like call the planning zoning commission meeting to order June 18th 4:30. Please stand in my dear heavenly father business of the city of Leburg. We pray that the decisions made here today will
be pleasing in your sight. We pray this holy name. Amen. >> Amen. >> 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. Thank you very much. had a opportunity to look at the minutes of approved as submitted. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> A second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. Thank you very much.
>> [clears throat] >> Um before we get started, anybody wishing to speak on any of the uh issues today needs to fill out one of these forms up there. If you don't have one, you're you won't be able to speak. Just to let you know that
um Dan, you want to go ahead and do your thing? Oh, yeah. Thank you. SW everybody in. Anybody that's going to speak today, please stand to be sworn in. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. Thank you, Dan. I knew I was forgetting something. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome everyone to the June 18, 2026 planning commission meeting of the city
of Leburg. My name is Dan Miller, planning director for the city. Staff present today includes deputy director Candy Harper, executive assistant Sabrina Mitchell, senior planners Diane Yuckle and Max Van Allen and planners Melissa Meadows de los Santos and Mel
Ortiz. Also, city attorney Jennifer Cotch is here as well. Today's agenda and speaker's registry is available on the table by the exit door out here. If you wish to speak on a case, we would ask that you do please sign the speaker's registry and turn it in to
Miss Mitchell who's seated here to my left. Under the rules of participation, the meeting is conducted using the following process. Everyone wishing to speak is sworn in as you have been. Uh the chairman will announce each case.
The staff will then present exhibits for the record which will include maps, photos, text as shown on the screens up here. Staff will then provide background on the case consisting of general information about the request and read a
recommendation into the record. The applicant will then have an opportunity to speak on the case and the public will be offered an opportunity to comment. Then the applicant will be allowed to respond. The chairman will then close the case to the public. The planning
commission will then discuss the case. The chairman will then close the case and a motion to vote will be taken and then they will move on to the next item on the agenda. The planning commission it consists of citizens appointed by the
city commission. They are charged with two primary functions. The first is to make final decisions on cases such as variances and conditional use permits. And this the second is making recommendations for issues to be heard
by the city commission. Today on the agenda, there is one variance case which will receive a final decision. There are four other cases that will be recommendations. The those recommendations will then go
on to the city commission for final decisions. [clears throat] The city staff provides its recommendations to the planning commission based on the city's comprehensive plan, the city's land development regulations, and the state of Florida statutes.
There are also tentative dates on the for the city commission hearings for these cases, the four cases that will go forward to the city commission. Those are listed in bold on the agenda. These dates are subject to be changed, so we do ask that you would check with our
office or the city clerk's office to be sure of the final hearing date so you don't waste a trip. And finally, on behalf of the city of Leburg Planning staff and the Leburg planning commission, we do thank you for your participation in today's public hearing process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you very much. Uh before we get started, I just found out that uh you've been here for 20 years. >> Congratulations. >> Thanks for [applause] >> you guys doing a great job. Okay, under
new business, um the first two cases are related. So what we do is we we read both of them and present all the information on both cases together and then um vote on them separately. We'll do that for one and two and four and five.
So on case number one, it's public hearing case number LSCP 26905 Merit Ranch Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment. And number two is public hearing case number PUD 26906 Merit Ranch Plan Unit Development.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the background, this project consists of an annexation small-cale comp plan and reszoning. This is on a site consisting of a 445 plus or minus undeveloped acres. It's generally located on the south side of County Road 48, west of
North Austin Merit Road and east of the Sumpter County line. As you can see on the screens above, under the overall proposal, the future land use application for the project is requesting a change from Lake County Rural and City Neighborhood mixed use to
city estate. The zoning application for the project is requesting a change from Lake County agriculture and city R1A, which is single family residential to city of Leburg plan unit development. So the request for this the request is
for approval of this zoning and future land use for future development consisting of 523 detached single family residential units at a gross density of 1.17 units per acre. Senior planner Diane Yekl will be presenting the maps and
photo exhibits including the aerial zoning, future land use, surrounding land use, wetlands, flood zone maps, uh commission maps, and CR maps. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. So, starting off
for the extended aerial, we have uh the subject property being shown as south of County Road 48, west of North Austin Merritt Road and east of the Sumpter County line. And for the aerial, it's a closer view
showing that it is south of County Road 48 and east of the Sumpre County line. for Lake County future land use. Part of the subject property does have Lake County rural future land use, which there is
also some to the north, east, and to the south. And the majority of the subject property has an FU of city neighborhood mixed use, which is also to the north and east, and there is also city estate
residential to the southeast. The proposed future land use is a state residential for Lake County zoning. Part of the subject property has an A agriculture zoning which is also to the south and
there are a few parcels to the east and north. For the zoning, the subject property is most mostly zoned R1A single family residential which is also to the east and we have age restricted
development to the north and RE1 estate density residential to the southeast. The proposed zoning is PUD planned unit development for surrounding land use. To the north we have vacant unbuil unbuildable
residential and pasture improved. To the east we have pasture improved and to the south we have single family and vacant residential. For flood zones there is a substantial amount of of the subject property with
flood zones as well as wetlands. The subject property is not near um a CRA and the subject property is near and partially in commission district 3.
And on to the photos. Uh the top photo is a closeup of the sign looking southeast on County Road 48 into the property. And the bottom photo is pulling out a little bit the County Road um 48 looking into the property as well.
And the top photo is looking southwest on County Road 48. The bottom photo is looking northwest on County Road 48, which is across the street. And the top photo is looking northeast on County Road 48. And that's
all I have, Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Miss Yuckle. With that, we move to the departmental review summary. project was sent out to all city departments along with the Lake County school board and Lake County government for their comments. Under the city department responses, there were no
substantiative comments from the city departments. Public works department did advise that there would need to be a separate utilities intake meeting which is a standard part of the uh review process. Now, school board noted that the project will be subject to school
concurrency under Lake County Public Works. The applicants currently working with the Lake County Public Works Department and if approved will have to provide per the PUD agreement all requirements as noted by Lake County Public Works which would include potentially but not limited to
additional drainage right away for roads, trails, turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, etc. It's a part of the each PUB that comes in. and they have to work with Lake County. Um, under public responses, per Florida statute and city of Leburg code requirements,
the project was legally advertised, posted, and letters were sent out to the surrounding property owners within [clears throat] 200 feet. There were no public responses to the advertisements, letters, or signed posting. Under the terms of the PUD
agreement, the proposal consists of 654 acres. Permitted uses include 523 detached single family residential homes. No other uses are permitted. The project proposal includes a number of conditions and development standards.
Within the project, there are proposing three different lot sizes. A maximum of 383 50- foot lots, which would be 6,000 square feet um and 1,700 square foot minimum house size. a maximum a maximum
of 103 60 foot wide lots. That's 7200 square feet with an 18,800 square foot minimum house size and a minimum of 37 foot wide lots. That'd be 8,400 square f feet with a,900 foot minimum house size.
For all lots, there are architectural standards. twocar garages, gutter requirements, maximum building height of two floors, 35 ft, which is consistent with what's been approved in the area. 35% of the property must be an open space. There is dark sky lighting
required. Boulevard incense is required at all access points. Code compliant landscaping plan is required. There's also included in there a split rail fence along County Road 48 and around the remainder of the site. and 25- foot landscape buffers are required around
all areas not adjacent to existing lands existing wetlands. That goes for the fences as well. If you're adjacent to the existing wetland, you don't have to put up the fence. The use of bear or bermuda grass is required in place of St. Augustine. Um we're requiring 2.4 acres of recreation space that would
include active and passive uses to include a swimming pool, trails, a children's playground with equipment, and fenced dog park area. The wetlands and flood zones are protected in the PUB. And we do also now require a double
row of silt fence to protect buffers, those 25 ft buffers that we've talked about. Wanted to also note that uh the city has added some language to the conditions of PUDS, which are new, but they they are I think important to note.
In section four, landscape plans can now be reviewed under the city's landscape code in chapter 25, which is standard, or using the plant list under the University of Florida's IFAS Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. This
list includes more Florida friendly plants and pollinator friendly plants is the kind of things that we want um anywhere in the area. And then section 14 also requires perpetual maintenance of the site by the HOA and residents uh to give
code enforcement some additional leverage and this is going into all the new PUDS going forward. Um site access site access is shown on the site plan coming from county road 48. It would be required, as you're aware, the boulevard style construction, which has an 8 foot
median with landscaping and wider lanes, and the developer is required to provide any and all expansions and upgrades to the access point as needed and required by Lake County as we noted previously. All the development will be on city water and waste water, so there's no wells or septic systems on the property.
