[Music] We'll call this Monday, October 13th, city commission meeting to order. If you would please stand for the pledge and in the invocation. Dear heavenly father, we come to you this evening. We ask that you give us wisdom to make the best decisions for our beautiful city of Leburg in your
precious name. Amen. >> Amen. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Before we move to proclamations, I just wanted to let the crowd know that 6A45 and 6, which is Royal Highlands, will be now become 6 A1 2 and 3. And 6 A1 2 and 3 will now become 64,5 and 6. So we will do Royal Highlands first. And I would
just ask uh before we go into proclamations, if you have a cell phone, please silence it. All right. And do we have the representatives from here for White Cane Day? We have a proclamation for White Cane Day and I would like to read that into the record. Whereas the White Cane is a powerful and
internationally recognized symbol of independence, safety, and equal opportunity for people who are blind or have low vision. And whereas people who are blind or have low vision travel, work, study, raise families, volunteer, vote, and lead in every sector of our
community. And their full participation strengthens our economy, culture, and civic life. And whereas mobility training, white canes, and dog guides are empower safe and independent travel. And whereas motorists share responsibility for roadway safety and to
and are expected to exercise extreme caution, slow down and yield to pedestrians using a white cane or traveling with a guide dog. And whereas local organizations including New Vision for independence provide vital vision rehabilitations, orientation and mobility instructions, technology training, community education
that expand access and opportunity. Whereas White Cane Day, observed annually on October 15th celebrates the achievements of people who are blind or have low vision and raise awareness of safe travel practices and the rights of pedestrians using white canes and dog guides. Now therefore, I I, Alan
Reeseman, mayor of the city of Leburg, Florida, do hereby proclaim October 15, 2025 as White Cane Day in the city of Leburg, and encourage all residents to recognize and stop recognize and celebrate the contributions of people who are blind or have low vision, to
share the road safely, stop and yield to pedestrians using a white cane or guide dog, and to support organizations that advance accessibility, inclusive design, and equal opportunity. Are those individuals here to accept that this proclamation? [Applause]
[Music] One second. Yeah, give us one second, please. [Applause] [Music] >> No. Okay, [Music] we have no presentations. We will move
to public comments. This section was reserved for members of the public to bring up matters of concern or opportunities of praise. Please note that issues raised during this time will not be discussed in detail during the current meeting. They'll either be referred to the appropriate staff or scheduled for consideration at a future city commission meeting. Each speaker is
allocated three minutes to provide their comments. Kindly adhere to this time limit to ensure equal opportunity for all participants and to support the efficient conduct of the meeting. Thank you. This is public comments for anything not on the agenda tonight. Yes, sir. If you would just state your name
and address for the record. >> Evening. I'm Gary Sly. I live and work at 1012 West Main Street. I'm the treasurer for the Downtown Leburg Business Association, and you guys were kind enough to help us out a few weeks ago. So, I wanted to report on a couple
things we've had going on lately. Uh, first, you probably saw the scarecrows up on the street. Uh we had a great attendance on Saturday morning thanks to Romac Lumber for uh providing resources and for Minisplit King, one of
our new businesses downtown who did all the construction of the scarecrows this year. That's a long-standing tradition that we took over from the partnership when their board asked us to take that on. Another thing we've done recently is we've revived the downtown Leburg map,
which you'll find in all local businesses downtown. I brought you a few copies of that so you could take a look at that. When the uh partnership folded, they asked us if we would take that over and it's taken us a little while to get there, but we are there now. So, thank you all for your support.
>> Any other public public comments on anything not on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll close public comments and we'll move to the consent agenda. Routine items are placed on the consent agenda to expedite the meeting. If the commissioner staff wish to discuss any item, the procedure is as follows. One,
pull the items from the consent agenda. Two, vote on the remaining items with one roll call vote. And three, discuss each item pulled and vote by roll call. Are there any items the commission would like to pull this evening? [Music] Seeing none, if I could get a motion to
approve the consent agenda. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any public comments? >> Seeing none, any commission final comments? Seeing none, roll call. >> Commissioner Conell, >> yes. Commissioner Bur. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. Mayor Reeseman,
>> yes. We'll move to public hearings and non-rine items. During public hearings and non-rine items, the commission request that those in attendance respect the process and maintain order. As such, in accordance with Robert's rules of order, please refrain from speaking out, cheering, or applauding during these proceedings. Your cooperation helps
ensure a fair and respectful hearing. At this time, if you are speaking on any of the first or second readings tonight, I would ask that our city attorney now swear you in. >> Sir, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Anybody here this evening that plans to speak on any of the public hearing items, if you would please stand and raise your right
hand. And the ones that were swearing in for are 63, the Oakidge PUD resoning, 66 SPUD, Royal Highland resoning, which was moved uh and those were were switched on the
agenda. So both of those resonings for second reading. First reading will be 6B3 Legacy Commerce uh SPUD and 6B4 Leburg Lakefront PUD resoning. And I'm sorry I forgot one on the second
readings. 6 A7 which is 937 East Main Street uh resoning as well. If you would please stand and raise your right hand so we can swear all of you in. >> All right. This everybody. >> This is So this is everybody who plans to speak tonight.
>> Okay. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that all testimony you'll give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Okay. Thank you all, Mr. Mayor. They're ready to go. >> Thank you, Senate Attorney. Would someone please introduce 6 A12 and 3, which is the Royal Highlands?
>> I'll ask to be read by title. Thank you. 6A1, an ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, annexing certain real property consisting of approximately 7.53 plus minus acres, main journey located west of US Highway 27 and south of Florida
Turnpike, lying in section 18, township 21 South, range 25 east, Lake County, Florida. Providing that said property so annex shall be liable for its proportionate share of the existing and future indebtedness of said city. provided that such annex property shall
be subject to all laws and ordinances of said city as if all such territory had been a part of the city of Leburg at the time of passage and approval of said laws and ordinances provided that such annex territory shall be placed in city commission district 3 and providing an
effective date 62 an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan of the city of Leburg changing the future land use map designation of certain property containing 7.5 53 plus minus acres from Lake County urban low density to city of
Leburg low density residential for property generally located west of US highway 27 and south of Florida turnpike lying in section 18 township 21 south range 25 east lake county Florida and providing an effective date 683
an ordinance of the city of Leburg Florida changing the zoning on approximately 7.53 plus minus acres from Lake County PUD planned unit development to city of Leburg SPUD small planned unit development to allow for a town
home community for a property generally located west of US Highway 27 and south of the Florida Turnpike lying in section 18 township 21 South Range 25 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date. >> Thank you Andy. Move
>> for approval. We have a motion and a second. Um Mr. Dr. Dan Miller. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Dan Miller, planning and zoning. The background on this project, it consists of an annexation, small-scale comp plan, and reszoning for a site that is 7.53 plus
or minus undeveloped acres. It's generally located on the west side of US 27 and south of Royal Highlands Boulevard and the Florida Turnpike. The request is for future development of a project consisting of 48 attached single
family residential units. When we say attached single family, that generally means town houses. Under the overall proposal, the as stated earlier, it's about 7 and a half acres. The comp plan is requesting a future land use amendment from Lake County urban low density to city of
Leburg low density. The zoning change is from Lake County planned unit development to city of Leburg small planned unit development. Um, under the comments as it was sent out, the school board noted that if it's a 55 plus project, it would be subject
to school concurrency. It would not be subject to school concurrency. If it's a 55 plus project, if it's a non-5 plus age project, then it would be subject to school concurrency. Lake County Public Works had no comments. Um under public
responses project was advertised, posted, signs placed out and letters sent to the surrounding property owners. As you can see, uh there were significant response to those including traffic proh responses including traffic project density, property values,
compatibility, wildlife, environmental crime, etc. Um, under the PUD requirements for this proposal, this consists of a total of 48 single family attached units, again, town homes. And for clarification, a town home is where you're purchasing the land underneath
the home as well as the property within the walls of that home. They're just attached. So, they're not condominiums or apartments, and there are no commercial uses permitted under this proposal. Lots would be 20 feet wide with a minimum minimum living area per
unit of 1100 square feet. Two floors would be the maximum height. There are at least two off- streetet parking spaces required for each unit. The project does include design and architectural standards which are shown in the PUD and include things such as a
minimum 35% of the property has to be in open space, dark sky lighting which you're all familiar with. Um, there are trees required between each driveway. 25 foot landscape buffer will be required except where it's not needed due to existing wetland areas. There's a fence
along the perimeter except where there are wetlands present. Sidewalks are required throughout the development. Um, and of course the usual bea or bermuda grass is permitted where St. Augustine is not due to its excessive water usage. Side access will is shown on the site
plan because US27 is under FDOT authority. The developer will have to provide any and all expansions or upgrades required for the entrays and roadways as requested by FDOT. There's also a ride in right out access point
only required on US 27. Um like to point out that there is no interconnectivity into the adjacent subdivision. There are recreation requirements consisting of at least 18,000 square feet of active and passive
recreation space which includes things such as a pavilion, dog park, outdoor cooking facilities, tot lot and other similar uses. There's a requirement for all the development beyond um city of Leburg water and wastewater services. So there can be no wells or septic on there
will be no wells or septic on the property. Um through the review process, the the city public works department has indicated that there is sufficient capacity to serve the development. There is a phasing or expiration clause, if you will, which requires that the
development would move forward within 48 months or it would revert to the RE1 zoning district requirements. It would remain a PUD, but it would now fall under the RE1 zoning requirements, which would be one acre per unit. Mr. Mr. Tom
Daly, Mr. Bill Maki, and others are here from the Daily Design Group um are here to answer any questions you have along with Miss Carolyn Hasslam who is the attorney for the project. >> Thank you, Dan. Any questions for Dan from the commission?
>> Seeing none, we'll go to the developer. >> Not for the developer. >> Good evening. My name is Tom Daly. I'm with Daily Design Group. Uh we're landscape architects and urban planners. 913 North Pennsylvania Avenue. Uh Winter Park, Florida. We're here on behalf of
the property owner, GKO, uh Development. Uh when we were here about a month ago, I had given you a a PowerPoint presentation. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to briefly go through it again just to bring everybody back up to speed as to what our request is and to um you
know the the validity of what we're proposing. Um I don't know where the Oh, there it is. So, let's see if this works. Okay. Like Dan said, it's uh and I'll I'll be brief. I I realize we have a lot
of a lot of items on the agenda. Um it's five and a half five and a half acres requesting that the city uh this property be annexed into the city to as part of that to amend the future land use uh and then also to amend the zoning
from county commercial C1 to the city of Leburg SPUD and as Dan pointed out where we're proposing to downzone the property from commercial to a residential use. This is the big picture. That blue line, if you can kind of see it on your
screen, that's the uh ISBA line. So, we're within the ISBA line. We are um uh going to be utilizing both uh city water and sewer, which currently serves Royal Highland Homes, uh Royal Highland community.
