e call or order local planning agency meeting date is Thursday March 6 time is 5:00 P p.m. call order uh Mary is there a quum and proper notice been given yes
sir okay I like to have approval of minutes for the meeting February 20 2025 local planning agency meeting so moved second call what do we
do Mr rbody okay yes I miss Lee is absent absent Mr Holland I Mr hash craft is absent Mr Hopkins hi okay all right
good okay uh next we have consideration discussion public hearing uh Tom uh yeah we have a presentation from development services Kyle thank you thank you Kyle WIS development
services the item for you tonight is ordinance 252 for future land use assignment future L Amendment 2024 c+2 for Ultimate key 165 8641 for a
property of 1.33 Acres located north of East Orange Avenue and east of est's Road the applicant is Charles Leonard III and the request is to go from rural residential to Suburban
residential this map shows the subject property at 47 Orange Avenue again north of Orange Avenue and east of es Road as you'll see the site here is currently developed um and the reason the applicant is requesting the Suburban residential is when he purchased the
property it was the impervious service ratio which in rural residential is maxed out at 20% his property is approximately 33% in perious surface ratio so he's requesting the Suburban residential land use to get to 40% so
his this property will be in compliance with impervious surface ratio this shows the surrounding land uses which are single family residential predominantly uh including rural residential to the West urban urban low County surrounding to
the East and to the North and then Urban residential Brookshire to the South staff evaluated the request based on these uh these standards and criteria you'll see here on this map existing future land use rural residential one
dwelling unit per acre single family detached parks and elementary schools are allowed this shows the proposed Suburban residential future land use again serving as a transition between the County low to the East and North the
rural residential to the west and urban residential to the South um based on based on the surrounding land uses here uh staff believes that this could serve as a transition land use um and between the
urban residential to the South Rural residential to the west and the County low four dwelling units an acre to the north and east so it aligns with the aligns with the surrounding land uses and the established patterns of the
area this was advertised on the 23rd of February and mailing notices sent out in the property posted on the 21st of February um Kyle did you get any responses we did not no okay um we
looked at also uh the facilities and Facilities Services excuse me in the area and they are adequate to meet the needs of this development which is again pre-existing
um it is not in 100 plan it is in the W area and it is in the moderate recharge area um the transportation level service will be accommodated water supply capacity is available and the site is currently served by a set
syst we find that it's consistent with the city future land use and comprehensive plan and consistent again consistent with the existing development patterns this again shows the map of the utilities available there the water
again it's not in the flood plane kind a study area and the under underlying soils will not be impacted because it has previously developed so again the just to wrap up here the increased density would be difficult uh if the site were to redevelop given that it's a it's a
narrow site um and longer so it would be constrained should any Redevelopment be possible it would be unlikely to get that five unit an acre um and again this request would simply bring the SES
impervious surface ratio into compliance so staff recommend transmitt of 2024 C plus-12 to City commission uh staff is available for any questions of course and the applicant is present as well question yeah
um I'm not sure if you guys can help me on this but this is what I got out of this so there's some impervious surface issue I I got that and they're trying to correct it but they're trying to correct it by
taking the density from one to one to 5 to one correct um and that that's where I have a problem we're going and i' feel like I've had a consensus heard a consensus from the commission forever even before I got here about how we need
to address the density and I think we have a preference I remember hearing mayor Holland back when he was uh mayor up in there that that a three to one is really a good place for us to be and I can remember hearing commissioner Ashcraft saying why are we in the
predicament with powers Dairy and that's because someone way back let the density and I I just I want to help them with the with the um impr privious surface issue but we're spending money with Kimber horn and everything to get figure
out a way to bring that density to a little bit better control so I can't vote for a five to to allow a five to one when we're spending so much money to figure out how to get away from that so I would hope and ask is there any other
way to make these people compliant can we even wave their previous surface uh to help them but going to a 5 to1 may have repercussions long past our time that we're living with from other people so can we make both sides happy but I I can't I can't we can't I can't go for
five to five to one I I don't believe other than that I don't think we can wave the impervious surface ratio um and this was staff's sort of suggestion on on how to how to get there from here um but of course it's purview
of the board okay all right Mike Che did you have anything add just to answer question um The Improv service ratio is in the comprehensive plan so in order to change that we'd have to change
it for everybody within that Ro residential okay so there is no other option other than to do what we said we don't want to do which is go to Five give five to ones um so I can so all right so there's no happy medium no that
was the only direction that we had for the applicant is this or stay exactly as you are I mean we obviously Annex those one acre Parcels on the corner of 44 assigned themal residential because they were all one acre lots and already
had houses on them we kind of brought them in the way they were um it just doesn't allow for them to do anything else like couldn't add a garage to the property because it's already at its I mean the public has been clear about their concerns about um growth and