And finally, there is a phasing or expiration clause which requires that the development move forward with substantial commencement within four years or the property will automatically revert to the RE1 zoning standards which is one acre per unit. I'd like to go
ahead and read the recommendations for this proposed project if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mhm. >> Under case number LSCP26905, the large scale comp plan amendment for the merit case. Planning and zoning
department is recommending approval of this request for the following reasons. One, the project meets the requirements of chapter 163.3184 Florida statutes for large scale comprehensive plan amendments. Two, the proposed large-scale comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with the adjacent future land use designations of
city age restricted development, estate, residential, and neighborhood mixed use. Three, the proposed zoning classification of PUD is compatible as conditioned with the current surrounding zoning districts of Lake County agriculture and city age restricted development estate density residential
and single family residential. The proposed future land use designation for the site is consistent with the city's growth management plan. Future land use element goal one objective 1.6. The action requested his vote to approve the staff's recommendation to change the future land use of the subject property
from Lake County rural and city neighborhood mixed use to city of Leburg estate residential and forward this recommendation to the city commission for their consideration under case number PUD 26906 which is the reasonzoning to city plan
unit development for the merit property. Planning and zoning department is recommending approval of this request for the following reasons. One, the proposed zoning classification of PUD planned unit development is compatible as conditioned with the current surrounding zoning districts of Lake County agriculture, age restricted
development and city estate residential and single family residential. to the proposed largescale comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with the adjacent future land use designations of city age restricted development estate residential and neighborhood mixeduse and three the proposed request as
condition does not appear to create a detriment to surrounding properties based on the conditions location and proximity to future compatible development. The action required, excuse me, the action requested is to vote to approve staff's recommendation to
reszone the subject property from Lake County agriculture and city single family residential to city of Leburg plan unit development and forward to the city commission for their consideration. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, based on our view of this proposal and the fact that
it is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and land development regulations, staff is recommending approval for case numbers LSP 26905 and PUD 26906
Merit Ranch. I'd also like to note that Miss Tara Tedro of the Louns Law Firm in Orlando, the applicant for the property, is here to represent the case and answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Any questions of staff?
>> Not time. >> I've got one quick question. >> Yeah. How many acres are in the county of this total? How many are in the city? >> I forgot. And I had that number. >> So we'd be annexing in
>> part of the part of it is already in the city. If you can back one up, Melissa, I apologize. I had that number on the and I forgot to bring it with me, Mr. Kelly. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Here you can see
on this map. Yeah, it would be the colored in is Leburg. >> That one is There we go. The colored in with the stripes is Leburg. And then that little section on the left,
those one, two, three, four, five, six parcels on the left on the west side. >> Yes, sir. Those are in the county. That's what's being annexed. Thank you. >> As well as the one above.
>> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That's correct. >> Okay. >> All right. Go ahead. Please state your name and your address, please. >> Tara Tedro Louns Law, 215 North Yola Drive, Orlando, Florida. Here on behalf of the applicant, is there a clicker to go through the presentation? Make it a little easier. I'll have a quick
presentation because staff's presentation was so thorough, but I think there's a couple points that are worth touching on about the the pointer. >> Oh, per perfect. Am I just going to give you the click through? Okay, thank you.
>> Whenever that presentation gets pulled up to answer the question that was asked um prior to me standing up, it's 118 acres are currently in in Lake County. It all was under common ownership, but over time some acres were in the city. Some had not yet been annexed because of
some contracts in the past. We're trying to clean up those jurisdictional boundaries so that the same ownership group has ownership of all the parcels under the same jurisdictional limits, too. >> There was a presentation sent in, but I don't even need it. I can just go through if you want to go to the comp
plan uh the PUD plan that that's just fine for my purposes. So as you heard that the staff presented we have 445.38 acres 118 are in the county the remainder 327 are currently under the jurisdictional limits uh of the city. I
think the important distinction for what we are asking one is you probably will not often see me get up here and ask for less than what we are entitled and and significantly less in this instance. There's no net unit difference between what the comp plan would allow under your future land use. It's four to the
acre from what you have today in the city's property versus what we are asking for. The real difference comes down to what that comp plan designation in the city of neighborhood mixed use would permit versus what you would get with what we are asking for. So under
today's current designation of neighborhood mixed use, that acreage within the city would permit four dwelling units to the acre, but it doesn't just permit us to have single family residential homes. It would also allow us and in fact mandate a certain percentage to have things like office
industrial or or commercial non-residential uses essentially. Alternatively, it would say that up to 85% of the whole property can be residential. Not just single family homes, apartments, town homes, condos, multif family units, villas, all of
those unit types are called out there. So, it's a much more intense level of development that's permitted under the existing future land use designation. The estate residential future land use designation, while it permits four dwelling units to the acre, we are asking for significantly less under the
PUD plan. So the PUB plan, if you're able to pull that just the concept plan would be great. If you could pull that one up, please. So under under today, if you even look at what would be allowed in the county under that future land use plus what's
allowed today in the city under our future land use, you would be allowed to have 1,125 dwelling units. And that's without coming before you and asking for for any approvals. That would be going to pull permits and developing it uh under existing regulations. We are asking for
a reduction of 602 units from what is otherwise allowed today by Wright. If you compare it to what is being asked for on a future land use basis, we have a more significant decrease too. So we are asking for a state residential, the yield on a state residential versus what
we are asking for is a 1,259 unit difference. So again, this is a a significant downzoning um for lack of a better term that we are asking for with the plan today. You can see on the open space is significantly above anything that would be allowed to be developed by
right today. So under the existing zoning the 50% open space requirement that exists. We are at 66% open space on our plan. So we could certainly have gone in done a lot of wetland impacts yielded a lot more y lots than we currently have. But we were respecting
the topography on the site the way that the wetlands are certainly laid out. And we have a really nice thoughtful construction of a site plan because we designed it in a way that you have a majority of your lots with preservation and wetland and open space views. Everyone will have access to those types
of areas throughout the community. We have it integrated throughout the different residential pods obviously with the sidewalks and the amenities that will be offered to all of the residents. But it's a really beautiful piece of property when you keep all of the wetlands intact like we're showing on the plan. And having that much of the
property, 66% of it remain as preserved open space is going to make for a really beautiful um design. And we didn't do a track home lot. You can see these are curbalinear streets that are going to allow for us to have again a unique and thoughtful residential program that is a significant decrease in density from
what is otherwise permitted by right today on the entirety of the property. So, we do have three requests uh that are part of our application package and before you is that large-s scale comprehensive plan amendment and the reasonzoning to PUD. Happy to answer any questions you've had. You heard the professional staff gave a recommendation
of support and approval uh based on their review of our application, the comprehensive plan policies and applicable land development regulations. >> I have a question. >> That was a good presentation. Thank you. >> Didn't even need a PowerPoint. I guess
won't do it next time. I need I have two concerns and that's uh >> on the west side and on the east side or I >> I should say south side and east side they have access >> access access to where?
>> So those are just programmed potential future access points the city >> development for expansion or >> if if our neighbor develops and they want to have access through roads. The whole point is that when we're designing out these communities, we don't want to box ourselves in so that nobody around
us can connect to our street network in the future. We don't want to only have one road that everybody can get from point A to point B on. So, say things start to develop in the future and our neighbors wanted to have access through our property, they would be able to do that. It could also be a contemplation of potential emergency access points.
Those get worked out with the city in Lake County at the time we go in for permitting to determine where those secondary points of stabilized emergency access could be. >> That's my point because right now the only one is 48. >> So, so we do have a designed boulevard entrance which is code compliant as you heard the fire department reviewed that.
So, we do meet standards for designing that out. There's another access point on to 48 that exists today that we've looked at and could could stabilize and as well as the other access points on the bottom that go down to Shady Grove put you out on Youth Camp Road. Um again, these are what we have to explore
when we come in for site planning on a more detailed level than what we're showing you here. It >> just seems that last time we discussed this, we we thought that was going to be dealt with a little bit more than just potential access. And we don't, you know, we're at
such a preliminary stage on this one that we haven't done a final design of all of our access points. And when we come in, if there's something different going on to the south of us that provides connectivity points that we can use as another primary access, we would certainly be able to utilize it at that
time. It's just an analysis that your staff or Lake County Public Works is going to have to do to tell us if we can meet. and your fire department will certainly be reviewing our plans to determine whether or not there is sufficient emergency access for life safety issues to be taken into account.