This is an old one. This has been around since 1994. Uh the original approved master plan was was approved for 1500 units uh residential units, 300 recreational vehicles, and 5,000 square ft of retail
commercial. Um after in 2005 the master plan was amended by the master developer Pringle and they um took the commercial property and they went ahead and deeded that portion of the property which is at
the intersection of the main intersection to the community. They deeded that to the uh HOA for a softball field and at that time then they took the commercial that was currently approved on the the corner there and moved it south into and changed the
zoning to the south. Um we have access easements that were recorded which we'll go over. Uh then we have Pickable. Another portion of the commercial former commercial property uh was deed to the homeowners association in 2009 and that
was uh to construct pickle ball courts for the community and then the property ultimately was purchased uh by my client in 2023. This is the area around there is the entire Royal Highlands uh development.
Like I said, uh 1500 uh single family homes. Uh you can see the the original approval that has the red. That's where the commercial. The purple below it is the air the site that we're looking to ask to be annexed into the city and to amend the future land use. This was the
original approvals. And then you can see the green turns to red. That's when the softball fields and the uh pickle ball courts were were deed over to the homeowners association. and the purple was converted to uh uh from
residential to commercial. At that time there was still the 1500 homes uh approved 300 uh recreational vehicle parking and the commercial since it was bigger was approved for 49,500 square ft of commercial uses in the
county. This is the site. Uh it's all pretty well cleared. Uh there's a existing pond that's located within the within the property. That pond currently serves uh a portion of the Royal Highlands
development and it's also designed to serve this particular property here. Uh there's a burm that was constructed uh and we're not sure when it was constructed. It was before our time, but it was constructed by the master developer uh you know as a as a
screening between this this seven this property on the frontage of 27 and the existing residential uh development with a commercial development the 49,000 square feet and this is this is just an
approximate it would take based on city code and and county code for 49,500 square feet of just general general retail, you'd need about 198 parking spaces to serve that. That's just based on the code. What this shows is that if
we proceeded with the county and we proceeded with the commercial development, it would encroach into that existing pond, it would encroach into that existing burm and would pave almost the entire property. As you know, commercial development is a lot of parking and a
lot of rooftops. And so this is this is just what it would look like should should we move forward with the commercial. This is our site plan. Uh and this is a conceptual site plan. It still has to go through city review and and engineering
review, but essentially we're proposing to leave the existing burm, leave the existing pond because there's homes that view it that live on it and focus the development between that burm and US 27.
Uh the uh 27 we would propose not to wall it. It would be more of a landscape burm along the frontage there. Um, but that's that's the current that's the current conceptual plan that we're we have. This is the site. I don't know if you've driven by it, but it's fairly
cleared, maintained, no structures on it. Um, that the tree line that you can see at the top there, that is the burm. So, the burm has been in for quite a long time. The vegetation that is on it has grown uh quite a bit since that. Uh
it's a based on the survey it's a four to five foot burm but you can see the size of those trees is you know 20 30 feet tall and it's heavily vegetated. This is a a view from the back of the burm from Royal Highlands and you can
see that this is a a a grass area that is owned by the developer or my client. But you can see, I'm just showing you this. So from the view from the community to that burm and beyond, you can see that a very serious buffer has
grown up and been planted. So the buffer is there. It's existing. And this is a little bit more of a detail of the site plan itself. We are proposing a small recreation area. I think Dan pointed out uh that we would have to have a certain amount of square
feet footage. Um, we're proposing a pickleball court, a dog park, and a picnic pavilion. And that's all part of the the submittal documents that we've we've given to the city. But it's a total of 48 homes versus 49,500
square ft of retail commercial. This is an elevation of what they intend to build. Uh, metal roofs. These are customdesigned. I know most of the time what you'll see is uh you know a a home builder, a production builder that has a
certain formula. These are all being designed specifically for this community um and by the by the developer. They're not a national builder. They're they're a local builder that builds commercial, builds apartments, builds town homes for
the most part. I think that's my last slide. When I was here last, there were a couple items that was brought up and I'd like to address them right now so that we can, you know, uh, I don't say expedite, but at least address traffic versus
commercial versus residential. We had our our traffic engineer who's a licensed engineer, an expert in in traffic uh uh uh permitting. And in we re have a memo that was presented to him or prepared by him and we've given that
to staff. Based on this memo the number of trips for a town home site on a daily basis is about 5252. For the retail it's 3,236 average daily trips. It's significantly more. And remember,
this is our traffic engineer who is a licensed and certified traffic engineer who's using the data that that all traffic engineers, including the city, would use. So, we believe that the traffic impacts are significantly less
besides the common sense of a strip center versus 49 uh 48 town homes, but the numbers bear out. The other item that um was brought up and I'm gonna have Carolyn come up and it was right at the end of the hearing. I think uh Mr. Mayor you brought it up. There was a
question regarding access easements and you had asked the city attorney to review uh the uh easements that are in place uh to provide this site with access from Monarch Boulevard and Royal Commerce. So, I'm going to have Carolyn
come up and explain. We had her do all the title research and everything else. Hi, good evening. Carolyn Hasslam with Acreman and my address for the record is 420 South Orange Avenue, sweet 1200 in Orlando. Um reviewed the um access easement and although it was drafted at
the time that the property was to be developed as commercial and it is mentioned in the recital, there's not any restrictions or requirements throughout the document that require the property to be um commercial or actually anything. It is an easement that is given specifically to the property and
there's no, you know, termination or restriction on that. So, um, I spoke with Grant Watson about it and it following Florida law, it allows for us to use the easement. >> Yeah. And I would would just jump in. I did review that easement as well and I
didn't see anything in there that indicated that the use of the property benefited by the easement had to be commercial. um you know it runs with the land is benefiting the successors and signs of Pringle at the time. Um so I I
just I didn't see anything in there that clearly limited the scope of the easement or the the ability to utilize the easement to that parcel being commercial. So um you know typically unless it's specifically stated in an easement, you're not going to have that
kind of restriction. But uh that that was my read on it uh after reviewing that as well. >> So again, we we believe that we have legal access to the property and so and and I know that was one of the issues that was brought up that some folks here
last time felt we didn't but we do and the lawyers have confirmed that. And then finally um something that we did reach out to the school board um with regards to the you know school um what do you call it capacity and the
school board I think we've sent this also to uh Dan and his team they determined that the size of this development would be considered what they would call dimminimous like there's not enough kids that would be coming from this should children be here for
the school board to have any concerns regarding capacity uh of any students from from this community. So, with that, I'll just close and of course I would like the opportunity to get back up. But let's, you know, let's just remember all we're asking to annex a property that's
in the ISBA, which we have every right to do and you have every right to accept. We're asking to downzone this property significantly from commercial 49,500 square ft of commercial to 48 town
homes. That's a huge drop in any impact, whether it's water, sewers, schools, roads. It's all a dramatic reduction in what we're asking for. And we would just like to be annexed into the city. We would like the city to uh approve
this uh SPUD. Um, one of the things about the SPUD and the what reason we're asking for that is there's a lot of specificity in the staff reports and the development agreements about what we can do, what we can't do. So that's in the record and if
you choose to approve it that becomes the approval document not anything else or misunderstandings between what I have said to you or you know what what what's believed to be you know what I said because I think last time there was some you know concerns about that but bottom
line is the document you have is the document that we'll be beholden to and so I'll ask any questions that you have or I'll just reserve my time. >> Thank you. Uh, any questions for the developer? And then I have a question for Grant. If no questions for the developer, Grant, can you talk about the
letter we received from the county regarding this application? >> Yeah. Um, I think everyone on the commission did receive a letter from the county uh that was sent out on Friday that raised a question about this particular application for annexation.
Um, as as Dan and everyone mentioned, this was being annexed pursuant to the ISBA that the city has with the county. Uh, there are statutory requirements that still uh attach to the process in addition to the ISBA. One of those
requirements is that um if you're dealing with non-ontiguous property, then there are >> All right. I'm sorry. If you're dealing with non-ontiguous property, you've got to do one of two things. You've either got to send the uh
proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the state for them to review and comment on it before the annexation can take place or there needs to be an existing joint planning agreement between the city and the county. There is not an existing joint planning agreement. So
the only option that the city has is to transmit the comprehensive plan amendment to the state uh before annexation. As I understand it, that has not happened at this point. And so if the city were to move forward tonight
with uh approving annexation, then I think there would be a question whether the statutes have been followed. And I would suggest at that point probably a continuence so that everything could be sent to the state. Um so just want to point that out.
That's basically what the letter was saying. If you want to move forward with annexation, then we need to verify that this was sent to the state for review before you annex. It doesn't appear that it was sent to the state for review before tonight. And so that's what that
letter was about. >> Thank you, Grant. Uh, any questions for Grant? >> I do have a question, Grant. With that said, can we go ahead and just vote on the annexation to see if we even want to move forward before we even get into the rest of this? >> You could. Yeah, I think you you
probably could vote. I think that any yes vote would need to be contingent on sending it to the state and seeing what the state's review would be. >> But we could go ahead and have a vote on the annexation, see if we even want to move forward with with submitting. >> Yeah. I mean, I think you could almost treat it to an extent sort of like we do
with transmitt hearings. You know, you would have a vote before deciding to transmit. that process is not necessarily spelled out in the statute, but I think under the circumstances that you could could proceed that way. >> Okay. Well, I Mr. Mayor, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to see if we
even want to move forward with this on with an annexation. >> So, we have a motion on the floor for 6A1, which is the annexation of Royal >> Highlands. Just for clarification, >> what was the motion? >> Yeah. Well, cuz the commissioner is
changing the motion on the table. So, the motion on the table is to approve the annexation. So, perhaps the commissioner just wants to call the question on the table, which is to vote for annexation. >> Yeah. >> Yes. If we want to annex or not. >> And if there's more yes votes than no,
let's revisit that. >> Okay. So, you >> Yes. >> That's so call. So you need to vote on So the the commissioner's calling the question to immediately vote on the annexation question. So you need to vote to call the question and then if that's
affirmative then you'll vote on the motion whether or not to annex. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Okay. So we have a call to vote. So we will do roll call. >> So So this is to >> annex the property. >> No. No. This is to >> to call the question. >> To call the question. >> If you just want to call the question
right now, you vote yes. >> Okay. Call the question, >> meaning you'll move immediately to consider whether or not you're going to annex the property. >> Gotcha. >> If we don't want to annex it, is it a yes? >> No. If you don't want to talk about it
anymore and you just want to move to a vote, you vote yes >> on this call to vote. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the this is a roll call on the call to vote. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Barry? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Connell? >> Yes. >> Mayor Reeseman?
