I'd like to call the meeting of May 21st, 2026 for the Planning Zoning Commission to order. Please rise for the invocation and the pledge to the flag. Dear Lord, we gather before you as we
undertake the business of the city of Leburg. We pray that the decisions we make will be pleasing to you your sight. We also want to take this opportunity to think of the men and women that serve this country out our Memorial Day weekend that comes up. May God bless
them all. 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. Okay. Before you, you've got the minutes. of last week month's meeting. Do you have any additions, corrections, or amendments to those many minutes?
Hearing none, I'll accept a motion to accept. >> I have a motion to accept the minutes. Do I hear a second? >> I I make I accept. Thank you. Make the motion. Thank you. Motion passed. >> And uh those that are going to speak
today, you have to be sworn in. So if you want to say a few words in front of the commission, please rise and we'll swear you in. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? >> Thank you so much. And director Jan Dan, I'm going to ask you if you would to uh inform the folks how we do business. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome everyone to the May 21, 2026 city of Leburg Planning Commission
meeting. My name is Dan Miller, planning and zoning director for the city of Leburg. Staff present today include senior planners Diane Yekl and Max Van Allen. Planners Melissa Meadows, De Los Santos, and Mel Ortiz, and city attorney
Grant Watson. Uh today's agenda and a speaker's registry is available on the table out back here by the exit doorway. If you wish to speak on a case, we ask that you do please sign the speaker's registry and turn it in to Diane, who is seated here on my left. Under the rules
of participation, the chairman will announce each case. The staff will then present exhibits for the record. This will include maps, photos, and text as will be shown on the screens. Staff will then provide the case background, which consists of some general information
about the request and read a recommendation into the record. The applicant will have the opportunity to speak on the case and the public will also have the opportunity to comment, speak on the case. The applicant then will have an opportunity to respond and the chairman will close the case to the
public. The commission will then discuss the case. The chairman will close the case and a motion to vote will be called and taken and then we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. The planning commission is a
a commission of citizens which are appointed by the city commission and charged with two primary functions. The first is making final decisions on cases such as variances and conditional uses. And the second is making recommendations
for issues to be heard by the city commission. The city staff provides recommendations to the planning commission based on the city's comprehensive plan, the city's land development regulations, and state of Florida statutes. Today we have six
cases on the agenda. The first two cases which are a variance and a conditional use permit are the ones that will receive final decisions. The remaining four will receive recommendations and those recommendations will be forwarded
to the city commission for final decisions. There are tentative dates for the city commission hearings which are listed in bold on the agenda. These dates are subject to be changed, so please check with the planning and zoning staff or the city clerk's office
regarding the final hearing dates. Finally, on behalf of the city of Leburg planning staff and the city of Leburg planning commission, we thank you for your participation in today's public hearing process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you, Dan. I appreciate it. I'll go ahead and introduce public hearing case V26926 CDC homes variance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the background, this project consists of a request for a variance for the purpose of creating
three single family lots on a property generally located south of Mispa Avenue, north of Harlem, and east of Stenson Street. The site consists of approximately 62 acres. The request is to allow for three 50- foot wide lots.
This is a request for a variance from section 25280 to allow for the creation of flag lots. Our code does not normally allow for the creation of flag lots. Um but this there's a reason for this variance which you'll see shortly. Planner Mel Ortiz will present the maps
and photo exhibits which will include the aerial zoning, future land use, surrounding land use, wetlands and flood zone maps, uh, city commission and CRA maps. Hello. Good afternoon. On this first
slide, we have the extended aerial of the CDC home variance bar 26 926. On this slide, we have an aerial, a more close-up view. Here we have the zoning.
To the north, you to the north on the green, you have a public P. And on the east, south, and west, you have R2 medium, medium density residential.
Here we have the future land use. It is surrounded on the north, east, south, and west with low density residential. Here is the surrounding land use. In the north, you have vacant government, municipal, and vacant residential. To
the east, you have vacant residential. To the south, you have single family. And to the west, you have single family and vacant residential. Here's the flood hazard zones. It is in an in a flood hazard zone. Ae.
Here are the wetlands maps. There is no wetlands. For the CRA, the community redevelopment agency. It is Carver Heights. Here's the developments map. To the east, you have the residential duplex
Harlem on Harlem Avenue development. The commission district is uh commission district one here. Here are the signs that we posted. The top is a closeup of the closeup of
sign on subject property on Harlem Avenue and on the bottom image is uh the sign looking north from Harlem Avenue of subject property. Here we have uh here we are looking east along Harlem Avenue from subject property. And on the bottom image
looking south across Harlem Avenue from subject property. Top image uh looking west from subject property along Harlem Avenue. And on the bottom a closeup of sign on subject property on Mispa Avenue.