density and I and so I I those adjacent Lots eventually will join together and it'll be one one whole project and the density will sit back and look back and say what did we do and I I don't want I don't want my name on that so all single family
res don't know all right that's exactly you're right we don't know why what would be the reason to change this other than to kind of correct the problem allow the owner that has a single family residence on the property
to be able to do an addition um not over existing concrete um that's that's about the only benefit to doing making the change in land to this one can we wave that when
it comes up can we make an exception for him do we have the authority to do that when he comes it's a comprehensive plan policy there there is an a variance process to add into that do we in doing this do we do
what we voted against on this piece of property before the conditional use permit that came before um the commission before the impervious surface was a question and an issue and that was one of the reasons why but it was also a
very very large structure sitting in the front yard basically of a single family residential which kind of went against what the city has done throughout the rest of the city we trying to put accessory buildings and things
behind that's how the code is laid at so I I I would not be in favor of it but I would sure be in favor of trying to figure out a way to help the resident accomplish the things that he can as long as it doesn't put us in a density issue so I sure hope we can figure out a
way if they once once they decide what they want to do there we can look that's my that's it that's all I have sir well yes I think we should allow public input for this for this component
do we have any cards uh I do Cindy Newton syy Newton un Incorporated anybody surprised I'm standing no not me okay just want to get that out there um
I don't know when this was annexed the uh property tax goes back to 2007 and cities on the 2007 one so it's been Annex and some of these buildings were put on there the issue I have this isn't a
subdivision this is a plowed subdivision and yeah yeah it is it's part of M behind it and you're setting precedent
by changing a land use to go above what is in the rest of the subdivision and deed restrictions on that subdivision it only allows one dwelling
unit um very specific on what it allows and the out buildings aren't even allowed there so it's out of compliance with the deed restrictions also so I don't know how you fix this but changing it to Sr is definitely
not the answer because if somebody were to buy this property and ignore the deed restrictions again they can put tow houses there so please think about the precedent you're setting here and adhere
to the deed restrictions thank you thank you any more cards Tom uh I have a card from the applicant Mr Leonard okay do we have anyone in the audience other than the applicant that would like to speak on this item all right then we'll go with you
sir if you could please come up to the podium state your name thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak pardon me my name is Charles leard I own the property in question at 47 East Orange um I understand first of all I just
recently moved in herea I came from a little bir called PTO which is very much the same size as this town and if some of you may you shaking head some people don't know it's at least you do and um um I sat for about 10 years on the code
enforcement board there and I was the chair of that board all but one year so I understand a lot of the issues at hand I understand I understand I'm not an expert on on a lot of these issues but
but um um but I do understand it so I and I'm here with hat in hand asking for some help I I bought this property I love it I'm kind it's it's a I'm a hobbyist guy and I still do a lot of
work on my own cars I I did some machine work just things I'm not I'm not in a business I'm I retired la a number years ago and I don't have any intention to to go back to work and and and and U so but
this is a a little hobby place I I have a motor home I do a little bit of Motorsports racing and I so I have a race Hard trailer and I need a place to park and I like to get it in out of the Sun and my intention is and I've already got a permit I already have the building
constructed I just got to get installed I intended initially on the asphalt there but it wasn't until I took my motor home there and started trying to andl some wood down and realized that I couldn't drive around on the property
around that without knocking it down so the city staff has been great at trying to help me find an ISS a way to accommodate my issues I understand and and one of the things they explained to
me that density and things like that would would we had it might be a concern but and and I'm I'm I'm a little hard hearing I didn't hear every word today but I I guess the issue is is that by
based upon the the size of that lot I guess and correct me if I'm wrong it theoretically could accommodate five residences I guess that's the issue that's that's kind of what it was explained to me but it was also explained to me
that with setbacks and all the other things that would have to come into play in that case that you're going only build I think I was told three three homes on it I don't have the atttention to sell the property I'm not a developer
I realize I'm not going to live forever and so it might come on the market again yes you know and um but it sounds like it's really realistically only a home parcel because of setbacks and
streets and other things would have to be built there so I'm not trying to correct anybody and and my ignorance of of the issues doesn't allow me to be an expert on any of that so but I but um I just wanted to point that out if I'm
correct but I wanted to point that out but um I really appreciate any consideration you could give me on it I'm believe me I'm not a developer and I understand I see it since I moved over here the Articles and the and um the
issues going on in the media about such things especially the big developments and are you going to look around and see the develops it's amazing what's going on during the short period of time I've been in here so I'm just asking for any accommodations you can help me with and
and I'm an understanding guy we just hope that you can find way to help me does does anybody have a question for me no you just bought the property you said recently right thank you okay that's all right I Sor oh I'm sorry
when did you buy the property no that's all right how long time ago did you buy the property one more time when did you buy the property uh July of this year of of of 24 I'm thank you sir I mean I I I I feel bad for the guy