>> Yes. So that's four votes to call a question. The question on the floor is whether to annex. If you want to annex the property, you vote yes. >> If you don't want to annex, you vote no. If we have more yeses than nos, then
we'll have to consider whether or not we transmit. >> Correct. >> So we need a second to Commissioner Connell's motion. >> No, you're good. We're now in the motion on the floor, which is to annex. So roll call on to annex. >> Commissioner Barry, >> no.
>> Commissioner Conell, >> no. >> Commissioner Bur, >> no. >> Mayor Reason, >> no. >> So that's zero to four, the motion fails. And with the failure of that motion, we don't need to do the land use or the zoning ordinances. >> Those would be moot based on the annexation code. Yes, sir.
>> So >> So we will now go to So the Royal Highlands failed. So it will not be happening. So, >> hey, hey guys. Hey guys, I I appreciate the I appreciate the applause, but let's
remain calm. >> We'll take a fivem minute recess and then we'll move into the next item. [Applause] If somebody does people, if the commission wants to understand out Move
[Music] them out. Y'all going to talk outside. We got business. to order. Would someone please introduce 6 A four, five, and six, which was the
Oakidge? >> I'll introduce 6 uh A45 and 6 to be read by title only, please. Thank you. >> 6 A4, an ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, annexing certain real property consisting of approximately
596.2 29 plus minus acres being generally located east of County Road 48 and south of Ronald Reagan Turnpike lying in sections 28 29 and 32 township 20 south range 24 east lake county Florida
providing that said property so annex shall be liable for its proportionate share of the existing and future indebtedness of said city providing that such annex property shall be subject to all laws and ordinances of said city as if all such territory had been a part of the city of Leburg at the time of
passage and approval of said laws and ordinances providing that such annex territory shall be placed in city commission district 3 and providing an effective date 65 an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan of the
city of Leburg changing the future land use map designation of certain property containing 596.29 29 plus minus acres from Lake County Rule to City of Leburg Estate Residential for property generally located east of County Road 48 and south
of Ronald Reagan Turnpike lying in sections 28 29 and 32 township 20 South range 24 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date 66 an ordinance of the city of Leburg Florida changing the zoning on approximately
596.29 29 plus minus acres from Lake County Agriculture to City of Leburg PUD planned unit development to allow 910 single family attached and detached units for property during located east of County Road 48 and south of Ronald
Reagan Turnpike lying in sections 28 29 and 32 township 20 south range 24 east lake county Florida and providing an effective de >> thank you Andy welcome [Applause] Thank you, Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. For the Oakidge PUB, by way of background, this project does include an annexation large-scale comp plan and reszoning. The site consists of 596.28 plus or minus undeveloped acres. Is generally located on the east side of County Road 48 and south of the Florida
Turnpike. The request is for future development of 910 attached and detached single family residential units and their associated amenities. Under the overall proposal, the comp plan request is to go from county rural to city of
Leburg um estate and the zoning request to go from Lake County agriculture to city of Leburg PUD. Under the PUD requirements, the proposal consists again of 910 single family units which are split into two home types. There'd
be 642 detached single family homes and 268 villas. And when we say villas, what we're usually talking about is duplexes. There are no other uses permitted. Breaking this down further on the attached units, there would be 268 of
those villas on 35 foot lots, a 70 foot lot for each villa unit. Um, a minimum size house size of,200 square f feet. So that would be a 2400 square foot building, 1,200 for each unit within the
duplex. On the detached units, 37 units would be on 70 foot lots and those are located on the perimeter areas of the property as seen on the site plan. Those would have 1,800 square foot minimum house sizes. Then 46 units would be on 60 foot lots with 1,700 minimum house
size in square feet. And then the remainder, the 559 would be on 50ft lots with 1500 ft living area and living areas defined here as under roof. There are design and architectural standards which are required and shown in the PUD.
Two floors maximum height. Um two off- streetet parking spaces for each unit. 35% minimum open space. This this proposal has significantly more than that. Dark sky lighting along the streets is required. Trees in each yard. 20 foot five landscape 20 foot 25 foot
landscape buffer is required along the entirety of the property boundaries except where it's not needed due to some wetland areas that are existing. There'll be a three-foot burm with a 4ft fence along County Road 48. And there's also a per perimeter fence except where
there is a burm or wetland present. There are sidewalks required throughout the proposed development and again use of hail or bermuda grass is permitted. Um access was shown on the site plan. There will be um three main access
points all to be boulevard entrances landscape median at least 8 ft in width along those. That means there would be enough lane area for emergency vehicles to turn around and maneuver if needed. Um signage would have decorative entry feature of concrete block, brick,
stuckco, wall or a sign within the um area of the roadway. The the um excuse me, median area of the roadway at least 5t high on there. There is interconnectivity to the adjacent subdivisions back to the east which
would complete the development proposals from County Road 33 all the way to 48. So you could drive through the neighborhoods to go from one of those roads to the other. Um there are 4.18 acres of recreation required including pool, cabana, children's playground, dog
park and a very extensive walking trail that is being provided along the wetlands areas. Um everything has to be on city water and waste water. No wells or septic out there. And then um there is a phasing the standard phasing clause
which goes for four years and would revert to the RE1 which is one acre per unit if necessary. Um Mr. Logan Opsil of Lounrastic Dster Caner and Reed of Orlando is here to represent the case and answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you Mr. Miller. Any questions for
Mr. Miller before we go to the developer? Seeing none. Oh yes, sir. Could >> you know, we did receive a second letter >> with regard to this property. You want to talk? >> I was gonna bring that up after the developer. >> Okay, that'd be fun, sir. Thank you. >> If the developer would like to come up and give his presentation.
>> Thank you. >> Thanks, Dan. >> Good evening. Logan off 215 North Yola Drive. I will be brief uh as we're here tonight on second reading. Um and so some of this we've been able to go over given some of the specifics that we've heard and uh including in the hallway. I
want to address a couple key items and I'm happy to stand for any questions. This is the overall assemblage of the property, a different aerial than you previously saw with Dan's presentation. Uh you'll hear me note as well, this property is uh bounded by city property.
Um and so the outline is the future land use map of the city of Leburg. And here is the zoning. So uh again surrounded by either planned unit development or age restricted development across 48 say look at some of the other
developments uh around the area immediate vicinity with their associated uh densities. Um a quick history on this and you may recall from first reading this had some cattle operations and more recent past the sod stripping you can
see that on this aerial. Um, one of the considerations that we have, which I'll touch on in later slides, is given the sod stripping activity, as you might imagine, when it rain or when it was dry, it was either uh dust or quite
significant runoff. Um, as we look to uh develop this property, uh, storm water considerations, uh, natural vegetation, uh, water clarity, water, uh, purification through that natural process is an important component of the
buildout of this project. Dan touched on some of the amenities and although we have some required minimums, there are extensive multi-use trails throughout the wetlands, um, which we view as an amenity to this overall project. nature trails, neighborhood parks, activity centers, but again, that
multi-use trail which runs along the wetlands as an amenity to the residents. Uh here's a look at the uh conceptual renderings of the project. Uh what you'll see readily apparent is the green and and blue. The green is uh
significant wetlands. Um so this property given the the the shaping of it is to track the upland areas while the wetland portions uh remain and and the water as well. This project also creates uh some wetlands in key areas. The PUD
ordinance before you has minimum open space requirements outlined by staff. What's before you is about double that 70% open space. And again that natural vegetation and wetland creation expansion which I'll touch on again as well here as we
continue this slide. Uh natural landscaping particularly around the storm water and wetland areas for additional habitat. But the key here being the enhanced storm water treatment and the after condition as it relates to
the before of that runoff. The pedestrian trails the boardwalks. I will note too and this was the comment I wanted to make to the gentleman as well. Uh there following a community meeting we had shown extensive boardwalk that reached that portion of the assemblage
that runs to the east and out towards Clear Lake. Uh we have removed uh that amenity to not encroach on any viewshed. Uh so I want to make sure we clarify that that that boardwalk has been removed and will not be included.
And with that I'm happy to answer any questions. and reserve a little bit of time to respond some of the questions we hear. >> Sir, again, I would want to refer to the city attorney to respond to that letter we received. >> Yeah. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, there was a second letter that everybody
received um from the county commissioners that addressed a question, I guess, with regard to roadway maintenance and the ISBA. So the county uh has raised I guess the question or
they recommended that the city if this property is annexed that the city take over maintenance of 48 uh from CR27 over to the Sumpter County line. And so that's a pretty significant stretch of
48. Um the county didn't necessarily give any real justification or support for why that request was being made. Uh so we asked for a little bit of clarification on that with the question being if this property is annexed into
the city of Leburg, is it the county's position that the city would be required to take over maintenance of 48 from 27 over to uh the Sumpre County line. And the response was at this point that uh
we're not able to get a lot of clarification from public works in the county, but if the property meets the criteria of the ISBA, then yes, the city should take the road over. So, what we don't really know is whether or not this
meets the criteria. I think there's some questions of interpretation. Uh I wouldn't necessarily suggest that the and I'm looking at section 3E of the 2014 Leburg ISBA uh not exactly the model of clarity but it
does indicate that we're looking prospectively right the beginning of this is from the effective date of this agreement upon annexation of a sum greater than 50% of the existing frontage of properties abuing any subject road rightway dot dot dot dot
dot uh Leburg shall assume maintenance responsibility for the segment and associated drainage facilities not terminating at any right-of-way center line. It goes on uh and talks about the city not being required to take over roads that don't meet city standards. Um
but what we don't really have clarity on is well where are we measuring the roadway from? Um, if we're excluding properties that were already within the city of Leburg when the ISBA was signed because we're going from the effective
date of the ISBA, like I said, I don't really know what the county's position is other than maybe it meets the criteria and if it does, the city of Leburg should take over 48 uh for maintenance perspective.
>> So, so you made a comment about uh pre properties that were previously in the city. So prior to the ISBA agreement, Secret Promise was in the city. >> Do you mind if I jump in? >> Yeah, you can jump in. I mean, I would say our Yeah.