>> Any other questions? >> And I'm happy to answer any questions if there's folks um in the public that have comments as well. >> No one signed up for it. So, >> okay. >> Thank you. Well, if there's uh no no other uh people to speak, we will
close to the public and discuss it. >> Any discussion? >> There was no p there was no comment on this. Right. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Nobody signed up to speak either. >> Yeah. >> Open. >> Yeah. That's nice.
>> And it's less than what I should imagine. >> All right. Well, on the public case LSP26905 merit branch larges scale comprehensive plan amendment. Um, do we have a motion
trying to find his mic? I would like to make a motion to approve public hearing case LSCP-26-905 Merit Ranch large scale comprehensive plan agree amendment. >> Thank is there a second? >> I'll second it.
>> Any discussion? >> I have a question. >> Okay. So this density is based on what is currently allowed. It's they're saying it's less density than would be allowed without this. >> Correct. >> Permitted. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> The concern that that I have as we all do is the traffic impact on Highway 48 and it's just I know the state of Florida has laws that can override what we decide, but that's always a concern on any development on 48 or 33 for me.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Anything else? Roll call. >> Commissioner Sen. >> Uh, yes. >> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Commissioner Robertson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bar, >> yes.
>> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Uh, public, excuse me, public hearing case PUD 26906, Merit Ranch, >> land unit development. Is there a motion? Id like to make a motion to
approve public hearing case PUD-26-906 Merit Ranch Plant Unit Development. >> I'll second it. Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you. >> Any discussion? >> Roll call. >> Commissioner Carter, >> yes. >> Commissioner Robertson, >> yes.
>> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Commissioner Kelly, >> yes. >> Commissioner S, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Public hearing case number
variance 26992 Leburg Square Audi sign variance. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this one's a little bit different and I'm have to take a minute to go through the if you would go to the recommendation
itself. It tells the whole story, but um, basically what is this is a request for a signed variance at Gator Plaza, which is the shopping center generally located at the corner of US 27 North, which is Citrus Boulevard there, and MLK
Boulevard. The applicant is requesting to renovate the current sign by increasing the permitted copy area and height of of the sign and structure. So this would allow the sign to remain at the existing 30 ft and would expand the size of the copy area to 266 square ft.
Article six, sign regulations of the city of Leburg code of ordinances allows for signs on major roadways which are being replaced or reconstructed to be a maximum of 12 ft height and 60 ft per square face by adding in the
frontage of the Gator Plaza Shopping Center which they have some frontage there along Citrus. The code then extends this allowance to 20 feet in height and 200 square feet in sign area. So what you have is the current sign
which has been there for a long time is an existing nonconforming structure. The applicant is basically asking to expand the nonconformity. In 2004 the city amended its zoning code which included the sign code requirements. sign codes are within
chapter 25 with the rest of the zoning. At that time, the sign code did allow for an amortization period of about six to seven years depending on the type of sign that made in so in 2004 when that code was adopted that made the amortization period in other words you
have to bring your old sign down to put put the new smaller ones up no later than the 2010 2011 time period. So as this amortization period co coincided with the great recession 20078 and all that time period
which was miserable for everyone >> the city decided to extend that amortization period by 10 years. So that extended the amortization to 2010 to 2011. Now, I want to say something for the record because um staff does not
necessarily agree with this 12 foot height restriction. Uh particularly for properties along major roadways such as US 27441, Citrus Boulevard, those contain some properties with significant road frontage. Staff holds the position that
signs along major roadways should have more height and sign area. However, over the years, many businesses along US 27 have complied with the current requirements, which is 12 ft height, 60 square ft per sign face. But generally,
those properties were smaller than this Gator Plaza, which I believe is 25 acres. Now, in summary, the property owner has had 20 years to comply with the 2004 code amendments, but we haven't had any action on that.
Now staff does believe that taking into account the amount of road frontage acreage and size of the shopping center that 25 foot height is a reasonable compromise in this instance. It's anticipated
because we are currently working on sign code changes and we really do want to get rid of the 12oot height restriction. It works for smaller properties and that that'll remain for that. But for larger properties, we need to do something different. So,
and the new code is is going to likely refle reflect what we're talking about tonight. But within the application, we have no other justification for the variance, the request. So, here's we came up with some ideas to
try to compromise here. Planning and and I'll get through this whole thing and show you the compromise. Planning and zoning department is recommending denial of the request for these reasons. One, the proposed request for a variance to section 25424 and 25423
to allow an existing non-conforming sign to remain 30 ft in height in the C3 highway commercial zoning district on 25 plus or minor acres plus or minus acres would allow the continuence and expansion of an existing nonconformity. Two properties within the same zoning
district should be treated equally and under the same conditions as similar properties within the district. Allowing that request would not be consistent with this standard planning principle. Three city sign regulations were amended in 2004 and did require compliance by
2011 which was extended to 2021 with the exception of face changes to the signs. Now the applicant has changed sign the ownership has changed sign faces during this time period but did not bring the sign into compliance as required by code. We have no other competent
substantial evidence under number four that has been provided to support the variance request. Now under five, staff is in the process of revising the current sign regulations which are anticipated to revise height limits, sign area maximums, and to update
overall sign requirements. So staff would be amendable to allowing a height of 25 ft and 200 square ft of sign because it's a 25 acre property. So the action requested is vote to deny the proposed variance to
section 25424 and 40 25423 to allow an existing non-conforming sign to remain 30 ft in height and allow for 266 square feet of copy area. That's the recommendation.
However, should the commission choose to approve the proposed v variance, staff is recommending an alternative option. And that would be vote to approve to approve a variance with the following
approve this variance with amended conditions. And those conditions would be simple. The sign would be a monument style sign which is compliant with all city of Leburg code and building code requirements except as amended by this document and the height maximum would be
25 ft and 200 square ft in the sign area. So what I'm giving you what staff is giving is is two options that we're offering. The commission is allowed to do what it wants to do, but we're saying
if you if you look at the variance as requested, we recommend denial. But if you amend that variance to go from 30 feet to 25 and make it 200 square feet on the sign area, staff is okay with that. We're trying to give you
something to work with rather than just >> not just say yes or no and then they're the applicant is stuck with a 12oot sign because we don't think that's right either. >> Gotcha. And Mr. J Barry, I believe Mr. Barry's here. Um, he's the applicant. He can answer any questions. I don't know if you brought anybody with you, Mr.
Barry, but um, he could help with any questions as well. >> Okay. Any, uh, questions of staff? >> Um, so I'm I'm just going to repeat what I heard. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um, >> it's kind of tough to follow, though.
>> Yeah. Okay. [laughter] So, I heard this sign is too tall. They've had plenty of time to fix it. They um came in and asked for the sign at excuse me at uh 30 feet and that's not that's not in what's current um code.
>> But you are we are allowed to approve a different uh plan of action which would reduce the height to 25 ft. So go down to 25 ft and 200 feet of signage. Okay. >> Per side. Clarify that. Per side. Yes
ma'am. Okay. And is the plaza okay with that? >> It's been offered. They have not accepted it at this point. >> Oh, I guess we wait to hear from the applicant, too. >> But I think we should hear from the applicant. Yes, ma'am. >> I would like to hear from you, too.
>> Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? >> No. >> Jay, you got anything to add? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. State your name and your address, please. >> Name and address. >> And your name? >> Yeah. J O Berry uh 2606 South Street,
Leburg, Florida. They're I wanted to add they're [clears throat] also willing they also have a pretty good sized pylon on Martin Luther uh Junior King Boulevard King Junior Boulevard and they're they're going to they're amenable to taking that down altogether and it's it's almost as
big as the one that's there. So, they're just trying to get something, as you can see, a lot nicer. And, uh, they just have a lot of major, you know, anchor tenants in that center, as you can see. And they're, uh, you know, just
what, you know, I mean, they're just trying to get the best sign they can, you know, and this is pretty much what we do all over the state for them. >> Cool. >> So, the, if I may, Mr. Chairman, excuse me, [clears throat] the sign
The sign here would would be a a great improvement, yes, but the height still a little high. And in our code, we want we don't want the columns. We want a full base here, which that's I I'm 100% sure Mr. Barry can take care of that. >> Yeah.