but I understand the scenario that we're in the big picture let me just close public um input anyone else wanted to speak on this item okay we'll close public input portion please proceed sorry uh and I want to figure out a way to help the guy if if he doesn't have
the impervious surface what happens what are we going to do we're going to go after him or he can't build is that what it is and if he builds it's a violation a code enforcement violation and then we can decide to issue a one-time fine of $1 and he's and it's done yeah well we essentially be able to issue the
building permit to be able to put whatever looking at putting up too many yeah this is one of those terrible things that a good person could suffer from a big thing but we we can't deviate and now I didn't even know about
the subdivision so I just my heart goes out to them but have we did did we know that that was it was part of a subdivision it's a very old subdivision um typically when you're looking at an old subdivision you treat them because basically all of Florida to the most
part is pla um so I mean everything's kind of a subdivision in one way shape or form or another um almost everything there are eats and Bounds obviously um but that really didn't come into play as far as for that because it is an
older subdivision um the deed restriction that um was brought up obviously generally no local government enforces deep restrictions that's the subdivision if they have an HOA they enforce it now now I know we typically
we we you guys kind of give us your input uh on a piece of paper what do you recommend I don't have a way to solve this problem I I've been thinking about this since the the conditional use for
actually um the only way is we may want to consider our rural residential because we have very very few of those to come to some ISR that maybe more closely matches but then um let's even say the counties
so instead of a 20% it's a 30% or something to that effect it's still below because you're talk usually talking large lots that we have assigned the rural residential land used to um you know they're not little tiny Lots congregated together they're generally those larger one acre lots which matches
the density for the land use um that might be one option that would be a blanket that would cover all of that land use category in the city and we honestly don't have that many Parcels that are are under the RR rural residential landuse
um other than that because it is part of the comprehensive plan policy for that land use category I don't really see a way to correct that other than to correct it actually in the comprehensive itself with categ I want to try to help I am not
going to go against what I have said we've got to control our growth I'd like to give it back to staff to let them play with it a little bit more see if they can bring anything back to us by talking with our attorney and uh just seeing what matches and what we can come
up with I want to help him but um we've got to put our foot on a break U when it comes to growth and by changing that one piece of property we're opening open it up we're opening everything up and um I
just I can't I can't do it so um that that's just my opinion okay short Tom say I Tom I'll I'll I'll wait yeah I think I've said everything okay anything we can do to help the guy I would love to
yeah hear it at any time bring it back I don't want any restrictions on him coming back find a way if he wants to build you know for his RV I well I gu I guess I would I just wanted clarification Jeff threw out the
it's a pretty drastic option to go back to the comp plan and change the regulations for RR and so I don't I guess I would like uh to hear from commission uh are you interested in us amending the ISR in RR again that's a
pretty far-reaching as Jeff said we don't have a lot of those we don't have a lot of property with that designation on it but you'd be changing those RS for every property with that designation um and so uh that would be pretty drastic uh but it is an option um
that's um comp plan is a state document so we would have to um we would have to uh commission would have to make the change via ordinance uh we'd have to send it off to the state this would be well if it's a text Amendment then it's
text amendments are all large scale aren't they so then it goes to the state there's a state review on the change that we've made the state gives us comments I there there is a state process if we want to amend the comp plan so not only is it pretty drastic
for us locally but it is a state process um if if you're changing future land use on smaller properties then it's small scale and it's much it's a streamlined process process but if you're changing the text of your comp plan it's a more involved process so that would be pretty
drastic for us to do let me interrupt just a moment Mary if we could just have for the record that vice mayor Ashcraft has arrived yes Elvis is in the house I I believe the instruction is to try to see if there's a way to work with this unique
circumstance versus altering right any of the uh conditions associated with that land use and that again um if if there's an issue with the deed restrictions um that is something that should be looked at as well uh because that could have repercussions for the
landowner if we did something outside of what that indicates so I'm I just wanted to make sure that commissioner Holland wasn't asking us to look at that um comp plan Amendment because that would be pretty major if we were going to do that I
would want us to go back put everything on hold and wait till we get everything in front of us uh when we change everything so um I'm not going to have staff jump through that hoop nor the State of Florida jump through that hoop at this
time all right well um I think you spelled out what we right so would the as far as the item itself um is the will of of the board um to postpone the item um or did you want to proceed with a
vote on on this because then we would have would hear that commission or not depending on what happened I think postpone it then we would need a motion in a second I would I would postpone it would allow him to come back sooner that's the point right right yeah that's what I would be in favor of not stopping
him from coming back sooner you want to make thator so move to post second okay right Mary Mr as I
Mr Holland I Mr Ashcraft I Mr Hawkins hi does he know what happened yeah well we'll address that we can adjourn now nothing else there's
nothing else on the agenda all right time is 5:27 we're adjourned until 535 for cra 3