On the top looking north across Mispa Avenue from subject property. on the bottom looking east along Mispa Avenue from subject property. On the top looking south across Mispa Avenue onto subject property and on the bottom looking west along Mispa Avenue
from subject property. Thank you. >> Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz. Miss Van Allen, can we go back to um the second aerial map or one of those that there? It's close enough. That's work. That's good. Uh Mr. Chairman, if if it's all right with you, I'd like to go
through the departmental review, public responses, and then talk about this particular case for a moment so that everyone has a clear understanding. Uh, this case was sent out to all city departments plus the county government and Lake County school board. The city departments had no comment. School board
and Lake County al public works also had no comment. Uh, per the Florida statute, under public responses, per Florida statutes and city of Leburg requirements, the project was legally advertised, posted, and letters were sent out to the surrounding properties within 200 feet. The city did receive
one letter of response from Mount Olive Progressive Baptist Church. Um, they looked at it and sent us a a letter asking about they gave us three points. It's the Harlem Avenue entrance. I want to kind of go over that which is on the
the south side there. >> They were concerned about the access point would interfere with the alignment of the existing adjacent property and that it was a narrow area and the proximity might raise concerns about traffic flow, emergency access,
long-term maintenance on the Mispa Avenue entrance to the north. They had some concerns about requested entryway would interfere with the daily use, privacy, and safety of existing homeowners. So they ask us in their number three, the overall impact that the planning and zoning department require a clearer site plan, proper
survey markers, and consideration of alternative access solutions that would not negatively affect the adjacent uh residents. That came from uh Mr. Connor, chairman of the board of trustees of Mount Olive Progressive. I wanted to address that um because what
you have here, Mr. chairman is point a little over half an acre in the big the big property in the middle. Then this is a separate alternate key to the north that goes up to Mispa and a separate alternate key that goes down to the south to Harlem. Sometime in the past uh
many years I don't know how long it's been. It's been a long time that property was essentially sealed off from from appropriate access to the streets. Um, so I wanted to thank the church for their comments. Uh, staff is currently
working on a minor subdivision of this property which does require that specific survey and site plan noted by Mr. Connor in his letter. And I'd also like to note that while staff does not necessarily disagree with the church's comments, we do have to deal with the
fact that the city cannot legally block off access to a property. >> Right. that would deny the economic use of the property and would result in simply in in not being an attorney, but I have one sitting next to me. >> Yeah. >> And that would result in pretty much
indefensible lawsuit against the city. Um, so the issue we see here on this property is the applicant would simply like to split it into three lots, one here, one there. It's all it is. Um, but the property has been landlocked for
many years. that restricts its usefulness and because the property is a lot of record, they do have the owner does have the right to use it for an appropriate purpose. We can't deny them that. So, while the city code does not normally
permit the creation of flag lots for development purposes, in this specific case, staff notes that the land can be used for an appropriate purpose, which is three single family detached lots, which is what the applicant is requesting. Um, those are uses that are
consistent with the development in the area. So, the request is basically allow them to use that as a flag lot. Now, there are other locations in the city that have lots which have also been effectively blocked out like this. There's not many,
but they do exist. We find them from time to time. And we do the best we can to maintain the access and respect the neighbors, which I think is is what is actually going on here. They're trying to respect the neighbors by not putting in anything other than single family
uses. So, in taking into account the church's concerns and the applicant's request, staff would like to note that regardless of whatever is eventually built here, by law, we can't completely remove or take away any access to the property. In thinking about this, staff
wanted to recommend perhaps that it is possible staff can work with the applicant looking at a design that allowed one access, let's say one to go to the north and two to go to the south or vice versa so that
you don't have all three coming out of the same access, right? >> Trying to be fair to both sides here. So, as it sits now, they're These are designed very clearly at some many years in the past to be the access
points to the north and south. The fact that they don't meet the current codes is because it was done so many years ago, not through any fault of the applicant or the surrounding property owners or anyone else. Um so what staff
is would like to do is to recommend approval on it. Um the builder would have to apply for uh driveway permits as is standard in any building and and do any and all
expansions or upgrades to the access points. That's standard and that's normal. >> You know the width >> um do what the width would be. I believe it can be fairly narrow because it's a driveway. So it would not take up the entire It's not like we're putting in a road. >> Not two way.
>> Correct. it could be one way because there's only three houses. So, you're not going to get a lot of back and forth traffic. So, um and on a proposal like this, there's no real specific conditions or standards other than that which exist in the R2 medium density zone, uh medium
density residential zoning district. So the request with the exception of access meets all the conditions that we're looking for and um they can meet the standard setbacks of you know the front rear side and there's no other special
conditions. All the the three houses that would be built here would have to go on city water and wastewater just like everything else. Uh, so there's no special conditions other than recognizing that the church brought up some concerns and we wanted to address
them respectfully by saying, "Okay, if we can direct one to the north and two to the south or vice versa, whatever works best." Um, staff is more than willing to do that. It's not really a condition um of the
variance, but I I believe the applicant I have not talked to to the applicant about this, but I believe the applicants would be fine with that and I would be happy for them to speak on it as well. >> Okay. >> Um >> what the applicant owns that property?
>> Yes, sir. >> And how wide are those two strips? >> Uh I believe the I believe they're both 20 or 24 feet. I forget the exact number. We measured it when it first came in. >> The applicant is >> Mr. John Christian. It's wide enough for us. Commissioner.