>> Um staff's only objection is we think it should be a little bit smaller >> and but we don't think it should go down to 12 feet. Okay. >> Uh any questions of Mr. Yes. Is he Are you guys willing to take
the 25? >> It's not us per se. It's going to be my client, the owner of the property. Uh >> I mean, I don't know what they're Dan. I don't know what the penalties are for that staying up the way it is. I mean, is there any kind of >> what what do you impose there?
>> Doing knock it [laughter] down >> because I mean I haven't seen really, you know, I mean, something I can go back to them with. You know, >> it's really it's our job to decide and then they just have to comply to it. >> That's right. >> But I should know the current code. I mean, because I know I remember the
original meeting 20 over 20 years ago when we took it down then it ran a whole bunch of stuff. So >> I mean is there I haven't seen anything but is there something on in the in the law or the ordinance that reads that they can be fined or I mean >> actually there is I believe it's 100 or
150 a day. Um I don't know 100%. Mr. Yeah, >> but it it is minimum 100 100 bucks a day. I know that >> cuz they were asking and [clears throat] I just I didn't know what to tell them. That's I was going to take it up with you. But, you know, >> if there's not really any kind of uh
downside to that, they're almost wanting to fix the two signs up that they have, you know, and paint them and chase change the faces and, you know, convert them to LED type thing. So, I'm just trying to see what I go back to them with, you know. >> Okay. Staff is good with the 25 ft. I mean, I think uh
>> No, I think that's fair. I just, you know, >> yeah, it's 25 or 12. >> Yeah, I agree. I'm not arguing the point with Dan. No, I agree. It's a good, you know, I just, like I say, it's not my property and, you know, they may just, you know, decide to, you know,
keep them up. But if there's but if there's penalties, I go back, then I can kind of try to light a fire under him, too. You know, [laughter] be like, look, here's >> Any other questions? Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. >> We'll close to the uh public.
>> I do want to say that I'm not real happy that they didn't comply with the rules in the first place. >> The makes it real hard to accept the variance on this. The recession played a lot into what was ended up being enforced over the years because
businesses including this government were laying off and you know it it was a I think it was an act of compassion more than anything else. >> Yeah. Because uh and it and it needed to be done. Uh like like I said, Mr. Chairman, I'm not a fan of the 12oot. I
never have been. Um and >> but 20 years to comply is a pretty long time. >> Well, and and because of the recession, it really never got >> No. No. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> It it never really took enforcement action. And a lot of times it depends on
who the city commissioners and who the city manager are. We've had previous city managers that were really wanted to deal with signs and some that just aren't as concerned. And you that's >> that's all fine. I just want to make that statement because >> Yes, sir. you know, when you're asking for a variance, which
>> we were always told you shouldn't do a variance unless it's, you know, something. >> Actually, it's not so much a 25 foot 12T issue. When you think about if you
add in the uh frontage under our code, we can get them to 20 feet. So, really all they're asking for is 5T. >> Yeah. >> And I I as staff I'm >> I'm not arguing that the Yes, sir. the height or anything. I'm just making a statement that I don't like that they did not comply and they're asking for
favors. Now, that that hits >> the city didn't put any pressure on anybody >> that that hits home, you know, so I just want that passed along to the owners. >> Yes, sir. >> And just to clarify, uh non uh conforming structures including signage
are able to remain um as long as they're not increased. And if they are damaged 50% or more or abandoned um then they do not have the right to
rebuild that same uh size. They would have to come into compliance. So because the size >> a moratorum to to do that [clears throat] >> the >> a moratorum for >> to correct >> the the amortization period was the time period they were supposed you could leave it up up until that date and then
it was supposed to come down. So >> okay well that's my point. They didn't do that. So, they aren't in compliance, >> right? It would be considered a non-conforming sign. And so, all they could really do is paint it and keep it in uh suitable condition. But as soon as
it's either abandoned or it's destroyed because of a hurricane, then the current regulations would have a moratorum then if they could leave it up anyway. >> There there actually wasn't a mortorium. I think it was just the >> Okay. Well, that was a ter >> Okay. not if if I said mortorium, excuse
me, but it's advertisation period. >> All right. Well, I just it's just a principal thing for me. But I whatever is decided here, I I would like it to uh include if if it's accepted or if the 25 ft's accepted, I would like it to
include that if there's any damage or significant um work done on it that it's brought to current code. So, you're saying if they don't want the 25, they have to >> No, what I'm saying is whichever one we
decide whether we we deny it or if it goes to if we decide to do the 25, you know, fine, do the 25, but if if hurricane comes or or if they want to redo something, it's got to go to whatever the current code is. >> Okay? >> So, they'll have to redo the sign. That
way, they will be compliant compliance. That's just I'd like to see that. That's just my personal comment. >> The any other [clears throat] >> The dimensions that I'm seeing on this are the height of what we're seeing on the screen is 25 ft.
>> Is 300 in. >> Divide that by 12, it's it's 25 ft. So, >> are they asking for 30 feet? >> No, >> they're asking to remain at 30 feet. >> It's 30 feet now. >> It's 30 feet now. They're asking to remain at 30 feet. It gets it's real confusing to go through this, but the
>> sketch shows it drawn is 25 ft high. >> I'm not sure we're looking at the same one. >> Well, I'm looking at this 300 in >> there. That's the one. Okay, that's a different >> Oh, >> that that would be at 25 feet. We'd want them to enclose.
It's a little >> but but have a pedestal rather than open space. >> Absolutely. And and just the two feet would have two feet of it would have to be enclosed. and then reduce to 200 square ft. I'm less concerned
about the sign area than the height truly. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> All right. Uh public hearing case number V 26992
Leburg Square Audi sign variance. I will uh accept the motion. >> Who wants to work that one? >> So, well, let me say this >> is if you decide you want to go 25, then you got to deny the the the the current
one. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. Sorry. >> And then we'll make another motion to accept the 25 if you want 25. >> Yeah. I make a motion we deny the request for 30 foot high sign periods. Seconded.
>> Any discussion? Roll call. >> Commissioner Robertson. >> If I agree with him is no, right? >> I'm sorry. >> You would say yes. >> Oh, yes. So, it's the opposite. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yes. I'm glad you asked that
because I wasn't thinking. [laughter] >> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Does make you think, doesn't it?
>> Okay. Um, is there a motion to be made besides that? I'd like to make a motion that we uh approve a request if made for a 25 foot 25 foot high sign with a
minimum of a is it a two foot high pedestal below? >> Yes, sir. >> That's the motion. >> And 200 square feet. >> Okay. >> 200 feet. >> Do you want the the signage to be limited to 200 square feet on each
side? That's what is here. >> What is the code now? Is that >> they're asking for 266 is what they request. >> Okay. With that including a 200 square foot signage on each side of the sign. >> How about the compliance if it's destroyed or major
that's in I'm not sure what you mean. do anything >> if it's destroyed in a hurricane or if it they want some major work done after this, they have to go to the current code. It's what I was I was requesting personally, but I mean you don't have to
put it in your motion if you don't want to. >> No. >> Okay. Um is there a second? >> A second. Um, roll call. >> Commissioner Carter, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Senate, >> no. >> Commissioner Kelly, >> yes. >> Commissioner Baroft, >> yes. >> Commissioner Robertson, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> And I The reason I said no is cuz that
was left out cuz Okay. I think if it's destroyed, it needs to be like everybody else cuz it got away with it all those years. Okay. I get on my soap box every once in a while. You got that right. >> Yeah, I swear. Good job.
>> All right. Thank you very much. Uh public hearing case and we're going to do four and five together. Uh, public hearing case number LSCP26984, [clears throat and snorts] JCQ Leburg, Palmetto Drive, large scale
comprehensive plan amendment and public hearing case number RZ26 985 JCQ Leburg Palmetto Drive reszoning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the
background of this project, this consists of an annexation, small a large scale comp plan and reszoning on a site consisting of 65 plus or minus undeveloped acres which is generally located on the west side of US 27 and south of Palmetto Drive. Under the
overall proposal, the future land use application for the project is requesting a change from Lake County urban low to city estate, which is four units per acre, four units per acre. the same that was spoken at the previous um
case. The zoning application for the project is requesting a change from Lake County a agriculture to city of Leburg planned unit development. The request itself is for approval of zoning for a future development consisting of detached single family residential
units, some town houses, some commercial development and upstairs apartments in the commercial section. Senior planner Max Van Allen will present the maps and photo exhibits which include aerial zoning, future land use, surrounding land use, wetlands, flood zone maps,
commission maps, and CRA maps. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Our first image is going to be the extended aerial showing the subject property west of US27 and north generally north of Dewey Robbins Road.