>> So the county and I and and I won't be short. Give me a minute. But but I think this is important information for the commission to have as you consider this because it's a significant road implication which is
part of the things that you have to consider during annexation. And the county's letter I think is a little bit of a significant wrench in the wheel because it doesn't have a real legal answer and it's more of a policy flexation. And I say that because on two
issues this evening you received feedback from it from Lake County. One was from the county attorney and the county attorney argued legal points about the Royal Highlands annexation and this annexation, the Oak Ridge
annexation, but those points were from the county attorney and argued matters of law. That is different than the letter that you received from the BOCC and signed by the by com uh chairman
Campion representing the BOC which encouraged and stated and stipulated and recommended that if you do this annexation then this annexation being Oakidge then the count then the city has
to take 48 from the intersection 27 to the to the county line given that it's a rural collector blah blah blah. So, I think that gives you three positions this evening to consider in this annexation action. A, don't annex
it for whatever reasons. And again, it's it's it's a legislative thing. So, you don't have to have a legal reason not to annex it. B, annex it and flirt with whatever potential challenge may come from the county or B table it until we
get a more definitive answer about what the county position is on the ISBA. So given that there may be a tableabling of a definitive answer from the ISBA, let me share you staff's interpretation
of the letter and this is from the city perspective. your city staff led by myself, also with the deputy city manager, Robert Hicks, and with our planning department, Dan Miller, and Candy Harper, we have met
twice with county staff, led by county manager, Jennifer Barker, and the county attorney, reviewing the ISBA. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about that in my matters at the end of the meeting. In those conversations,
I expressed to the county that I didn't think in any circumstance that the city needed to take 48. When the county submitted back to us the roads that they thought we needed to take pursuant to the ISBA, which is
referenced by this letter, 48 was not on that action list, which I'm going to review with you later this evening. That indicates to me that the BOCC knows that we don't have to take 48. But I don't know that for a fact because
you got a letter stipulating that we may or were encouraged to. So I don't know what that means. our position as I expressed a grant as well as the county and I know everybody in the room can't
see this but this is this is an important map because what the what what this highlight is is this the the black shaded area that is the city limits boundary prior to 2013
that's important date because prior to 2013 there was no ISV BA agreement and we entered the city of Leburg entered into two ISBA agreements with the county. The 2013 and then the what I call the supplemental 2014 agreement.
The references that the BOCC is using in the letter is that uh if you take portions of of annexed area that front county roads, the city too has to take those roads.
Our argument back to the county is this there and and it's section is paragraph 3 ENF I think speak to in the 2014 ISBA agreement speak to this road condition the city's position the city staff
position is that 50% of the frontage of 48 is already abutdded by city limits therefore when we entered into the ISBA BA that clause in the ISBA agreement can't be tripped.
So as we annex in areas along 48, right along 48 that aren't in the city limits. Now there's already 50. So we'll never acquire 50% of road frontage because I'm going to use fake numbers because 75% of
it's already in the city and therefore 75% of it is already in the city. that paragraph doesn't trip us requiring to take 48. That would be our legal argument that we would ask Grant to argue. Secondly, I think we probably also get into
discussions about the purpose of county roads. And I think that rural collector or whatever is not a legal argument back to us, not to annex or that we would have to take it. I think that's important because if it
is the I if it is your all's collective decision to annex this property, you need to annex it with some caution in that a you may you may get a challenge from the county stipulating that you got to take this
road. So once we ring the annexation bell, you know, it might it's going to be hard to unring it because now we're going to encumber development developers and these type of things. And so I don't know if you want to do that in the atmosphere that the county has charged
on us that warning us that if you take this road, you got to take 48. We So if you blindly just annex it, you might we might be have a sticky wicket. If you think we should annex it, but you want delineated clarification from the county
before we move forward, then I would recommend that you table it. If you think that you don't want to annex it at all, then don't annex it at all. And it's a new point. >> I have a question, please. Can you give me a landmark where the Sumpter County
line is? Is there something there that I can visualize to say >> there's a sign? >> I know. other other than a sign a landmark. I'm sorry. >> It it's it's about >> about how many m I'm asking how many miles? >> Probably about three or from the
Oklahoma from the Okahumpa intersection of 470 33 48. If you take 48 for about four miles, you're going to hit something. >> That helps me. Four miles. Thank you. ish. [Applause]
>> So, uh I did have, you know, when when I read the letter, uh Grant, it uh to me, you know, it it written to our mayor and it says on behalf of the board of county commissioners. So, is this the official
position of the county commissioners? You know, that's because when you read it, that's that's what it says. Yes, that's the indication. >> Okay. >> And and as I said when I asked for further clarification, if the city annexes, then would the city
be required to take the road under the county's perspective? I did not get an answer. >> Yeah. And this was written on Friday. >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. So, we had a lot of time to to look at. And did you get a copy of that uh from the the uh
>> I got a copy I got a copy of the Royal Highlands letter. I did not receive a copy of the Oakidge letter until today. >> Yeah, you know that uh I just want to make a point that uh this is the kind of stuff that makes it very difficult for
us as commissioners to have this all play in the sandbox together when things like this, you know, get thrown our way. So that's that's my point. >> Yes, sir. >> I have another question. I'm think listening to um with the infrastructure
the cost will the developers take any of the hits of the cost with this I mean could we offset with them? >> The broad the broad answer is yes. The PUD is written in a fashion that any road development or any road development
issues they have widening ingress egress um and they have they're responsible for that as as a condition to move forward. that that's the transportation paragraph. I don't know what's paragraph 8 or something like that in the PUB. So, and and it's and
the the October 10 letter also references traffic. It references flooding. It references storm water issues. And again, we have said this agnosium time and time, and I'm being
maybe I'm being obnoxious, but the BOCC, I think, as a whole, continues not to read our PUDs. And our PUD state that these things have to be approved prior to a development
order. So roads, we've already stipulated in the PUD that the roads have to be developed by the way the county requires it. >> We've already stipulated in the PUD that you have to build your drainage plan pursuant to the district. So those so those fears that were stipulated in the
letter are covered in the PUD >> and I think there were sign significant comments on 48 coming out of the county as well. as there should as there should be. >> As the developer, sir, are you aware of all of the >> Well, I think I think the city manager
made a good point you and and the commissioners, this letter came in on Friday. I wasn't aware of it. I haven't put eyes on it. And um you know, I'd be doing my client a disservice for for to put forward to this body a decision that quite frankly needs some more information. And in that spirit, I think
we have a vested interest to have some clarity on this. And it may make some sense to table this item. >> Well, may I make a motion then, please? >> Anybody else have any comments? >> May I make a motion that we table this until we get further information? >> Why don't you table to a date certain
because it's under the oposes of the advertisement. >> That's right. >> Why don't you give us a month? >> Would that be sufficient enough to get information from >> bring it back to the first November meeting? >> November November 10th will be the first meeting.
Logan isgan sound okay with you. >> I'm I'm clarifying now. >> Yes, sir. I have it on my I'll be here. >> I move that we table this >> conversation to November 10th meeting. >> Is that Veterans Day?
>> Day before. >> So Tuesday >> Tuesday holiday. So we have the 10th. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So we have a motion on the phone second to table until November 10th. A date certain for the Oakidge. Any further discussion from the commission? Any
public comments? Seeing none, roll call. >> Commissioner Connell? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Barry? >> Yes. Mayor Reason? >> Yes. >> So, this item will lay over till November 10th. >> Um, >> yes, sir. >> I just want to state comment. I'm going
to make sure that we're clear. We'll be getting all information in to make further an an understanding of what is expected from the letter that we received and what we are anticipating with the developers doing all of the things that they're listed. >> Yes. And I'll pontificate on that a
little more under my matters later in the meeting. >> Thank you everyone. >> Or at least that's our hope. >> We will move on to the 6 A7. Would someone please introduce? >> I think we need to table the >> other
>> the other two items. Yes. >> So, we need to table >> five and six as well to a date certain. >> I'll make a motion that we table item five and six also to date certain November 10th. >> Okay. We have a motion >> call at 5:30. >> At 5:30.
>> We have a motion on the floor. I need a second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call for moving five and six. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Barry,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Conell, >> yes. >> Mayor Reason, >> yes. Thank you. Now we'll move to 6 A7. Would someone please introduce? >> I'll introduce to be read by title only, please. >> Thank you. >> An ordinance of the city of Leburg,
Florida, changing the zoning on approximately 0.40 40 plus minus acres from city R2 medium density residential to C3 highway commercial to correct a spot zoning for property generally located east of Cloud Street and south
of East Main Street lying in section 26 Township 19 South Range 24 East Lake County, Florida, and providing an effective date. >> We have a motion and a second on the floor. Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, this is the
property on East Main Street on the south side of East Main Street. Um, point4 developed acres. There's a single family house on it right now. It's just east of Cloud Street. It's across from the city public works facility. Uh, they're requesting a change from R2
under under the zoning only to R2, which is medium density residential, to C3, which is highway commercial. U staff was looking at this from standpoint of cleaning up the zoning map to be consistent with the zoning in the area. Um as we stated in the last meeting, this is a spot zoning, a situation where
one zoning is completely surrounded um by others and the potential uses are not consistent in the general area. Uh there were no comments from the city department, school board, Lake County public works, etc. No comments from the
public because it's a straight zoning. There are no conditions, no phasing or expiration clauses. Um the issue that was spoken about um last meeting and was in regard to the semi-truckss which are parked there. If the zoning is approved, the trucks can remain. If the zoning is
not approved, then it would be under the R2 and the trucks would have to go. Simple summary. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, sir. >> Any questions for Dan? Any commission comments? >> I'm still in agreement of my comments from the last meeting. I think that um
our focus is enhancing the character of the city and making sure that the code enforcement are doing a tremendous job in making sure that everyone is following the rules and guidelines to uphold the city's um look and maintain
integrity. So I still stand where I am with far as um not agreeing to do a spot zoning or so. >> Any comments? Um, well, I I I appreciate staff's effort on this. I would agree with Commissioner Barry. I think our
code enforcement is doing a good job. Um, there are multiple semis in this area on this property. Uh, it is an eyesore in my opinion and that's not what we want in that area. So, I will also agree with Commissioner Barry and her comments. >> I do have a question. What's the zoning around it, man?
>> Uh, the zoning around it is C3. The current zoning on the property is R2. It became a spot zoning years and years ago. Yeah. >> So, they're only asking for the same zoning that's all all the way around, though. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> The applicant only came to the city for
a spot zoning because he is incurring or has a pending litigation case or case against him from code enforcement. That was the only thing that triggered that. >> It cleans up a spot. that there's >> sorry >> there's not technically a spot there is a spot zoning situation but is
it really a does the spot zoning issue carry the gravitas of what a spot zoning really does and in this case no why is that the case because our commercial zoning allows you to use residential so
even though there's residential next door the neighbors have built residential residential in a C3, then we have a C3 being used as a C3 and then you have a C3 being used as residential. So, because there's residential next
door, that's the the conflict. So, is it a is it a spot zoning issue? That's that's why the case is before you. And and if you want to see and and it unfortunately that's really the
matter. If you want to see the trailers move, then you need to vote no. If you think the trailers are okay because C3 is C3 and that allows for residential as well as commercial uses, which is a
house or storage of trailers, then you should vote yes. >> Um Oh, go ahead. >> I was going to follow up on that. So, the zoning on both sides C >> three, but it's being used for residential. >> Yes, that is correct. because C3 does
allow residential. >> So, but so the the property on either side C3 zoning, >> but it's being used for residential, but if they wanted to put trucks there, they could do that. >> That is my understanding of the code. Yes, sir.