>> Yes sir. It is wide enough. And u Reverend John Christian is here to speak. >> I recognize you. >> Mr. Christensen. >> Um okay, Mr. Chair, um Commissioner, this is um Pastor John Christian. Tonight I'm representing the Community
Development Corporation and and staff is correct. surprised that the church would send that, but um we received this lot donation to Habitat for Humanity. Um they actually gave us the first the large scale lot and they didn't give us the south and then they donate the
south. We actually acquired the top piece through a tax deed because tax weren't being paid working with staff about a year now and that was their concern was the one access point. So we actually did a survey and so the top piece will come down and split two two
homes and then the bottom piece will access the third home. So the top will be actually two houses will be there and um the bottom will just be the single family home. We built three houses right to the south that we built and we sold. So we're quite familiar with the with the property. We own the piece across
the street as well. Um and so we are excited about this opportunity to take a piece of property as um Mr. Miller said it was landlocked and we actually acquired property to have access and we thought it'd be a great project for um property that's kind of been sitting in kind of overgrown. So we thought it
would be a great opportunity for the city and the CDC to to create homeowner opportunities and the piece of the to the south is vacant been vacant for at least 30 years and I don't see much development happening and talk to the family from out of state. Um the top
piece does have a duplex where you would actually ask the duplex. So, um, you know, that's a rental situation. So, I I'm still concerned about, you know, disturbing someone's piece when they may move. Every year the lease is is terminated. So, that's not our intention. Our intention is is pretty
much take a piece of property, put to homeowners, bring people into the community that's going to up and remove black from the from the community. Pastor, you mentioned that uh the top, for lack of a better term, sir, top piece was going to be multif family and
the bottom piece single. >> On the two homes, uh we got total of three homes. So the top the top piece will actually >> be a driveway. So it actually come down and the house will be here, house be here, that'll access this one. This driveway will access the house that will come this way.
>> Okay. You you mentioned single family on one. >> Yes, sir. So I'm I was referring to these up top. The duplex is right here. I see. >> Okay. Does the commission have any questions of the applicant? >> I just want Where's the church? Where's the church?
>> The church is actually on Child Street. Yeah. M Olive actually own the vacant lot on Miss Paul Simmons. So they own they actually own a vacant lot. They don't the church is here on child and um Dixie. That's where Mali Progressive
Baptist Church is. They actually they own the vacant lot right there on the corner of Mispa. So they not they're not a particular building owner. They just own a vacant lot. That was that was my my you know why why the comment but you know. >> Thank
>> Yes ma'am. Go ahead. Are the three houses going to have access to both north and south entrances? >> No, sir. Just the two homes will have access to the north and the one house
have access to the south. >> Oh, >> and I and I do have a I have a survey if you want to see a survey real quick. >> A layout would have been nice. Oh, there we go. >> I thought we did.
>> Okay. So, there's garages and stuff. >> Two car garage. >> Yeah. Okay. And you are >> I I Mr. Chairman, I apologize. That's in the file. I forgot to make sure it was in
the packet, but it's basically two vertical lines creating three lots, >> right? >> And and 50 ft is all it is. Um I thought I I I don't know. I just missed it in the packet. I apologize. >> You forgive it. >> Thank you, sir.
We can Can we pass that around Mill, please? Just so everyone can see it. >> So, it's all his fault then, right? >> No, it's my fault. >> So, Mr. Chairman, while we're passing that around for everyone to see, the um recommendation is for the CDC homes
project variance case number V26-926. Planning and zoning department is recommending approval of the request for the following reasons. The proposed request for variance to section 25-280 parentheses 5D4 to allow for minor subdivision consisting of three flag
lots is compatible with the current surrounding zoning districts. The current number two, the current future land use designation of city of Leburg Lowdensity Residential is compatible with the existing surrounding future land use designations of city of Leburg low density residential. Three, the
proposed request will allow for appropriate use of property consistent with the ongoing development patterns within the city. And four, the proposed request does not appear to create a detriment to surrounding properties as discussed. So the action requested is vote to approve the appro the proposed
variance to section 25-280 parentheses 5D4 to allow minor subdivision consisting of three flag lots in the R2 medium density medium density residential zoning district on 65 acres and forward this recommendation. Actually we don't have
to forward this to the city commission. So that's what we're recommending Mr. Chairman and thank you sir. And you mentioned that a site planning survey would be provided to the surrounding property owners. >> They it can be. Yes. Yes. Uh the the
process of development would require this survey which is already done and we should have had in the packet. >> And then for each house that is built, there's a separate building permit process. So if any of the surrounding property owners reaches out to us or if
we need to call the church or anything, we can show them this survey. We can show them which this was this in the mail out. I believe it was in the original mail out that went to the but we'll we can check on that. >> Yeah, that's the variance.