The aerial shows the subject property west of US 27 and south of Palmetto Drive. The existing Lake County feature land use is urban low and is surrounded by urban low to the north, west, and south
and rural transition to the east. The surrounding city future land use includes estate residential to the northeast, southeast, and southwest, institutional to the north, lowdensity
residential to the south and southeast. The proposed future land use is low density residential or is it a state? >> It is actually a state. >> It's estates. Excuse me for that error. Appreciate the correction. The Lake
County zoning existing is A agriculture and is surrounded by A agriculture to the southwest, the north, the east. PUD planned unit development to the northwest and south, RP residential professional to the southeast, RM mixed
home residential, C1 neighborhood commercial, and CP planned commercial to the north. The surrounding city zoning includes PUD planned unit development to the north, northeast, southeast, and southwest.
The proposed zoning on the site is city PUD planned unit development. Surrounding land uses include church and manufactured homes to the north, timber, single family and vacant residential to the east, row cropland to the south,
single family to the south, and residential commons area to the west. There are flood zone A and X on the subject property. There are also wetlands present on the
subject property. The surrounding city commission district is district 4. Surrounding city developments include the Windmill properties to the east, Lake Co. Properties to the southeast, and White Marsh phases 2 and three to
the southwest. The subject property is located within the Leburg ISBA. Signs were posted. The top image is a closeup of the sign looking south on Palmetto Drive into the subject property. The bottom image is looking north on Palmetto Drive from the subject
property. The top image is looking east on Palmetto Drive. The bottom image is looking south on Palmetto Drive into the subject property. The top image is looking, excuse me, there's an error. This is also Palmetto Drive from the
subject property. Closeup of the sign looking south on Palmetto Drive into the subject property on the bottom image. Looking north again on Palmetto Drive as the top image. Looking west on Palmetto Drive from the subject property as the
bottom image. Looking east on Palmetto Drive. This is the second sign posting and looking south on Palmetto Drive into the subject property. Last sign. Closeup of the sign looking west on US Highway 27 into the subject property. The bottom
image is looking north along US Highway 27 from the subject property. The top image is looking east across US Highway 27. The bottom image is looking south along US Highway 27. And finally looking west from US Highway 27 into the subject
property. That's all I have, Mr. Miller. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Van Allen. Um, with that we move on to the departmental review summary. The project was sent out to all the city departments plus Lake County government and Lake County school board for their comments.
Uh, under city department responses, there's no substantiative comments back from the city departments. The under school board residential portion of the proposed development is subject to school concurrency review. So, a proportionate share mitigation agreement
may be required. And just as a reminder, those proportionate share mitigation agreements are based on annual enrollment at the time of the development and there is a cash payment to provide it's basically a cash payment
a contract with the school board to provide student stations. So that will be taken care of under Lake County Public Works. The applicant will be working with Lake County Public Works and if approved will have to provide per the PUD all the requirements of Lake County, including but not limited to any
additional drainage, rightway for roads, trails, turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes. Under public responses, [clears throat] per the Florida statute and city of Leburg code of ordinances, project was legally advertised,
posted, and letters were sent out to surrounding property owners within 200 feet. The city did receive significant public response for disapproval of the project. To summarize, the objections were in regard to concerns about loss of
wildlife and wetlands, storm water concerns, increased traffic noise and dust, requests for walls or fences as much as 10 ft high. Request for 80oot lots along plantation boundary. Request
for only one floor buildings along the plantation boundaries. Request to increase the buffer size 15 from 15 ft requested to 25 ft. In addition, within your packets, there is a petition in addition to all of the other the emails
and things we received. There is a petition signed by I think it's 87 residents in 78 homes um from the plantation. um several form letters uh in there and also the quote of severe incompatibility
with the existing neighborhood. Staff would like to thank all the residents who did send in comments. Um and I say that because in reading through the comments, we did take into account these comments and did write the PUD with those in
mind. I want to kind of go through those. Um we we looked at it and the request for increasing the buffer size from 15 to 25 feet. That's done. We increased lot sizes for properties adjacent to the plantation from the proposed 50 ft to 70
ft. We required only single family residences to be adjacent to plantation which will reduce the number of lots on the proposed site plan there. We required all town home lots to be adjacent to US 27. We required all
commercial uses to be adjacent to US 27. [clears throat] We required an opaque fencing between the plantation and the subject property and a split rail fence along US 27. And that fence would also apply to properties along the north boundary.
Um in addition, there is a traffic study requirement that's to be done by a third party and reviewed by another third party under contract with the city. The traffic study was completed. It's standard part of the development process. Section 11 of the PUB wanted to note that the wetlands existing on the
site are protected and they're also protected by state statute. And also in section 11, there is a requirement for an environmental study. The study was completed. It's also a standard part of the development process. [cough] So all requirements of those studies do
have to be completed prior to development. So that's just a summary. uh tried to mention everything that everyone had sent in here. I hope I didn't leave anything out, but we wanted to let people know that we did receive and consider their comments. So, thank
you for everyone who did choose to comment. Um want to go over the PUB if I may. Um the proposal consists of 65 plus or minus a uses. There is a mix of uses in this proposal. 56 detached single
family residential homes, 40 town homes, 35 condominium units, and 30 along and 40 town homes. They have to be along 27. 35 condominiums have to be along 27 and 38,000 square feet of commercial. It has to be all those have to be adjacent to
27. Okay. Um nothing else is permitted. So those are the uses. The proposed the project proposed does include conditions and development standards within the PUD. very comprehensive PUD on this one that we wrote, Mr. Chairman. Um,
section four talks about all single family lots must be on the western side of the property. Now, as you'll see later, the way it's designed, this has a very limited uh number of lots adjacent to Plantation, but we'll show you that shortly. All
commercial development townhouse and condo uses have to be adjacent to Highway 27. Single family lots are divided into two sizes. One is the 50- foot lots which is behind the commercial and then the 70 foot lots which is only
a few adjacent to plantation. Um there are two car garage requirements, gutter requirements, minimum 35% in open space, dark in section five, we have dark sky lighting which is shown in exhibit F.
And for if I may the to explain the dark sky lighting concept, uh the city's been using that over the last year or two. So when development comes in, you're not lighting up the neighbors. It's a a way of shading the light fixture so that
it's covered and it directs light um in a much tighter area, but it still allows for security that's needed in any uh built environment. We have so we have the dark sky lighting. Code compliant landscaping is required. 25- ft buffer between any
homes as seen on the site plan and the plantation development is required along Highway 27. We're requiring a 4ft split rail fence and a six-foot fence between, as I stated earlier, between the existing plantation homes that abut lots
in this development. Uh it's sixoot is the maximum in residential areas. So I can't go any higher than that. And it's also along the northern boundary of this property where there's some homes up there as well. Uh the use of beer berm bermuda grass is required in place of
St. Augustine. There is a requirement for 26,000 ft of recreation space that will include a playground and dog park. That's about a half an acre that would be and we can have that cited away from any of the other residences as well. There are design and architectural
standards that require the builder to apply at least five design features for each single family unit. And as we talked earlier, we've added some of these new conditions in terms of the landscape plan review between the city and uh the city still does it just using the
IFAS ability for the Florida friendly and pollinator plants and the perpetual maintenance requirements. All those are added. There is site access coming off of Highway 27 only. It's not going to be connected into any other subdivision. There's one access point plus a stabilized emergency access that would
be required. There is the requirement on the access to be a boulevard style construction. Uh and again that is a generally speaking that's going to be an 8ft median landscape and you can have signs on either both sides of the roads, the two roads or you can have one in the
middle. The developer would also have to provide any and all expansions or upgrades to that access point as required by Lake County and and uh FDOT. Um all the development has to be on city water and wastewater. There is service
available there. Uh so there will be no wells or septics on the property and our utilities have indicated that there is sufficient capacity to serve the development at this time. So if they wait too late and there's no capacity, they they can't do anything. Uh finally, we do have the standard phasing clause
that requires development move forward with substantial commencement within four years or or the property automatically reverts to the RE1 zoning district standards, which is one acre per unit. That means you have to have one acre full acre in order to put one
house on it versus one unit per acre, which is a totally different thing. So in looking at the two recommendations, the request for the large scale comp plan amendment for JCQ Leburg Palmetto Tri Drive, case
number LCP 26984, planning and zoning department is recommending approval of the request for the following reasons. One, the project meets the requirements of chapter 163184 Florida statutes for largecale comprehensive plan amendments. Two, the
proposed request is compatible with the adjacent future land use designations of Lake County urban low rural transition and rural and city of Leburg institutional estate residential and lowdensity residential. The proposed the proposed request as conditioned is
compatible with the proposed zoning of PUD plan unit development and does not appear to create a negative impact on any surrounding properties for the proposed future land use designation for the site is consistent with the city's growth management plan future land use element goal one objective 1.6. The
action requested is vote to approve the largescale comp plan amendment from Lake County urban low density to city of Leburg low density residential and forward the recommendation to the city commission for their consideration. Under the recommendation for the PUD
uh project JCQ Leburg Palmetto Drive, the reszoning under case number RZ 26985 planning and zoning department is recommending approval of the request for the following reasons. one. The proposed request for a PUD zoning is compatible
with the current zoning surrounding zoning districts including Leburg PUD as well as Lake County PUB, agriculture, residential professional, and mixed home residential to the proposed zoning as conditioned is compatible with the proposed future land use designation
amendment to City of Leburg low density residential, excuse me, city of Leburg estate residential and the current surrounding future land use designations. The site under number three, the site is compatible with existing city of Leburg approved
developments along US Highway 27. And four, the proposed request does not appear to create a detriment as conditioned to surrounding properties um as conditioned in the PUD document. So the action requested is vote to approve the proposed resoning from Lake County
Agriculture and City of Leburg PU to City of Leburg PUD and forward this recommendation to the city commission for their uh for their consideration. Now, Mr. Chairman, staff did work tirelessly
within the confines of the law to recognize the concerns of the neighbors while also recognizing the property rights of the owner. Um, and this is done, as you are all aware, through the zoning process in in a PUD such as this.
