is, uh, a significant change to our transfer development rights program. So we're trying to figure out what the sending areas should send and what the receiving areas should receive and what should happen without a Comp Plan amendment and what should happen with one. So they're grappling with those. I'm glad to hear. I always thought that needed more, more work. Right. And for those of you who don't know, our current TDR program is listed in chapter nine of our code and it's only a mile apart. Sending and receiving areas can only be distance of a mile other than density averaging. If you have two different land uses, RL or I'm sorry, RL or ARR, you get a total unit count based on those densities and you can put, mix them within any, uh, land use category. So anything in this major changes we should know about any significant differences, um, issues, uh, we talked a lot about making this more consistent with the current practices of the concurrency implementation that we do with the school board, um, as well as, uh, bringing in more concepts about bus pads and trying to encourage developers to incorporate more bus stop in their design for their subdivisions, but, uh, that's more encouragement rather than a requirement. Any, are you through? Yes, sir. Okay. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Uh, if there's no other business, I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Motion. Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.