>> Yeah. So, um but we're happy to show them because this is a standard lot that the city's done hundreds and hundreds of. So, uh and we feel like and they're actually uh 270s and a 60. So, the staff feels like we can work it out. But I
appreciate uh Pastor Christian's willingness to change the accesses. >> Does the commission have any more questions? >> Yeah, I got one. The um the accesses north and south, are they going to be paved? >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. So, it's going to be like a road. >> Yes, sir. >> That's a long driveway. >> Yes, sir. Yeah, we we and and you know, our job is when we build these homes, they're usually for first-time home build buyers. And so our responsibility is to make sure when that person goes
in, they don't have an undue cost of having to try to pay their world. So we try to make sure that when they go in, they have a home that they don't have to do any major repairs to at least 10 years. So that that's our responsibility. Make sure they have a nice driveway. >> Just a long ways to walk to get the newspaper.
>> Yes. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this or has an issue? >> Hearing none, I'll close up for discussion and entertain a motion. >> I like to make a motion to approve very
I'm sorry >> I'm sorry I forgot to mention question for um Pastor Christian mentioned that I'm sorry commissioner um that the land was given to them by Habitat um chair but I have no I didn't I don't even know
when y'all got that prop yeah no I appreciate that I don't think you would have any issue as far as this particular item's concerned I mean I this is a little bit removed from that process you weren't involved with it I don't think there's any financial interest for you as far as this goes So
I think you're okay. >> I'm sorry. I forgot. >> Okay. Uh chairman will ask again for a motion. >> I would like >> You're on. >> I would like to make a motion to approve variance case number 26-926
>> for CDC Homes. >> For CDC Homes. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second the motion. >> I have a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Roll call. We got to do roll call now, don't we? >> Roll call.
>> Commissioner Bowers. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Kelly. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robertson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Carter. Yes. Commissioner Sime. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> I can say that's an unusual one.
>> Thank you so much. We don't usually see flag lots. Okay, moving right on to public hearing case 26947, the Cobb Street duplex conditional use permit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the
background on this project, this consists of a conditional use permit only on a site consisting of 32 undeveloped acres, previously developed, now undeveloped acres, generally located on the south side of Cobb Street. Under the overall proposal, the request is to
allow for a duplex development. The project was previously approved by the planning commission about it might have been three years ago, two to three years ago. I forget the exact date, but for economic or other reasons, it was never built. The conditional use permit was
approved for this same use, but it was never built and then the ownership change. So, what happened was the conditional use permit expired. So, the current owner would like to revive the project and go ahead and build the duplex. Also, the new owner did provide
a nicer facade and this facade and that was for this project was taken to the historic preservation board and approved by them. So, Miss Melissa Meadows de los Santos will be presenting the maps and photo exhibits including the aerial zoning, future land use, surrounding
land use, wetlands, flood zone commission and CRA maps. >> Good afternoon. Uh the extended aerial map shows the the subject property in relation to the larger area. It is south of West Main of West Main and West Magnoloya streets and north of West
Dixie Avenue. The closer up area shows that it is uh south of Cobb Street and north of Lily Street. The zoning map shows the subject property zoned as R2 medium density residential with R2 medium density
residential to the east, south, and west and community commercial to the north. The future land use map shows the subject property with lowdensity residential and there is general commercial to the north and south and low density residential to the east,
south and west. The proposed conditional use map just shows what the map is going to be. The property I should say the surrounding land uses are to the north, south and west, single family and multif family residential vacant institutional church.
To the north there is also office and to the south there's also vacant government municipal. To the east there is single family residential, retail and vacant institutional non-church. The flood and flood zone and wetlands map shows there are neither on this
property. The for the community redevelopment agency map the subject property is in the greater Leburg CR. The subject property is in commission district 2. The top photo from the signposting shows
a closeup of the sign on the subject property on Cobb Street. The bottom photo is looking north across Cobb Street from subject property. The top photo is looking east along Cobb Street. The bottom photo is looking south onto
the subject property from Cobb Street. And the top photo is looking west along Cobb Street from the subject property. And that is all I have, Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Miss Deos Santos. Uh, moving on to the departmental review summary. Project was sent out to all city of
Leburg departments and Lake County government, including their public works and school board. Uh, there were no substantiative comments from the city departments. School board had no comment and Lake County public works had no comment as well. uh per under public responses per the Florida statute and
city of Leburg requirements project was legally advertised, posted and letters were sent out to the surrounding property owners within 200 ft. Uh the city received no responses from the ads and letters. Uh utilities are in the
area and available. So in summary, this is a simple extension of a previously approved conditional use permit. By way of extension, I mean they're basically going through the whole process. Again, that's how you extend one. Uh the applicant desires to
do this due to the expiration and the change of ownership and the amount of times those things take. Under the recommendation for the CB Street duplex, case number CUP 26-947, planning and zoning department is
recommending approval of the request for the following reasons. Number one, a conditional use permit is required for the proposed use under chapter 25284 use table. Two, the request meets the criteria set forth in section 25141 conditional uses of the city of Leburg
code of ordinances. Three, the sub it's subject to the conditions that are listed below and the conditional use permit does not appear to create a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties. for the request does not create a negative impact or an inconsistent with the city of Leburg
composite plan. We did put some conditions on this which are the standard conditions in conditional use permits. One is to allow for the development of one duplex unit in an R2 medium density residential zoning district. Two, the uh the conditional
use permit is subject to all other city of Leburg requirements. Three, the granting of this conditional use permit does not exempt the applicant from other applicable regulations of the city of Leburg and other governmental agencies. Four, the violation of any of these conditions could result in this permit
becoming null and void. And five, the conditional use permits must be properly executed by the applicant filed with the city planning and zoning department within 90 days of the hearing date. So, the action requested is vote to approve the conditional use permit for the
subject property to allow for one duplex unit. Uh, just for clarity, when I say one duplex unit, that's one building, >> two, >> two units. Okay. >> If you would, uh, would you put the renderings up on the building so that
people can see it? >> There you go. Thank you. So is actually an improvement from what we had previously. The previous um uh submitt
was a downstairs duplex type situation. This one is side by side garage running down the middle so they're not banging heads in the duplex unit next door. Uh
which works out fine. Um, and that is all for staff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Does the commission have any questions of staff? >> Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak to this?