It's not a particularly easy task, but we do feel we have respectively respectfully accounted for both the residents concerns and the property ownership rights to the extent that we can legally. Um, therefore, based on a review of this proposal and the fact that it is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and land development
regulations and that there is a specifically conditioned planned unit development zoning presented, staff is recommending approval for case numbers LSP 26984 and PUD 26, excuse me, RZ
26-985, JCQ Leber. Mr. Hannah Calabah, who is the vice president of land planning group of Davaries and the applicant for the property, is here to represent the case and answer any questions you may
have. And um I just wanted to point out while Tanner's getting ready, the red here's Highway 27. That's Plantation down all back in here.
There's Highway 27. This red here is the commercial portion. It's adjacent. They actually have it planned that way. Now, these smaller lots are the town houses. Everything here
are your 50ft lots. Everything down here, your 70 foot lots. Those are wetlands. And down here, that's a wetland. And these other little lighter blue color are water retention areas.
So just to give you an idea, it's hard to see that when you just get this letter from the city about a zoning. So and that Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Any questions of staff? >> You looked like you had a question there.
>> Okay. All right. Um, you'll please state your name and your address, please. >> Yes, sir. Uh, Tanner Kalpa, vice president of uh, Land Planning Group. Thank you so much, buddy. >> Um, 3013 Chavar's Ridge Boulevard. Uh, I'm
going to keep my comments pretty brief because, uh, Dan did do an excellent job as always of, uh, summing up our proposal. Um, just wanted to hit on a few things. Um, I I I don't think it's uh I don't think it's possible to kind
of understate um the um the amount that we took into consideration the public comment. Um I have what looks like a movie screenplay worth of um information from the public.
We ask that all um uh letters and emails um in regards to our project be sent to us as well. Um, and after we've uh reviewed it, uh, Dan and the his city staff and our team um, did what we could
to bake in any comments that uh, we could. Um, there's a few things that came up uh, more often than not. Um, there was some questions about the density. Um, for one, uh, so we're asking for um,
uh, a low density. I think it's four to the acre. Um actually everything around us is also for to the acre uh whether it's in the city or it's in the county. So we're actually asking for the same. The only difference is what we would be allowed to do. The future land use that
we're asking for is just going to allow us to do uh the commercial here uh which we otherwise wouldn't be able to do. Um, and speaking of the commercial, uh, we did quite a bit, um, to do what we could to separate kind of the existing single
family of plantation with, um, our commercial and our town homes. If you look over here on my little, uh, poster board here, uh, it might be kind of hard to read, but, um, from the nearest single family to our commercial
uh, is about 1,480 ft. So, put to you another way, that's uh five football fields uh between our commercial and the nearest single family. Um so, we did as much as we could to separate the kind of uses, make
them compatible as much as possible. Um, other than that, um, I'm happy to, uh, yield to, uh, public comment as I'm, um, very interested to know what their thoughts are given that we have, uh, taken into consideration, uh, many of
their comments. Uh, so if you don't have any questions for me, um, I'm happy to yield. >> Uh, quick question. What, it's probably in here and I probably skipped over it. What uses are allowed in the commercial? >> Um, yeah. So, it's actually it is in there. Um,
>> you could >> it would be the general C3. >> Yeah, the highway commercial >> commercial uses would be allowed. >> Uh, yeah. And it is spelled out there probably under uses towards the beginning of the PUD if you uh have it. >> I do have a question. Is there a height limitation on the town houses andor?
>> Yeah, there is. Uh, I believe it's 35 ft, right, Dan? on the on the I believe we use the standard 35 on the town houses and commercial >> by the highway >> by the highway.
If we don't, we can add that, but I believe we had I recall putting it in there. I'm not seeing it here, but I'll double check and be sure that's in there. One of the questions that the uh folks in Plantation and everywhere brought up was they had some concerns about could
we limit the stories the the height on the properties that adjoin Plantation. They they they're one floor and they were wondering and I have to ask the city attorney because I don't know if we can legally do that or not. Um, can we
limit the I'm sorry I didn't tell you this before the meeting to >> I meant to um so that was one of their concerns is could they take those the ones on the left side the the west side
>> and and those showing are 50 foot we're making them go to 70 so they're going to lose some >> um could could it be limited to one floor on that back side on that back street. Uh, and and I I mean I understand the question. I understand the ask on it because they're all one
floor, but I don't know if we can legally do that under >> we can do it under >> can we do it under PUB? >> Um, so I would like to if possible respect that request that they have made and make sure that anything adjoining
has to be one floor which you know perfectly reasonable request. I just wasn't sure about the legality of it. >> Right. I was going to say I'm not sure which page of the actual ordinance it's on, but there is under section five a building height adjacent to the
plantation at Leburg one story or 16 ft. And this is for all single family and town home structures and then nonadjacent to the plantation at Leburg two stories or
35 ft. You see that Dan five D >> four she said >> oh four sorry I'm the wrong four section okay um so we we ended up getting that in there and I just want to be sure that
was okay because I'm going to respect that request I mean it's quite reasonable I think and so if we have if we don't it sounds like we do not have to remove that is that correct >> it does not have to be removed, but if you would like to have it removed, it may be removed.
>> I would like for it to remain for the res. >> That would just be the homes on the west side of that last street. What about the houses right across the street? >> It could be both if you like. >> I'd prefer to see those restricted uh on both sides of that street just to
give that additional a bit of privacy they already have. >> We'll we'll rearrange the wording to >> if if that's the motion passes. >> Okay. So if that motion were to pass, >> anything from this corner down,
>> everything south of the bend, >> everything south of the bend would have to be one story. >> Yeah. Starting right here and here following me down. >> Yes, sir. >> These some of these could be two story, right? >> Yeah, >> they're going to be Yeah, they're >> could be if that's what they decide. >> Okay,
>> cool. >> Thanks. Any other questions? >> Thank you. Thanks. >> All right. Okay. I have three people who have signed to speak. Um each person who speaks gets three
minutes to speak just to let you know. And uh we'll have a little clock up here so you'll know what what your time is. Uh first person is Suzanne Paleon. >> It's close. Poy.
>> Thank you. There you go. >> All right. My name is Suzanne Polloyan. I live at 24220 Bellme Drive in the plantation. And I do live on a property that is directly adjacent to the development.