>> So, so the zoning on either side would allow for what he's asking for. It's just it's not being utilized that way, but they could do it. >> Yes, sir. That's my understanding of the code. Those are habitat for >> I was going to say, weren't those habitat homes that we put there? >> I believe they were.
>> So therefore, the trucks go or the homes go. That's how I look at it because we're enforcing that we're trying to enforce, excuse me, that we keep our residential areas residential without utility, vehicles, RVs, semi-tractor
trailers, and if I'm not mistaken, there's three at that location. Am I correct? So, um this is houses that we've granted to um residents and which they're beautiful homes by the way, but unfortunately they're in a commercial
area is right across from Katrrol across from public works um area. So, who bears the I mean, where do we go from this from as a city and making decisions on this? But the zoning on either either
side would even though they're using it for residential would allow for the truck parking >> but it's a residential area. I mean well the two homes there makes it residential >> but they can still have a truck there. >> But if we understand or they could take that house and and
make an office building out of it. I I just seem to seem to think I mean you you've got a piece of property that's in the middle of the of the zoning on either side of him of what he's asking for. I I don't think it's out of line for what he's asking for.
Either side could you could do what he's doing. >> Well, that is true because the way the zoning is set up and the way the habitat homes were provided to the residents. However, for the district that we're trying to con re convey to other residential areas, you can have
semi-tractor trailer trucks parked in your home in your backyard on the side of your house. >> So, you could on the either side of him. >> Can I ask a question? >> Sure. Um, >> so the property itself
uh where those the semis are part what is the use of the property right now? What what happens on that property? Is there a business run out of there? >> It's a single family home. >> It's it's zoned residential and you're putting commercial in. >> It's it don't the the it's everything is
inverse. You know, the the the old zoning was residential. Then we came in and blanketed and changed things and made it this commercial stuff, leaving that lot as residential. And then the commercial developed as residential because that was one of the things. But then this guy was residential, never got
changed and developed as commercial. So it's kind of like our mixed uses are are hurting us in this case. So the question becomes in a dance perspective the holistic planning perspective is well it really all should be C3
>> purely being a purist planner that's my take however with respect to your opinion staff >> but out of practicality what's developed hasn't that we've got everybody going into a one specific similar category of
the usage which is making the older one so it's it's a bit of a quandry and I think we've laid it out the best we can for you. >> Well, the truth of the matter is the history was the family that owned that land actually worked at Minutemade. So,
there was never an issue for walking across the street to be convenient to work. So, now they're gone, family's gone, and now the land has been donated and given to Habitat homes, which we have allowed to build there. And now we're trying to enforce the rules of
keeping our residential residential and now we're in a situation that we're in the middle of a commercial. Where do we I mean, how do we justify and explain to others to say a sign up to say this is commercial slash I mean it's just
something to consider and I feel as being in district one and trying my best to enforce the residential homes be residential homes. It's very difficult when you that's a main corridor that you pass coming into the city and you see
the tractor trailer was parked in. >> But but they were allowed to to build these houses in commercial. >> So you're not going to change that zone back to residential. So that seemed like to me it's you're kind of like penalizing whoever owns this piece of property that he can't have the same
zoning that the property on each side of him has. >> The other home doesn't have any trucks. It's just gentle. >> They could. He's just asking for the zoning, >> right? >> I mean, I I think you're you're isolating him and saying he can't have the same zoning that that the property
on either side of him has. That just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. If none of it was zone commercial, I would agree with you. >> That's where I'm getting ready to go with you now, Commissioner. What will happen once, if ever the changes from where Katroli is located becomes
residential? Then what do we do then? we flip back to this one home to accommodate. I mean, I'm looking for future. I'm trying to think how we have it seems to me we have allowed one thing to happen and now we can correct it at
this juncture. But if we continue and then say in the future where Katroli is and we now maybe own it or that land and we want to develop and do something else now we'll be back at square one reszoning it to accommodate what we're trying to go there.
>> I just think that we should be um I just want to try to be as consistent as we can throughout the city and not allow for one area to another area. >> To me consistent would be to change it to commercial so it is consistent. But Dan, how how many how how much how many
lots or how how far does this commercial zoning go along that strip? >> The commercial zoning runs along here, Mr. Commissioner, for C3, but it's this one that is the R2. >> You got one amongst about what at least six. >> There's several lots in there that are
main street from East Street to Lake Street. That gives an idea would be to change this to be compatible with the zoning all the way down that strip. >> That would be consistency >> in your opinion. >> Well, then what what would it not be?
>> I think that what is consistency? It's the same same same. I'm asking for you to realize that we maybe as the city allowed things to happen that we probably didn't think about at the time. And now we're in a
situation where we're trying to be consistent throughout the city. And now we have this one area that we have to say, okay, well, these trucks can remain here because this is a commercial area. But down the street, two blocks to the right on East Street, those trucks can't
remain there cuz it's a residential area. >> Well, it's two blocks away. I mean, that's the way zoning works. I mean, it's not consistent throughout the city. It's consistent in the area. And like I said, I just don't I think consistency is to give it the same zoning as everything else around it.
>> I think I mean I think >> we can agree to disagree. >> I we agree to disagree. Exactly. >> All right. Any public comments on this item? >> Yes, sir. You have you can come up. You have three minutes, sir. State your name and address for the record. >> This the owner, Mr. Al Malone.
>> Yes, sir. >> Good evening. Um, when uh I bought the property almost 10 years ago, um, it wasn't made aware to me
about all the commercial properties around us at all. Um we've looked at the um public works department which is was an eyes saw for the longest time. You could see that uh
piece of property on the left there with the uh roof all rusted out and everything. Everything around there is commercially zoned. Uh we haven't had not one complaint in all those years, okay, that we've been there. Okay, we
put a sign up to change zoning. Not one complaint came in. There's people parking RVs. There's people parking whatever they want to park elsewhere. But I'm pertaining to this property. The cutout for the curb cutout in front of
the property is 36 feet wide. The curb cradle is 36 feet wide. That's enough to get any anything in and out. So you're not even infringing on the curbing. Already cut out. It's been that way.
There's a no parking sign anytime in front of the house that came with the house when I purchased it. Okay? I didn't change anything. Matter of fact, if I did anything, I improved on it immensely. Okay? Um I was under the
understanding that the city gave the the property to the people who bought who built the houses. Okay. So why they if they were going to change zoning, they should have done it then. Okay. So yes, I'm asking for a C3
zone and C3 zoning or commercial and the the trucks are in and out on a daily basis as well. Okay. So it's not Yeah, we're conducting business, but at the same time, so is everybody else there. Okay. and they're conducting business in
those new homes, too. And I don't want to get into that, okay? Because I really feel like some of you people really know what's going on there, okay? You did a really good job donating the property, but uh you can check with the police department and see what's been going on
over there. I'm mind though, I'm bringing it to your attention, okay? Because it's not as quiet as you may think it is, okay? So it could be commercial in other ways that you know it's a big word right? So and
I'm the only piece of property residentially zoned and I'm got 14 seconds but to be honest with you that commercial zoning goes all the way up to the tool rental place on the corner lake all the way and then beyond that because
then romax starts then the hospital starts it's all the way. Thank you sir. >> Mr. I do appreciate your comments. I am well aware of the area. Would you be opposed to parking your trucks at a leasing or leasing an area to park your trucks at another location?
>> Yeah, I would be what's happening there. >> Okay. >> I mean, I did >> I'm only asking not one complaint. >> All right. Are there any other public comments on this item? All right. We're going to close public comments and bring it to the the commission. Any final comments? If none, we'll do roll call. Yes, sir.
>> Yeah. I I didn't comment but uh I think this is a situation we we have done a good job of giving property to Habitat uh for residential use but the zoning as
Commissioner Connell points out is uniform through the area and his ask is not out of character with the area. Uh my understanding would be that if one of
those habitat homes wanted to change to a commercial venture, they could do that with the current zoning. So, you know, we are really penalizing him for the the
zoning of the whole area. And I don't I just don't I don't like that. you know, you've got residential and you've got semis. I mean, ideally, that's, you know, I get it. It doesn't look good. >> Due diligence wasn't done far as
habitat. And I don't believe you can change a habitat home into a commercial area, can you? I don't think so. >> Zoning on it is what we're being told by Dan is the zoning. >> That's how it is. But I don't think that's how it's set up to build a habitat home provided. So,
>> I mean, >> I'm just saying that's not the process. Once they got it paid off, they can do whatever they want. >> They can do whatever they want. Yeah. >> This was two years ago. Am I mistaken? Habitat home. Three years. Three years. Three years, sir. Yeah. >> Three years for the homes there.
>> They they've been there a while. >> Any other commissioner comments? >> No, I have no more. >> All right. We'll do roll call on 687. >> Okay. So, wait a minute. What are we doing? >> 67 for the spot zoning. >> So, yes. Roll call. >> Commissioner Barry.
>> No. Commissioner Connell? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Mayor Reeseman? >> No. >> Would someone please introduce 688? >> I'll introduce to be read by title only, please. An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, consenting to the inclusion of
the city of Leburg, Florida, within the countywide municipal service taxing unit for the provision of ambulance and emergency medical services as adopted by the board of county commissioners of Lake County, Florida, provided for the city to be included within the MSTU for
a specific term of years, providing for conflicts and providing an effective date. >> Move for approval. Second. We >> have a motion and a second. Any comments from the commission? >> Any public? Did someone have some? Any public comments?
>> Seeing none, roll call on 688. >> Commissioner Connell? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Barry? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Mayor Reeseman? >> Yes. Would someone please introduce 69? >> I'll introduce and ask to be read by title only. >> Thank you. An ordinance of the city of Leburg,
Florida, amending section 7-170 of the city of Leburg code ordinances. Amending the existing facade sign and landscape grant program, expressing purpose, eligible locations, creating application process and criteria,
setting forth requirements and conditions, implementing procedures, repealing conflicting ordinances, providing a savings clause, and providing an effective date. >> Move for approval. We >> have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
>> Um I I just want to Yes, sir. >> Just for the record, um I did speak to city manager today about this. Just to reconfirm that u no properties would be eligible for this grant if there was existing code
violations on the property. I mean, obviously the intent obviously the intent of this is to clean up the property and I'd hate to see city gives somebody 30 40 $50,000 for a sign and they and that's the scenario I gave city manager. They got
two stories of used tire stack behind it. >> Right. >> Okay. I just want to make sure. >> Any other commission comments? Any public comments? Seeing none, roll call on 69. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Barry? >> Yes. Commissioner Cano.