>> Um, the developer, Mr. Ryan McCabe, I think he's here. >> He is. >> The owners, Kevin Hail Bronner and Aaron Brower, >> they are they here as well? >> No. >> Okay. So, Mr. McCabe's here if you have any questions. It's essentially
>> Do we have any questions of this gentleman? Uh I'll entertain a motion on this. >> I would like to make a motion that we approve CUP 26- 947.
>> I have a second. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> You just did. >> All in favor? I call for roll call vote. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Carter. >> Yes.
>> Commissioner. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robertson. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Congratulations. Happy building. >> Okay, moving right along. Public hearing case AMDT26948
historical structure structure density bonus code amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Long title. >> This project under the background is a request for an amendment to section 25292
to add a section 26. Now, that section number could change once it goes um to be published, but we believe it's going to be 26. This section would create a new density bonus for historic structures
which lie outside the city's current historic district. Now, I want to make a there's there's a bit of a fine line here. The currently the city has a historic district
Roughly it's encompassed by uh Canal Street on the west, the wall behind 12th Street >> east >> on the yeah on the on the west and Canal Street on the east and then the trails to the north and south roughly. Um,
a couple of years ago, there's already been passed by this body and by the city commission an amendment for a density bonus within the historic district. What we're trying
to do here is to create a density bonus for historic structures that are outside. This isn't every structure. It's very few, actually. Specifically, we are targeting 1502 High Street. If you're familiar
with that building, um we Melissa, myself, and some applicants have been working on this for a long time, trying to figure out how to preserve historic structures which are not within the historic
district. Now Melissa can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but ba the first qualification for historic structure is at least 50 years old, but some structures contribute to the historic nature and some don't. Okay, there's no
question that 1502 High Street, which began its life in something like 18 >> 97 I believe. >> Was that a woman's college? >> It was a woman's college. It's this one was actually the dormatory. It's the last standing structure of sorry, this
was the dormatory and it was the last standing structure from that college >> and I had the opportunity to go inside of it a few years ago. There's some really amazing handcarved woodwork in there. Um,
a lot of character to this building. And the issue is that over time once the building was placed there I think it started somewhere else in town or in Lakeland or somewhere >> it did >> um over time the future land use and the
zoning change but the building's been there many many years. So right as we sit right now the most you could get on that 62 acres is about five apartment units. They have enough building space
in there. I forget the square footage of the building. Uh, but there's enough building space in there to put a good 10 or 12 units >> easily. So the proposed amendment and I want to I want to be sure that everyone
understands the distinction here because for this particular code you have to be outside the historic district and you have to be a historically contributing structure. >> Um >> do you mind? >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Historically significant, culturally
significant. There are not that many structures outside the historic district that meet that criteria. >> John But this is for adaptive reuse. So I don't think you're going to do that. Um and that's why we wanted we've had many
applicants want to demolish it and we wouldn't support that decision because it's such a significant part of the city's history. So we've been working with the different applicants actually really and but the most recent who wants
to who really wants to preserve it >> and that is the CR they have to meet all criteria and they cannot do any other bonus density options. They can choose only one and this is this only one. So,
this historic structure density bonus would establish a voluntary density bonus program for eligible historic structures located outside the city's designated historic district. It's intended to intended to encourage, as Melissa was explaining, preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of
existing historic structures that are at least 50 years old, retain sufficient historic integrity, and demonstrate historical, architectural, cultural, or archaeological significance to the city. These eligible projects would not necessarily have an easy road to this
bonus. Eligible projects would be reviewed on a case-byase basis, remain subject to all applicable city review and approval procedures, and it would not automatically change or amend the future land use map. It doesn't change the future land use map.