And I want to say hello to chairman, commissioners. Thank you for hearing our concerns and also for taking half of my speech and just already taking care of it. [laughter] >> We're here, please. >> And thank you. I want to state that we
are a 55 plus community and there are many elderly residents who live in this neighborhood and several of them have severe respiratory and pulmonary issues. And I would like to request a permanent
no burn ban on the development area. That there's no commercial smokeous and that any shrubs or anything that needs to be burned be taken off site to be burned somewhere else. We can barely breathe with the other neighborhoods
that are being built up in the area and it can be life-threatening for some of our residents. So, that's my major concern at this point. Um, you've covered everything else that I had on here, but I just want to say
thank you for taking your time, for listening to us, and really for taking into consideration everything that we say. There is just a visual I want to mention. And I know you approved the 25- ft buffer, but the requested 15 that was
put out there is literally from this chair to that chair is the 15t. So I do appreciate that you're willing to go to 25. And I also wanted to mention that our elevation is higher than the elevation
of the proposed project. And if we're 5t higher up than where this house is going to be and you're putting in a six foot wall, it's only going to cover like a foot, you know, of of view. That's why we were
requesting the 10 foot wall height. I don't know if you can do it, but that is the main reason is the the the height elevation. Thank you very much and have a good evening. >> Thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. I wanted to clarify
something if I may. Y >> um >> can we add in to this PUD that there can be no burning to accommodate that request? >> At this point, I would say you can do that for the uses once the development
is there. What I'm uncertain about is when construction is occurring. And I believe they're allowed to to burn at that point. >> That is a concern. They they are allowed to burn and I don't know if we have the authority to say you can't burn through APU.
>> Right. What my suggestion is we'll put that in there for after it's developed and then maybe have staff talk to the developers and make sure that of the concerns of the neighborhood >> that uh you know if you've got a burn,
you know, try to do it away from the neighborhood so it's not affecting them. >> Hope this doesn't take into consideration hamburgers. Well, >> the the the next question was when Miss Suzanne mentioned commercial smokeouses,
I'm not sure the definition on what you meant by that. >> I would imagine something just has a lot of smoke output, you know, >> like a barbecue >> or maybe because you know there's a Isn't the incinerator near this area?
It's it's further north if you think and that's that's above what we're trying to do right here, right? >> That would be anything that would put off a lot of smoke outside of a restaurant use would be an industrial use and that would not be automatically permitted in here. >> Yeah. And then so it wouldn't we we have
no control over that currently at this at this junction. >> Yes, ma'am. >> That's right. >> So it's not we're not ignoring it. We just don't have control over it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm I'm more concerned with the development part of it than once the residents get there.
>> Yeah. >> Okie dokie. Next one to speak is Trigg Espan. I said it right. >> Please state your name and your address, please.
>> Trig Eppand, 24203 Bellme Drive. I'm one of the guys right across from the development there. Um, thank you for doing what you've already done, all of you. And I'll read what I've prepared, although some of it's
covered. Uh, again, my name is Tin and I'm speaking on behalf of the pretty much the rest of the crowd here, um, the residential age restricted community. Uh, we're here to express the community's opposition to the reszoning
request for case number RZ-26-985 is currently proposed. The community is not opposed to appropriate development provided that any approval includes enforcable conditions necessary to protect the adjoining residential community and ensure compatibility with
the established neighborhood, some of which are taken care of. At a minimum, any approval should require a 25- foot buffer containing canopy trees under story vegetation and evergreen screening for year- round
visual separation. The installation of a 10-ft decorative opaque fence of wood, vinyl, or masonry along the shared boundary. Minimum 80 foot widths along the plantation at Leburg border and singlestory homes adjacent to the
community. The fence must be designed to allow drainage without obstructing storm water runoff or altering existing drainage patterns. Because many lots in plantation at Leburg are elevated approximately 5t or more above the
adjoining property, a fence in the range of 6 to 8 ft would be very ineffective as a visual and security barrier. The site's existing drainage function serving the adjoining residential area must be preserved and any fill, road
construction, home construction or elevation changes must not create adverse impacts on neighboring properties or interfere with existing storm water runoff patterns. In addition, light spillover and ambient noise should be addressed through
effective buffering appropriate site design and enforcable restrictions. The site also appears to support gopher tortoises which are protected under state law and must be lawfully relocated if affected by development. We also
request an environmental assessment addressing drainage, storm water runoff, lighting, noise, and protected species impacts as part of the review of this application. For these reasons, we respectfully ask
the commission to deny the reasonzoning request unless these protections are incorporated as binding conditions of approval. Thank you for your time and consideration of the compatibility and neighborhood protection concerns raised by residents of Plantation at
Leburg. >> Perfect. Thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> Thank you very much. >> All right. We've heard from everybody that signed up to speak and I appreciate it. And >> I signed up. Excuse me, sir.
>> You want to do it, too? >> Robert Peters. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. My fault. >> My bad. >> I know a lot of people don't like to listen to me. [laughter] >> Well, they told me ahead of time. >> Well, I I thank you for your consideration. Uh, >> state your name and address, please. >> My name is Robert Peters. I live at
2422. And that is my daughter. And that's my wife who has respiratory problems. And you want to put uh all those houses boarding the plantation, which I don't agree with because that is wetlands. It was wetlands when I bought 2023.
Uh we have a lot of wildlife in there. A lot of gopher turtles. They come onto our yard and they eat our flowers. Uh I've also seen coyotes and bobcats back there. I don't understand why that portion of it is not preserved. I have no problem with with the industrial
part, you know, going up to where the I don't think it should border the plantation, which is, as I said, a 55 community uh elderly people, and uh it it just doesn't fit. Of course, across
the street there's acres and acres of no no building, but for some reason, they want to jam it over by us. Uh I I'd like to know what you're going to do about the the turtles or the uh the wetlands. And we have a problem in in
with the water in Florida now. We're running out of water. The traffic on 27 is terrible. Some days you can't even get out of there, you know, and so that it needs to be a wider road. We don't need all those people
coming into the plantation. I I do believe that uh if you take the land from from here there save this portion for wetlands and where the water is, you can
build over here. But to put something in my backyard that somebody's going to be looking down at my roof, uh I don't agree with it. I I really don't think there's a need for it. uh especially when there's a whole across the street lots of land and you
know that's going to be next. So we we have to start thinking about the water. We have to start thinking about the environment, the the animals. Uh I I have pictures of bobcats in my yard and I don't see where it's going to be very
conducive to have all these houses there and all these people there. there's there's space over there for the rest of it and I don't know I that's my opinion you know uh I don't know probably isn't worth anything but I would thank you for
your time for listening and and realize that we are a 55 HOA we have a a community I don't understand is that going to be a community where they have an HOA and and rules or is it just going to be somebody buying a house thank you for your time
>> thank as as far as the uh as far as you're concerned with the uh the wetlands and the um uh wildlife. That's all uh governed by the government. They'll go in and check and if they say, "Hey, we can't you can't do
it because of this," then they can't do it. And if it says, "Well, you could do this and and you're able to do it," then that's okay. But but it's checked out by somebody besides us, just to let you know. >> All right. Thank you very much.
And [clears throat] did the applicant want to add anything? >> Yeah, I just wanted to thank everyone's time uh for coming out and speaking. Uh sounds like we addressed a lot of it. Um some have edged like you said. Um
you know um there are rules and regulations in regards to the environment. Um and in addition an environmental impact study has already been conducted. Um and this plan shows no impact to uh any wetlands or uh flood
zones. Um so that's all I really had to say. Uh and I wanted to thank you for your time. >> Thank you. All right. We'll close the public and um render a decision. Are there any discussion on it?