>> Yes. >> Mayor Reason. >> Yes. Would someone please introduce 6810? >> I'll introduce read by title only. Thank you. >> An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida regulating city of Leburg water and wastewater capacity impact fees
providing for legislative findings and intent adopting a water and wastewater system impact fee study dated September 4, 2025 as amended. Amending chapter 22 utilities of the code of ordinances relating to water and wastewater utility
impact fees providing for codification and scrier's errors providing for conflicts providing for a savings clause providing for severability and providing an effective date >> for approval. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion from the commission? Any
public comments? Seeing none, a roll call on 6810. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. >> Commissioner Pineal, >> yes. Commissioner Bur. >> Yes. >> Mayor Reeseman. >> Yes. >> 6B1 2 and three. If someone would please introduce. >> Introduce now as be read by title only.
Please. >> 6B1. An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida. and it seen certain real property consisting of approximately 7.3 plus minus acres being generally located west of US highway 27 and north of
University Avenue lying in section 24 township 20 South range 24 east lake county Florida provided that said property so annex shall be liable for its proportionate share of the existing and future indebtedness of said city providing that such annex property shall
be subject to all laws and ordinances of said city as if also territory had been a part of the city of Leburg at the time of passage and approval of said laws and ordinances providing that such annex territory shall be placed in city commission district 3 and providing an
effective date 6B2 an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan of the city of Leburg changing the future land use map designation of certain property containing 7.3 plus minus acres from Lake County urban low to city of Leburg
general commercial for property generally located west of US Highway 27 and north of University Avenue, lying in section 24, Township 20 South, range 24 East Lake County, Florida, and providing an effective date 6B3.
An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, changing the zoning on approximately 7.3 plus minus acres from Lake County Agriculture to City of Leburg SPUD small plan unit development to allow for 50,200 square ft of
multi-use F office warehouse buildings for a property generally located west of US Highway 27 and north of University Avenue lying in section 24, Township 20 South, range 24 East Lake County, Florida, and providing an effective date.
>> Thank you, Andy. This is a first reading uh and will lay over till November 24th. Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um this is for the Legacy Commerce Center. This is an annexation smallcale zoning and smallcale comp plan and reszoning for
7.3 acres on the west side of US 27 and south of University Avenue. The request is for approval of a future development which will consist of 50,200 square feet of multi-use office and warehouse buildings. Um this is a Lake
County. This is a future land use application request for Lake County from Lake County urban low to city of Leburg general commercial and the zoning would go from Lake County agriculture to city small plan unit development. um under the conditions of the SPUD
agreement again 50,000 square ft of office and multi-use type spaces that would be office warehouse mini warehouse industrial flex space indoor light manufacturing uh building trades and contractors with indoor storage daycare private school as a location is near
residential development um it does have design standards including screening of mechanical equipment 35% open space dark skylighting landscape plan required two floor maximum height which is consistent with what is permitted in the area. Um
since highway 27 is under FDOT authority uh any changes to the roadway access points would be required to be made by the developer any and all expansions etc. Um it does require city water and wastewater. There is a phasing clause as
we have discussed previously this evening and I believe Mr. J. D. Bicklmeer is here to represent if you have any questions. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Any questions for Dan before we see the developer? >> No, this will lay over till November 24th. If the developer would like to say
anything. Yes, sir. >> JB Brookmire 17032 Johns Lake Drive, Warner Garden, Florida 34787. And I'm here on behalf of the owner um legal representation. And does the council have any questions? Any
questions for the applicant? >> No. >> None. All right. Thank you very much. Any public comments on this item? Seeing none, this will lay over till November 24th. Would someone please introduce 6B4?
>> I'll introduce and ask be read by title. >> Thank you. An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, changing the zoning on approximately 20.36 plus minus acres from City of Leburg PUD planned unit development and C3 Highway commercial to
City of Leburg PUD planned unit development to allow for a mixeduse development for property gen located north of US Highway 441 and east of Pimble Road lying in section 20, Township 19 South, range 25 East, Lake County, Florida, and providing an
effective date. >> Thank you, Andy. This is also a first reading and will lay over till October 27th. Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This project is um the former um PUD zoning for the
>> RV. >> RV park. Thank you. I was trying to think RV park. It basically go from PUD and C3 to PUD. Um this one is requesting 278 multif family units. And keep in mind there were 250 spaces for RV units on the previous one.
It would also add 12,000 ft of commercial uses, 2,800 foot clubhouse, boat house, and associated men amenities. There's no change to the future land use. It's strictly for the zoning um from PUB to PUD with revised conditions. We received no
substantiative comments from the city departments. Um the school board said it would be subject to uh concurrency review. We did not receive any written responses to the ads and letters. Uh looking back under the PUD requirements again, it's 278 multifamily units. Um
with the 12,000 ft of commercial, then that commercial use, those commercial uses would be based on the C3 highway commercial zoning district. Uh there'd be a fourfloor maximum height on this one that would create a view of Lake Griffin. And um two off- streetet
parking spaces for each unit would be as required by code. There are design and architectural standards which are found in the PUD wording and in the exhibits that are in the PUD documents. Again, 35% o open space, dark sky lighting, landscaping plan required. We're also
including a 30foot buffer along the western side of the property right along the boundary. If I can get the light on here. What's along the western side of the property where you can There we go. >> Right along there. Um, and there would
be a 4-ft burm there upon which there would be a six-foot privacy fence installed. So, you'd literally have a 10-ft tall buffer. And then >> was that the same that they had the previous because there was a lot of conversation with the was it Bonnie or who? >> Yes, sir. There was a lot of
conversation with the folks next door previously and so we're keeping those uh buffers and things same in there. And then there's also a 25- foot landscape buffer along the southern property line um which is going to be along 441 there.
Um standard PUD requirements in in terms of the bea grass and sidewalks. Uh two separate access points on the development and again FDOT would uh require any upgrades to the property
access points. There will be 1.4 4 acres of active recreation areas which would include swimming pool, walking trail, children's playground and dog park or similar. Um again everything's on city water and wastewater and our utility departments have indicated that there is
capacity at this time um to serve as as needed on the water and wastewater and there's also the phasing clause which we have keep we have kept in our PUDS which would revert this in four years to the RE1 standards. Um staff sees this as a
significant upgrade from the current zoning which was the RV park turn this into something some apartments which would have a view. There's also the potential there for marina or something like that if the business and there are no I think there might be one place to
get gas on Lake Griffin if if any I am not sure anymore. >> So um >> at 42 >> it you have to go away. So we think this is a significant opportunity um for that side of the highway. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. >> Question. Yeah, for Dan. The side these
are apartments basically is what we're saying, right? Condominiums or >> correct. They are apartments now. >> So is there a size, you know, one bedroom, two bedroom, threebedroom? Have we do we have that? >> I will have that for you at the next meeting. I believe we're using the standard numbers. We've always used
>> we had worked with some in the past. I just wanted to make sure that >> and and I don't recall if it's in the PUD specifically on this one, but we will ensure that it is for the next meeting. >> Yeah. >> Um so, okay. >> The marina would be specifically for the tenants. Correct. >> Actually, there's there's the ability in
here to do a marina and a restaurant. So, uh we staff would hate to see it restricted to the tenants >> because there's a lot of business that could come in off the lake. >> Yeah. Okay. Just want clarification. I like it. Any other questions for Dan? >> No.
>> Will the developer like to say anything? >> Um, and Mr. Mike Ranken from LPG is here. >> Thank you, Mr. Ranken. >> Good evening, mayor, members of the commission, and staff and audience. For the record, Mike Ranken, president of LPG, 9013 Silverl Drive, Leburg,
Florida. Well, the last time I saw a room clear out like this one tonight was the night I offered to sing karaoke. So, uh, the only thing two things, the marina would be open to the public and the restaurants would be open to the public. We also anticipate restaurants
out on 441 in addition to at the waterfront. And even though in the title it mentions RV, there will not be any RVs on this property. Just want to make sure you guys understood that. >> Any other questions for Mr. Ranken? So,
we can take that out of it is what you're saying. It'll it'll be removed from the PUD. >> Long story short, yes. Long story short, u we've been dealing with these folks for quite some time. They inherited this. We finally convinced them you're not going to get RVs there. So, we
switch gears and the name remains. But, and we've also been working with the neighbors as well. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Any public comments? Again, this will lay over till October 27th. We're going to move along to non-rine items. We have non-informational reports. Uh city
attorney items. >> No reports. Thank you. >> Thank you. City attorney, city manager items. >> Yes, sir. >> So, a little bit of report for you this evening. Um and I also kind of the purpose is to kind of give you an update
on where uh joint planning agreement conversations or also known as JPA have uh gone with the county. Um, and so I wanted to just get some feedback on that. Um, and see where the conversation goes. So with
that being said, um, so we the city staff again has met with the county staff on, uh, two occasions specifically with the concept of negotiating a JPA. Uh the county hosted another meeting I
guess two Mondays ago um about different things uh the BOCC may or may not be looking for through JPA's or TDR's transfer development rights. Um but my purpose here today is really to get some direction from you all to make sure
we're going down the correct path. we being staff um and go into a direction ultimately bringing back to you a document uh that you would approve um and if you wouldn't approve such document then I kind of want to veer off
um if so be it um so really I think uh the heartbeat of the JPA conversation for Leburg has really centered around roads um and roads that the city is required to take pursuant to the ISBA PA.
>> Yes. >> And roads the county wants us to take as a part of the JPA. And the roads the county wants us to take, I think then breaks down to roads that they may or may not fix before we accept them or roads that we just need to take. Um and
I think our position would be um or the county's position would be if we're willing to take the roads, they're happy to give them to us as is. Um, so with that, um, and and I digress a little bit because this is where the October 10
letter becomes conflicting because we've met with county staff on two occasion. We got a form from county staff, which I've which is in your packet and in neither one of those forms or in our conversations with county staff does it
say we have to take CR48. So that that's why that letter I think becomes slightly problematic. So I broke the the county list down and this is the the list that the county staff gave us and I put it into a little bit different easier to read format for you all into
three sections. The first section is roads that are required to be acceptant pursuant to the ISBA. So that's that paragraph 3 and F. if the city hits 50% of road frontage and that we got to take these roads. I
think where we have clear agreement between city and county staff is the roads that the city has to take pursuant to the ISBA are Bridges Road, Busby Roads, Dewey Robbins Road, Duncan Road, Farnney Road, number two road, Po Road,
and Renbell Road. Not all segments of those roads in the packet. What we put in the start and the terminus point and those are I think those start and ending points are pretty agreeable. So even if you don't want to take these roads, it doesn't matter. >> You all got to.