So, um that's the story on this one. Um what we're trying to do is save a very few old structures. And in order to do that,
they have to be economically viable. Um, if you can, the amount of money it'll take on a structure like this, which has been vacant for several years now, is more than what four or five units, which is what they could legally go in right
now. It would take more than that. Now, if we as a staff take into account the retention required, the parking required and all that, we feel like probably 10 is going to be the maximum here. And
with that, uh, Mr. Chairman, for the historic structure density bonus amendment, planning zoning department is recommending approval of the request. The proposed request for an update to the city's code of ordinances section
25-292 paragraph 26 provides an incentive to retain reil and reil rehabilitate and adaptively reuse historically architecturally, culturally or architecturally significant structures outside the city's designated historic
district. Two, the proposed amendment supports compatible redevelopment and reinvestment while pro preserving structures that contribute to the historic and cultural character of the city of Leburg. Three, the proposed amendment establishes eligibility
standards and review procedures to ensure that each request is evaluated on a case-bycase basis and remains subject to all the applicable city review protocol and requirements. And four, the proposed amendment is consistent with
the city's interest in encouraging preservation based economic development, reducing underutilization and supporting projects that provide community benefits such as housing, retail, public use, pedestrian connectivity, and reinvestment. So the action requested is vote to approve the proposed update to
the city's code of ordinances section 25-292 parenthesis 26 historic structure density bonus outside designated historic district and forward this recommendation to the city commission for their consideration. Be happy to
Melissa and I would be happy to answer any questions. Um there are very few buildings in the city that this will impact. Thank you sir. Is there anyone in the audience that has any questions on this or anything?
Okay, I'll close discussion off the public. Any here any questions or comments? >> Yeah, I do. Um Dan, you said something about four to five units in this building up to 10.
>> Yes, sir. Um the building is very large. uh I forget the exact square footage, six or 8 thousand square feet. It's it's it's large. >> Okay. >> And it's been there for many many years. The zoning around it is R2 and the future land use is low density. Under
the future land use, the most possible units you can get on that 62 I think was five units. >> Yes. >> And these units would be massive within that building. and there there's not
going to be enough economic return to just preserve the building. So if we looked at the site and we said, "What can we do to get a bonus in here somehow because of the uniqueness of the structure? Will it still have the parking? Will it still have the
retention? Will it still be able to maintain and do everything that any other structure would have to do?" And the answer to that was yes. But it looks like what we think they're going to max out around 10. It we can max it at 10.
It might it it actually could potentially hold more than that, but we don't want to overcrowd it. And we have talked to the applicant who has agreed that they can they believe they can make it work at 10. >> So they're going to turn it into apartments.
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. I I believe in fact it had been apartments for many many years. >> Actually, it was apartments for many years. >> It's not a change of use. It's just a little more density. >> Okay.
Well, I'm for keeping historic instructions. Yes, sir. >> But I don't want to >> I agree with you, Dan, that this isn't going to pop up an awful lot, but it's uh I think you all gone overboard to try and resolve this problem, and I hear a voice for the staff.
Okay. If there's no more discussion, I will entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we approve a U amendment uh AMDT-26-
948. I have a motion. Do I hear a second? >> I'll second it. >> I have a second. All in favor? Roll call vote. >> Commissioner Bower, >> yes. >> Commissioner Robertson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Sime, >> yes. >> Commissioner Kelly,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Carter, >> yes. Okay. Public hearing case RZ26949, the Goodman Reszoning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This CA case consists of a reszoning only on a site
consisting of 3/10en of an acre is generally located on the west side of Nichols Drive and south of US Highway 441 or East North Boulevard. Property is currently developed as an office and warehouse use and has historically been
used for that purpose. Under the overall proposal, the application for the project is requesting a change from R3 highdensity residential to C3 highway commercial. Again, the request is for approval of zoning only. The owner is
refinancing the property in the R3 zoning is not consistent with the established development pattern in the area. In fact, I don't know why it zoned R3 if you look at the uh map. Um, so when he came in and we looked at it, we said, "Sure, we'll certainly look at
this. It's an appropriate zoning." So, planner Mel Ortiz will present the maps and photo exhibits which include the aerial zoning, future land use, surrounding land use, wetland zoning, flood zone maps, commission, and CRA maps.
Here we have an extended aerial of the subject property. It is located south of East North Boulevard. Here's a close-up aerial of the subject property. Here we have the zoning. To the north, uh, we have C3 highway commercial and R2
medium density residential. To the east, we have C3 highway commercial. To the south, we have R3 high density residential and C3 highway commercial. And to the west we have P public and CIP commercial industrial
planned. Here's the future land use map. To the north, uh, general commercial, to the east, general commercial, to the south, general commercial, and to the west, uh, institutional. Here's the proposed zoning, which is C3
highway commercial. Here are the surrounding the surrounding land uses. To the north you have vacant commercial, light manufacturing. To the east you have vacant residential, a car wash and a service shop. To the south you have medical building office
one story and store one story. And to the west you have vacant government and vacant commercial. Here's the flood hazard zone map. Uh it is in flood hazard zone X. Here's the wetlands map. Uh there the
subject property is not in any wetlands. Here is the developments map. To the north you have Bentley Ridges Town Homes, Lake Griffin Reserves, and to the east you have Sunnyside Cassm. To the south nothing, and to the west you have
uh HUS Landing. Here's the Community Redevelopment Agency map. CRA is 27441. Commission district is uh loc The subject property is located commission district 1. Here are the sign posting pictures. On
the top you have a closeup of one of the signs on the subject property on East North Boulevard US 441. On the bottom image you're looking north from East North Boulevard US 441 from subject property.