>> Um yeah. So um I wanted to commend the um make the statement to commend you guys, the planners for working with the residents um >> Yes, ma'am. >> of respecting everybody's rights, property rights of them owning it and
the the developers rights as well. We appreciate the public's input. I mean, it's it's very hard to understand a proposal when all you get is this letter and I we understand that, >> right? >> But we also the applicant himself worked
alongside us and wanted those letters and and and emails and things. They wanted to see those so that they could help shape it to make it better. >> And that's really worked and >> that's awesome. >> Yeah, it's been good. >> Really nice job >> able to work together. Yeah, that was a
courtesy because that wasn't they don't have to do that. So I think that was very well and that's what it's all about because you can't you can't stop progress but you can plan it more appropriately and I think a lot of the people here at the um on the commission
here we believe that this one this was a planned planned [laughter] that it was it was planned and it took into consideration just for the record of what the residents of the adjoining community were requesting because I'm
I'm that's what I was sitting here doing reading uh all of their concerns and basically I don't think you really left any out. >> We tried. >> Yeah. I think and what we were allowed to do under the law. That's most important. What we were allowed to do
and it respected everybody's rights. Did we address the the fence from >> because I I kept hearing 10 foot fence. I didn't know if that was >> in in our current code a residential maximum is six feet. Now we can go a
little higher, but >> is it >> eight? Maybe 8 ft. >> Oh, they said 8 ft. >> No, no, no. Maybe we >> um >> might 10 feet is going to be pretty tall. Yeah, that's
>> could we could we work with the applicant because if this goes through the process and ends up being approved I don't know you know through a city commission >> on on situations like this sometimes there's the ability for the developer to
build a burm >> raise >> and then put the fence on top of that >> and that might help [clears throat] >> and and I would be willing to um add a burm into the language. >> I've always liked berms better than
>> four foot burm and a six foot fence 10t. >> So two. >> Yeah, because that's a lot of fence or you know >> Well, it would have to be engineered and it would make it a 10 foot fence off. >> It's going to be it's going to be
>> with a strong wind or hurricane a 10 foot fence is probably not going to last. >> Like I said on the on the other resident side, 10 feet like >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> It's like being next to a skyscraper. >> Yeah. >> You don't want to really So, >> it would feel more like a prison
actually. >> Would that be satisfactory if maybe a 3 4 foot BM something to get it to close to where the residents want? Would something like that work? >> It does from staff's point of view. >> I guess it's up to whoever makes a motion, but I I I agree with the I think
it's a good idea. Yeah, that that's not a huge distance to do that on those last uh that last street how many lots there'd be. >> Okay. Any other discussion? >> I just I wanted to do my checklist, Mr. Chairman, real quick here. So, just so
we say for the record, we did address the environmental concerns there. The study was done. >> The traffic, there is a study being done with that as well, but that still falls under the county to for them to do something. It's not really the city,
>> right? And then we're we're not allowed to disapprove it because of traffic. >> That's that's the only thing we can't Yeah, that's correct. >> All right. And then lastly, Mr. Chairman, the buffers we um the >> we did make the buffers. They wanted 15
and but we have in the PUD right now 25. >> Okay. So, we gave them so 10 more. All righty. I am done. Thank you. >> Perfect. Perfect. All right. Um, public hearing case number LSCP26984, JCQ, Leburg, Palmetto Drive, large scale
comprehensive plan amendment. Is there a motion? >> I so move, Mr. Chairman, with adding the uh burm of two more feet to get a couple of more feet height to the fence. >> Okay.
>> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? Yes. Part of what we talked about was uh no more than two uh one story height on that last street to be on the other side of the street as well.
>> Those those actually need to come on the next case. This is the comp. >> This is the comprehensive plan amendment. So it's the more high level and so we don't need those specific conditions in there. But the next item we'll have those >> on the rezoning. >> That's right.
>> All right. Uh, was there a second? >> Yes. Second. >> Okay. U, any discussion? Roll call. >> Commissioner Bar. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Kelly. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Senate. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Carvin. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robertson. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Uh, public hearing case RZ 26985 JCQ Leburg Palmoto Drive reszoning. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I recommend approval with the restriction of two story
homes being built next to the plantation development >> to allow only one story. >> Correct. I might build a threetory of the road south of the bend. >> Yeah. Right. >> South of the bend. >> Okay. Well worth. >> Is there a second?
>> Did you want to add the BM? >> And the one the BM was on the first B. >> Okay. We didn't do it again. I would like to add it if you'd >> Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Both. >> And then I'm just throwing out the uh the burn ban of uses.
>> I'm not sure if you want that. >> Not the burn. But the burn >> the burn. >> Yeah. Yeah. The burn ban of of the residents, >> right? And so you could limit that to no burning of vegetation if >> Isn't that a city ordinance? I mean, you can't do that. >> That's
>> You can get per construction. You're saying yes. >> Yeah, you can get a permit during construction. That's what worries me. >> During construction, they're burning scraps of wood. I can see, you know, so that would be your contractor's monkey to deal with, >> right? >> But you could hypothetically
limit the single family residences from burning any of their trash or debris. >> Yeah, I'd like to see that. >> Yeah, >> if you want to word that, I have no problem with that. >> [laughter] >> Everybody understand?
>> Okay. So, we got Is there a second >> to review? >> No. Twotory house on that last street running north and south. >> Correct. >> Uh a twoft burm >> plus a sixoot fence >> on that budding property on the west side of this.
>> Two foot BM. >> Two foot. >> Two foot. We said he he said a two foot BM, not a 4ft B. Like, but we got plus a six foot. That's a total of eight ft. >> Okay. A minimum of two footpart. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Of that that adjoining parcel. Okay.
>> Is that okay with Is that okay with the motion? >> Yes. >> You want to redo the motion? >> She just did. >> And yes, I approve it. I'm not going to reward it, but she's going to do it fine. >> We've got it. >> Is it all understood? Everybody >> Everybody got it? The burn the burn ban
I want to be clear about because what we're talking about in this instance is residents that already there can't burn. Correct. >> Which is unlikely. What I'm worried about is the construction burning. I don't know what I can do about that, >> but >> Well, like I said before, this isn't
really the time to talk about it because we're right, we haven't even seconded it yet, >> but to do rapid rules. Um, but I suggest that uh either land planning group or or staff contacts the the contractors and and tell them that we would like to see
them if they have to do any kind of on-site burning to do it away from the residents. >> I just I >> if we don't have legal authority, >> right? No, it's a request and I don't want the folks to be confused about that. >> Right. Right. It's a request. Okay.
>> Okay. Now, do I have a second? >> I just broke all my rules. >> I can't second my own motion, but >> anybody want to second it? >> Second. >> Thank you. Any discussion? >> All right. Roll call. >> Commissioner Kelly.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner S? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Carter? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. Oh, also um this will be taken to the city commission
from here and as of right now the dates are July 13th and September 14th. You may want to check before you come like you said at the beginning of the meeting, you know, in case it something changes, you know, that way you don't waste your time driving up here. But uh uh the second
one is the important one if you want to definitely if you want to say something because that's when they vote on it. They'll introduce the first one and the second one's when they they get down to breast tags. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you all for your input. That that
was very constructive input. >> Yeah. No good. >> Is there anything else that you brought up before us? >> U Mr. Chairman, I do have some announcements. >> Okay. Let's let's wait a second. >> Yes, sir. >> If you guys could go ahead and and go outside. We're not done yet.
>> Hey, hey, excuse me. >> We're still in the middle of a meeting. [laughter] >> Please keep moving. >> Thank you. I just feel like a baby. >> So, Mr. Chairman, um had a couple quick announcements right now. You see a lot
of the purple around the city. I know that the uh uh city of Leburg, the Rotary Club um are doing a lot of purple decorations and lights. The city of Leburg did proclaim June as Alzheimer's awareness month uh with the theme purple for a purpose. So, it's in recognition
of people struggling with Alzheimer's and uh so we there are numerous events planned around the city. I think it's a 5K. I forget where it is, but there's a number of events going on around the city. >> Yeah. >> Commission really appreciates your concern about our
>> and then um this Saturday we have Junth. I believe that's going to be out at the resource center um and good food and good people. And I've got two of them to go to. So, I may not have big enough stomach to make it. >> That's 468, right? >> Yes, sir. I believe so. [clears throat]
Uh, good times. And then, [snorts] um, two more actually. Uh, we did find out that our vice chairman, Mr. Nate Sanders brother, passed away in Cincinnati, so he's not here. So, please keep him in your thoughts and prayers. And finally, um, I'm not going to let you steal my
thunder. Um, we have somebody who's been here for 20 years. Done a fantastic job. >> [applause] >> And so, uh, to Monday night, she gets her 20 year certificate. >> Nice. >> And she started when she was 10.
>> She started when she was 10. And, uh, I'm just 20 years. >> It's hard work. And, and thank you, Sabrina. >> Does that come with a gift card to Publix or something? >> It might. [laughter] It might. >> Wait a minute. How many years has this young lady been here? >> Um, well, 10.
>> Well, longer than that. Candiy's with me a lot more. So [laughter] >> I see y'all hanging out a lot. >> So that's kind of that's kind of like 30 years. >> You want to feel bad is Monday was my 41 first >> year. I'm in my 42nd year of real
estate. >> You're getting too and that's my second and where where did you get your start in real estate? I'd like you to >> calling O. Kelly [laughter] >> and it was my second No, they were gone. And that's my second occupation. And I was audio engineer for
over 10 years before that. So yeah, I was five when I started. [laughter] Anyway, thank you very much. Thank you for your service. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys.
>> See you.