>> So what So what I want to do is get you all to formally tell me we got to take them. We get it. And then I'll go back to the county manager slash and the and the and and I think the city attorney's um um suggestion was she would write up transfer deeds and so I think we can
expedite that list pretty quick. So everybody's good with that list, right? >> Yes. Yes. >> The next one on the list is the Windong subdivision. Um the Windong subdivision is an old PUD. It I did not look it up.
Um, but the it's an odd PUD in that we brought it in back in the 2000 time frame. And my recollection of that PUD was the roads and the sidewalks stayed in the county even though we annexed this PUD.
That practice, I'm gonna tell you, has been problematic because the residents there in Windsong have complained about road issues and sidewalk issues and they talk to the county and the county says it's not ours to fix. Then they talk to the city. Well, we're in the city and we say, "Well, we've got an agreement that
says we don't need to fix them." So, I really think the correct thing to do is because those roads are subdivision roads. They're not connector roads. They're not collector roads. They're internal to a subdivision. They function, look, and act like Maple Street, USA. The city really needs to
take over those roads. >> And that's one way out. >> Yeah. There there's a I don't know, there's five or six roads in Windong, >> but it also all out of that all they all connect to was it Windong Drive or something that hits US 27. >> Yeah.
>> Um >> uh I I don't think that the roads in there are miserable. I don't think every one of them needs overlaid. They probably need some TLC. If you want me to report back to you before we tell the county exactly kind of what condition it
is. Um I I I kind of think you're up up against the typical, you know, you got roads that are 20 years old. There's some pots and cracks and stuff that needs to be fixed. I don't think it breaks the bank. Um so that I think I think we do need to look at taking those over just because
it makes practical sense. The next is a is a I didn't put terminus roads on there. I have a map, but these are all the roads that the county has requested that we consider taking over. I won't read you the list. It's it's long. It's also in pictorial form. And it does not
include what I would call major roads like 33, 48, 470 or 44. Um, but I will also tell you you don't have to take these roads. So, I'm here this evening to say, do we want to take these roads?
And I think if your answer I'm getting nos, nods of the heads, but I I think if our answer is no, we don't want to take these roads. I think my opinion on that matter is that kills the JPA because then we really have nothing to discuss.
So, if we don't want to take the roads, I think that obstensibly kills the JPA, and I don't want to go back to the county empty-handed. So, I'd like to unveil for you this evening another concept that's different than TDRs.
Frankly, I don't think TDRs are your answer on a city level. I know that TDRs, with all due respect, are near and dear to Commissioner Parks' heart. Um, but I don't think they work. And I and and I will tell you why. Um a typically
where TDRs have been used, it's more urban counties. I understand the BOCC wants to keep a rural atmosphere in in lake and frankly I think we probably all do to a certain extent. Um, but in places where TDRs have been used,
they've been urban counties where the county is control of utilities and the county is in control of the urban and rural areas. So for TDRs to work in in in our setup, you need 15 entities, the
14 cities and the county all to agree on certain issues. But I think the primary one that we will never agree on or that we're going to struggle to agree on is what is the receiving area. So, and I mean in simple language, what is a receiving area? It's if we designate a
place where we don't want densities to occur, then the the then the property owners have an option to get their value of their property rights in lie of sale. And then those then you pass go pass public hearings and you get a direct
card to build in a receiving area. So for example, Barke and I'm going to use the subdivision out loud. The the Barke PUD that we've done. Let's say we didn't want that to develop. Then they would go to the Scales family. They would pay the Scales family X dollars and then there
would be 2,000 units that would need to be put somewhere. Well, where would you put those units? What's the receiving area? And I think the correct receiving area is on a major highway where there's utilities. That's exactly where it's located.
Pretty much every one of Leburg's major annexations have been on highways that have utilities. So that begs the question, what receiving area is there for TDRs? So I think TDRs becomes problematic.
And again, if we're not going to take roads, then the bulk of the JPA stuff that we were going to discuss doesn't happen because we're not going to take bulk of the roads. So, what what is the problem? What do we need to do? What I see the problem is is that the BOCC
um wants to the best they can mix rural transition areas, urban areas, and rural areas in Lake County so that Lake County doesn't lose its rural identity and we don't turn into looking like Dade, you know, and
and I don't mean to be derogatory towards Dade, but you know what what the picture is is city on top of city megalopoulos megalopus municipal corporation touching municipal corporation what the ISBA and I'm not going to say
failed to do because it just wasn't contemplated when the ISBA was created in 2013 and 2014 we're coming out of a recession um and I but I will but I will pointly say the BOCC fails to state this
in their argument about how the ISBA and the city has not planned correctly What the ISBA failed to contemplate was at in 2013, we wanted development including the BOCC because we were coming out of a
recession and and there was no, you know, we were we were trying to get the economic development motion started. Whether that was with making sure utilities were correct or roads were correct or or or whatever anybody's story that they that they've
now re revisited. There was no contemplation of protecting a rural area and bans around our ISBAs to protect the sanctity.
I'll say that again because I said it out loud and publicly. the sanctity of the county comp plan. The county comp plan, I think, has a number of different elements in it as a political subdivision that are different than a comp plan for municipal corporation.
We're municipal corporations. We are the city of Leburg, a municipal corporation under the laws of Florida. It is not typical, nor is it legal for a municipal corporation to have a comp plan that has
conservation areas or rural areas. That's not our business. And even if you may as a city commission want those areas, then what I'm suggesting to you is to preserve and kind of go where I think the county commission wants to do
is they want their comprehensive plan preserved so that it isn't changed by the municipal corporation's right to annex. So once we annex, we have the statutory right to erase their
comp plan and put in ours. So that takes away the urban and the conservation areas that we have. So Commissioner Canel brought to us a few months ago this uh moratorum policy.
So I think what I'm about to tell you is similar to that in that we don't annex certain areas. But what I'm also going to say is it's completely different than a moratorum because it's not called a moratorum. And and and when you call
something a moratorum, you see what happens. The whole world, you know, we dump gasoline on the fire and and the word moratorum sends out this notion of a freeze, stop, no development.
I don't know if that's what you want or not. That's for you to vote on. But I think what we do want as I read the tea leaves is we want to preserve or perhaps the city of Leburg wants to help the county preserve their comprehensive
plan. How do we do that? I have now for months said we need to get rid of the ISBA. I am now publicly changing that position. We don't need to get rid of the ISBA. We need to amend it. We need to amend it
to put in and recognize transitional zones that we failed or overlooked better word in 2013. And we don't need to refer to the county transitional zoning. You know, they've
got this in their 25 March comp plan. They created a transitional zoning. Frankly, around Leburg, you will hardly find this transitional zoning. But what you will find is a lot of conservation,
a lot of rural, a lot of low density. So how do we agree not to go into those areas is we agree to have no annexation zones within the existing ISBA. So we simply amend the ISBA.
So here's what that would kind of look like. So I put together this map. Sorry it it's I we didn't get it distributed to the public but it is a public document and it's available and essentially can everybody hear you know stepped away from the microphone but obstensively what the concept is is this
is this is actually overlaid on the county comprehensive plan um future land use map. Okay. So what we did, so so for us it probably looks backwards because we're white and all the colors are county colors where you're used to
seeing us in colors and the county in white. So you've got that inverse problem. But what it's showing is um and and it's that way on purpose because the concept of here is to preserve the county's future land use plan. So what what we've done is this is Leburg. You
really can't see city limits, but you can see the Leburg ISBA. In my opinion, there's areas that we could say we won't annex. My suggestion would be in the Bridges Road, this the south portion of our
ISBA, which is Bridges Road and Austin Merit 33 and 48. By the way, the Oak Ridge subdivision that we talked about is is up here. It's actually out of the no annexation zone. It so that might be a conversation when that comes back to you. But ostensibly everything that's
that's below what we've taken in less the villages. So you see big white sections this big triangle. This is actually old secret promise that's in the city limits. That's that's now it went from village the the secret
promises PUD to now it's the ARD age restricted villages development. This little box down here that used to be that was brought in with Secret Promise. We used to call that Renaissance Trails that's now also been purchased by the villages. So basically the big white
sections that you see on this side that aren't part of the no annexation zone are villages or small. Um, so our so the no annexation zone that we would propose is pretty kind of this bottom tier of
southwest Leburg that's between Leburg and this box you see that we we brought on the red lines represents the mascot ISBA. So mascot would need to join us and create a no annexation zone so that
between us of these boundaries you have slivers of no annexation zones which preserves the county's future land use map. So we agree we don't annex in that area. The other area that I think is confrontational for the city as far as
growth is the 44 corridor. So, we know that there's certain good lands and bad lands in there that are going to develop. Orange Bend is one of those, which the county did give us permission to develop, but everything that we haven't annexed to date, we can say that's a no annexation zone. So, that's
pretty much everything except for Swan Capital, Hills of Leburg, and Treasure Trove, which are in as long as we don't get any petitions between now and then, you know, you can carve out that area as a no annexation zone. in the northwest corner of the community, which is Futland Park and
Lady Lake, we're just not seeing territorial problems with the county. So, and there's really not a whole lot of activity going up in here. So, I didn't contemplate putting in um a no annexation zone, but I think there's three important points and then I'll
finish on this and is I if we do if we if we propose something like this to the county, I think three important things have to happen. A, we have to agree on the no annexation zones, obviously us as well as the county, but we also have to
have the neighboring cities in kind of these hotbed areas agree as well because if they don't agree, we do agree then, you know, I think that creates some havoc and and so everybody kind of everybody all the municipal corporations
need to share in this preservation of the county future land use map. So, the hot corner, as I'm going to call it, is um this is the turnpike. This is 27. The hot corner is actually our county, four corners, if you will, where Howie,
Leburg, >> Groveland, >> and Mascot all touch each other. Um, and so we have to have joint agreement in this area for Howie. You know, I a lot of this
area is already in the Yalaha Apopka RPA. So, I would think the county would appreciate Howie if they jump on board and they create this section as a a a no annexation zone because then that uh
protects the RPA. I think Groveland needs to work with us a little bit. Um, I I don't think Groveland follows a traditional municipal urban planning aspect in a city of Hamlets. I I'm just
going to put that out there with no disrespect, but that's not how we're developing because what you see in Leburg is clustered development along 27, what I think the county would call a receiving area. um >> or
44. Um so, so we got to work with Groveland on what areas up this 27 turnpike corridor that they would preserve. And then the same goes with Mascot. And then if all these entities go in there in in central Western Lake,