On this top image, you're looking east along East North Boulevard, US 441 from Subject Property. And on the bottom, you're looking south across East North Boulevard, US 441. On the top image, you're looking west from subject property along East North Boulevard 441, US 441. And on the south
is the second sign that we posted is a closeup on subject property on Nicole's Drive. On this top image, uh, you're looking north across Nicole's Drive from Subject Property. On the bottom image, you're looking east along Nicole's Drive.
On this top image, you're looking south across Nicole's Drive on Subject Property. On the bottom, you're looking west along Nicole's Drive from Subject Property. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Ortiz. Moving to the departmental review summary. Project was
sent out to all city departments and Lake County governments and Lake County School Board. Um, no substantive comments from the city departments or Lake County public works. The school board had no comment as it's a nonresidential project. Um, project was
also per Florida statute sent out to the surrounding property owners and legally advertised and posted. Uh, city received no responses from the ads and letters. So under the zoning review the proposal is consists of.3
acres from R3 to C3 which is highdensity residential to highway commercial. The permitted uses would include retail office and light warehouse uses. So there's no change of use. It's the same
thing they've been used for for many years. The access is off of Nicholls Drive. There's no changes needed. The city the prop property is on city utilities stapley's property should be zon C3 per the applicant's request and under the recommendation
for the Goodman reszoning case number RZ26-949 planning and zoning department recommends approval of the request for the following reasons. The proposed request for a city of Leburg C3 highway commercial zoning is compatible with the current surrounding zoning districts.
The current future land use designation of city of Leburg general commercial is compatible with compat compatible with the existing surrounding future land use designations of general commercial and institutional. Three, their proposed request will allow for a spot zoning correction for the property that is
consistent with ongoing development patterns within the city of Leburg. Four, their proposed request does not appear to create a detriment to surrounding properties. The action requested is vote to approve the proposed reszoning from R3 high density residential to C3 highway commercial and
forward this recommendation to the city commission for their consideration. So there's nothing other than a change of color to the map which I don't know why it's zoned R3. Someone had some ideas many many years ago but it's been that way for the 20
plus years I've been here. >> Mr. Goodman here >> I did not see him. Um he and I have discussed this thoroughly. It's it's uh >> any questions of staff? >> Anyone here in the audience want to speak to this?
Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. >> I would like to make a motion to approve case number RZ-26-949 Goodman reszoning. >> Have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I second. Roll call.
>> Commissioner Sime. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Carter. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robertson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Kelly. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bowers. >> Yes. >> Okay. We're moving right along. And on this one, we can handle both at the same
time. Is that not >> Yes, sir. That's correct. We need separate motions on the items, but they can be discussed together. >> Thank you. So, I'll introduce public hearing case SSP26, 956, and 957.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the background, this project consists of an annexation, a small-cale comp plan, and a resoning on a site consisting of 10.24 plus or minus undeveloped acres generally located on the east side of County Road 44 and north of Spring
Court. Under the overall proposal, the future land use application for the project is requesting a change from Lake County urban low to city estate. That's a request for four units an acre to four units an acre. It's the same um future
land use. And then the zoning application for the project is requesting a change from Lake County R1 and R3, which is rural residential and medium residential respect respectively to city of Leburg planned unit development. The request within this
plan unit development is for a zoning for the future development that will consist of a maximum of 23 detached single family residential units. Senior planner Max Van Allen will represent the maps present the maps and photo exhibits
which include the aerial zoning future land use surrounding land use wetlands flood zones commissions and CRA maps. >> Thank you Mr. Miller Commission. The first image is the extended aerial showing the subject property east of County Road 44 and north of US Highway
441. The closeup aerial shows the subject property east of County Road 44 and Oakstone Circle and north of Spring Court. The surrounding city future land use is
a state residential to the west and north. The existing county future land use is urban low. The surrounding county future land use is rural transition to the north and urban low to the northeast and
south. The proposed future land use is estate residential. The surrounding city zoning is PUD planned unit development to the west and north. The existing zoning on the subject
property is R1 and R3. The surrounding zoning includes R1, CFD, C1 and Agriculture to the north, R2 and R1 to the south, and R1 to the east.
The proposed zoning is city planned unit development PUD. The surrounding land uses include vacant government and single family to the north and single family to the west, east, and south. There is no flood zone present on the
subject property, nor are there any wetlands present on the subject property. Surrounding developments include Oakstone Farms and Morningside to the west, Silverl Point to the north, and Silverl Villas to the south.