you would have a strip of no annexation zone between Leburg, Groveland, Mascot, Howy, which is I think where the county wants to go. preserve the county's plan that so it doesn't it's not the moratorum that says no growth no annexation it's it just can't be
developed in Leburg so developer comes in here they want to annex this parcel under this plan Dan would say ah that's a no annexation zone you got to go see the county part two we also have to recognize we have utility issues that and and that
for the most part the city of Leburg and serve everything that's in our ISBA. So if we agree not to annex, we don't want to give up that territorial right to a city who may be more aggressive
than us. That's why these other cities need to come to the table. In our cup, in our plan, we've submitted to the district that we have to provide water and sewer to certain area, which is basically our ISBA box. So, we don't
want to give up the territory and those numbers to a community who might steal it from us if we agree with the county not to annex. So, they need to be parties to this. Oh, by the way, the amendment process for the ISBA is everybody who was at the party
originally has to come back to the party and everybody has to jointly work together. My guess is that as long as we have the five entities, Howie, Leburg, Groveland, Mascot, and the county working together, we could probably accomplish this in this corner because it doesn't affect
the other municipalities. So at the So number two is number one is we all agreed to no annexation zones. Number two is we all respect our 180 rights. So that's a statutory reference. 180 is a statutory reference that municipal
corporations can kind of stake out areas inside and outside their boundaries where they're going to be the providers of utilities. So the county doesn't have utilities through this agreement though we will commit to the county as well as the other cities. So we'll protect our
territorial areas and provide what areas may develop in the county will provide them with water sewer as long as it's financially feasible. So that that's a big the the the the second part of the negotiation that would have to go into a reconsideration
of the amendment to the ISBA. And then the third one is uh if this is considered a taking to the Bert Harris Act or if this uh you know we get challenged by property owners who might be in this no annexation zone who doesn't like the county comp plan and
who may be looking in the future to come to municipal corporations to municipalize then the county needs to defend it. the county needs to defend any type of lawsuit for an amendment to the ISB for the amendment to the ISBA would need to be defended by the county because in actuality that would be the
county defending their comprehensive plan. So I don't think that that's a big ask. Those are kind of the broad strokes that I present to you all this evening. And if and if the flavor is TDRs aren't going to work, a JPA is not going to work, I really don't want to go back to
the county empty-handed without another solution to consider. So this evening, what I'm asking you then based on your response is we need to move forward with those have to roads. >> Yes. >> And you all said yes to that. So I'll
transmit that to the county. We'll look a little bit more into the windong roads to see what kind of financial burden we're bringing on. >> Yep. >> And we'll say no on all the other stuff. When we say no on all the other stuff, this is my big leap. I'm going to take
the liberty to present a red line amended version of the ISBA to the county with the no annexation >> proposal >> proposal. The no annexation zone proposal. >> Any commissioner comments? I have a
question. Is there any other city that is not willing to do ISBR? Do you know of any other city that is refusing to do >> JPA, excuse me, or IDRs? >> There there Groveland has a JPA. Um, and we've had this conversation. I
recommended right out of the bat, don't do a Groveland JPA. I don't think that that was a very friendly city document. Um, and beyond Groveland, I I don't know where all the other JPA conversations are. Same with IDRs too. That goes hand in hand or
>> Yes. Nobody's agreed to TDRs yet. >> TDR, excuse me. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Kind of going back to the TDR thing. Uh where TDRs seem to really work are in counties where you have a large
urban center like Elatchua that has Gainesville and then a whole bunch of little communities. And we're we're just not like that. So, it's going to I just don't see how that is going going forward. You know, where would it a
collector site has to be your big urban site to have that type of >> and can one city become a >> and is that going to be Leburg? Are we going >> I was saying who does that determines >> highrises in Leburg to you know I just don't see that as a us.
We're not we're not like Gainesville that's got, you know, 60,000 college kids or and they need more apartments and all that kind of stuff. So, uh I I don't, you know, I'm not a big fan of that part of it. Um and I've always said
to Al when we've talked and in our private talk, you know, we're supposed to be looking out for Leburg. And so far on the JPA side, I don't see what's in it for Leburg, you
know, other than, you know, I like that what we have. Our ability to do business the way we're doing it has been a good thing for the city of Leburg. and uh you know so any further agreements down the road I want to know you know why I want
people telling me why it's good for Leburg and you know what's being offered so far is us to take all of Sunnyside and take care of the roads out there well we're not even 10% of the roads out there or they want us to take Dixie >> correct
>> that's another road on there that's that isn't that a state road 44 I mean I don't understand where the list came from and it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. >> But wouldn't the um JPRs and JPA and the
TDRs have to be consistent with our ISBA since it's already existing? >> No. >> Well, you're amended now. >> You're amended. >> No, I'm saying without the amendment. I'm saying just as what they're presenting. >> I think that the the simple answer is no. >> They don't have they don't have to. But
isn't that in the goal is to work together to >> run parallel? Yeah. >> And my position has been why are we going to have three or four different agreements that are saying the same thing? It's going to make it more complex. We need one agreement that that
guides how we're going to work together. And we have that agreement in place, the ISBA. And and and it seems like what's creating the problem is the county's upset that their future land use map is is being overridden by municipal
annexation. So if we're in agreement not to annex in certain areas in our I in our in our box as we refer to it then that creates this band of county comprehensive plan that stays superior
for the duration of the ISBA. >> I'd just jump in and add the sort of simplistic aspect of it too. I mean I you know we have the existing agreement now we have two existing agreements and instead of blowing everything up creating a completely new framework um
under this suggestion you you basically stay under the same framework we that the city's been operating under for 10 years now 11 years now and so you don't you don't change anything true too dramatically but you do you know sort of address some of the concerns I guess
that have been talked about among the different governmental units it's an easier mechanism. I think it's a sensible mechanism um to bring about some kind of change. I think that's the place to do it in the existing agreement rather than like Al said creating three
or four different agreements that now we've got to look at all of them to figure out what our one agreement is. That's always more complicated and I think boiling it down into what we've already got, making some changes there is the right answer instead of blowing everything up and starting over again.
Do you need a motion from us al to move forward with this or to >> I it would >> doesn't hurt but what specific would it >> I think um you know Al could maybe recap what his request was but I think he had like three bullet points of what he was looking for direction >> motion would be to grant the city
manager the authority to contemplate an ISBA amendment with the county >> the no annexation zone >> including no annexation zones yeah I think that's >> and what if that doesn't go we come back to where Should the roads that we will take be part of that? >> No, that's a separate deal.
>> That's separate. We need to we need to get the the roads that we have to take. We need to take those. >> Correct. Part of RSDA. We need to take those. >> Right. >> So, we'll we'll do that. That's a side deal. Yeah. We'll get that one going pronto and then we'll present them a concept of a no annexation zone
amendment to the ISBA. >> So, now will we be considered as we're controlling our growth? Is that the goal? I mean that's a trick question tell you we are controlling our growth you know we're managing it now whether
we're managing it to the whims of the residential boc that's another question >> you know we always talk about growth and to me all we're doing is planning because the growth numbers >> that's true >> what are we how many >> 40,000 >> right you know there's 40,000 out there
but that's just planned it's not you know, we're just trying to plan this and that's I think this is a good idea. >> So, what is the time frame that we're talking when presenting and then coming back? What do we >> I it dep you know I think it could be
lickety split. It just it depends on how the devil's in the details. I mean, if everybody totally buys in to what we say, you know, I I could see by Christmas we could zip it together and be done, you know, but the devil's going to be in the details and in the language
and, you know, how we draw the lines and is are all the cities going to jump on board. So, it could be super quick or could be something else that drags on. But I I don't want but but this is a pretty consequential shift in the discussion which is president when when you guys tell when you guys tell me no
we're not taking county roads >> that we don't have to take >> I think the heartbeat of the JPA now goes away. So I don't like I say I don't want to go back to county empty-handed. So >> I this so we're not just saying no.
We're coming to the county. We're not being contrarians. We're working with them whether they believe it or not. We're coming up with a concept that really benefits them, not us. >> But we have to have the buy in of the cities that below at the bottom. >> But that's part of your how long will it
take? >> That's what I'm ask jurisdictional buy in. And if everybody likes it, it'll be quick. And if everybody likes it and still it's going to be devil in the details, it'll take us some time. >> And I think sticking with the foundation of what exists probably helps with that
efficiency as well. >> I'll say this, it it'll be quicker than the JPA or TD. Absolutely. For sure. For sure. That's my opinion. >> All right. So, did who made the motion? Did someone make the motion? >> Really? Yeah. >> Okay. Would someone like to make a
motion? and and the and the mo I'll check the the motion was to authorize the city manager to contemplate a amendment to the ISBA that includes no annexation zones. That would be the motion. >> I'll make that motion.
>> All right, we have a motion on the floor. We have a second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion from the commission? >> Oh, did we hear it? Oh, you just >> Jimmy made the motion. I'm sorry. Commissioner Connell seconded it. Any further discussion from the commission?
>> No. >> Any public comments? >> Seeing none on the motion on the floor. Roll call. >> Commissioner Conneal. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Barry? >> Yes. Mayor Reeseman? >> Yes. >> Thank you, city manager, for all that.
And we will go into roll call. >> Commissioner Bur. >> Nothing tonight. >> Commissioner Conneal. >> Just one thing. I uh I use the word temporary stay on annexation, not mortorium.
You did. You did. That was good. >> Commissioner Barry. Um, nothing tonight. Thanks. >> Uh, we did receive a application for the Historic Preservation Board this evening. And I know we just appointed those, but rather than bringing it back to another meeting, uh Joshua Brewster, who is in the audience, applied for the
Historic Preservation Board, and I wanted to see if we could get if you would be okay, we get a motion to go ahead and appoint him to that board. I know we have vacancies on that. >> Absolutely. So >> yeah, I'll make a motion to appoint him to the board. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> Roll call on appointing Joshua Brewster
to the Historic Preservation Board. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. Commissioner Connell, >> yes. >> Mayor Reason, >> yes. And lastly, I want to thank the Leburg Police Department, Leburg Special Events. They put on a phenomenal national night out down here in downtown. It was absolutely beautiful.
Kudos to all of them. Uh, a couple events that you guys make you aware of. October 25th if you're coming downtown trick-or- treat on Main Street. I think we had 9,000 people down here last time. October 25th from 4 to 7:30 I think it is. So, be a great event. And then our recreation department October 24th
through the 26th is doing a haunted house at Mo Morris. I encourage you to do that. It'll be fun. It was a great time last year. With that, I'll take a motion to adjurnn. So move. Meeting adjourned.