The surrounding commission district is commission district 5. The top image is a closeup of the sign on the subject property on County Road 44. The bottom image is looking north along County Road 44 from the subject
property. The top image is looking east across County Road 44 onto the subject property. And the bottom image is looking south along County Road 44. The top image is looking west across County Road 44 from the subject
property. And that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Van Allen. Moving on to the departmental review summary. Project was sent out to all city departments plus Lake County government and school board. Under the city department responsive, we received no substantiative comments from the city
departments. Just as a reminder, a no comment response indicates that the city has sufficient capacity to serve the development in the form of water, wastewater, natural gas, etc. So capacity and availability exist within the system. The school board issued a no
impact letter for the 23 proposed single family units. Uh they noted that the 23 dwelling units would generate approximately seven students which at this time would be considered a dimminimous impact for the school district of little or no impact.
Therefore the full concurrency review would not be required um at this time. Lake County Public Works had no comments. Uh, per city of Leburg standard review comments though, a traffic study is a requirement of the re of the review process along with
environmental studies and um um see we had the traffic and environment. Yeah, I got both of those. So, those are all parts of the standard review which is shared with Lake County Public Works as we do with all the projects that impact any county facility. Under public
responses, we did send this out per statute and city of Leburg code requirements. Project was legally advertised, posted, and letters were sent out to surrounding property owners within 200 feet. We did receive two disapproval responses for objections from a Silver Lake resident. I want to
try to summarize this, do the best I can with it. There was concerns about habitat fragmentation and displacement of native wildlife, loss of mature canopy canopy and ecological buffering, increased storm water runoff and impacts to the Silver Lake ecosystem, increased
lighting, noise, dust, and construction disruption, privacy and compatibility concerns for immediately adjacent residential properties, cumulative environmental and infrastructure impacts associate associated with continued incremental development pressure surrounding
Silverlake. They also did send a second letter and in summarizing that one they were concerned about existing groundwater and runoff conditions affecting both private wells and the surrounding lake environment over time and some other concerns. They may be
here to comment. Um Eddie and Rita Maria Dilva Colado, you're here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I just want to be sure that we got your issues on and hopefully we covered those. Uh, under the terms of
the proposal for the small planned unit development agreement, the proposal does consist of 10.24 plus or minus acres. The permitted uses will be a maximum of 23 single family residential homes. No other uses are permitted. The project proposal does include conditions and
development standards, which I'd like to go over. Um, all lots are 6,500 square feet minimum. So that's a 60 foot width. A twocar garage. Gutters on anything with with less than 10 feet between structures with excuse me, less than 15
feet between structures. Um, maximum building height is two floors, which is consistent with what's in the area. Minimum of 35% of the property must be an open space. Dark sky lighting is required. A code compliant landscaping plan for the property is required. It
does include a split rail fence along County Road 44 and a six-foot fence around the remainder of the site unless there is adequate vegetation considered by the city to be opaque. And when we say opaque, we mean you can't see through it. Unless there's adequate ve
vegetation, they would they would have to put up a minimum sixoot fence around the remainder of the site. They can use BA or Bermuda grass, but not St. Augustine. because St. Augustine uses a lot of water. There's also at least 6,000 square feet of recreation space to
include a playground and a dog park on the property. Now, the the staff has added a couple of new conditions to all PUDs. The first being that we're allowing landscape plans to be reviewed under the
city's code, which we've done for many years, but we're adding that they can also use plants from the University of Florida EAS Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, their list of Florida friendly and pollinator friendly
plants. Um, the city is currently working on its landscape code, updating it, and these are some of the things that we're going to be putting in there. So, we might as well put it in there now while we're working on it. So, that that's going to help some. And then we
also added a new section in there requiring perpetual maintenance of the site by the HOA and residents, which gives code enforcement some additional leverage if there's ever any issues. These will be in all new PUDS going
forward. um that at the request of the city commissioners. On site access, you have one access shown on the site plan that's coming from County Road 44. One access points all that's is all that's needed on a on a development of this
size. The access point does have to be in boulevard style construction and the developer is required to provide any and all expansions or upgrades to the access point as needed or required by Lake County uh such as turn lanes or axel del
lanes something like that. All the development has to be on city water and city waste water. So there can be no wells or septic systems on the property. That's that's uh uh not permitted. Our utilities have indicated that there is sufficient capacity in all the services
to serve the development at this time. There is also the standard uh phasing or expiration clause which requires that development move forward with substantial commencement within four years or the property has an automatic reversion to the RE1 zoning standards
which goes back to one acre per unit. So I'd like to go forward with the recommendations on this at this time. Uh planning uh for the reserve at 44
case SSP 26-956 which is the smallcale comp plan portion. Planning and zoning department is recommending approval of the request for the following reasons. One, the project meets the requirements of chapter 31, excuse me, chapter 163.3187
Florida statutes for small-cale comp plan amendments. Two, the proposed request is compatible with the adjacent future land use designations of Lake County rural transition urban low and city of Leburg estate residential. Three, the proposed request is compatible with the proposed zoning of
PUB for the proposed future land use designation is consistent with the city's growth management plan future land use element goal one objective 1.6 and the action requested is to vote to approve the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment from Lake County urban
low to city of Leburg estate residential and forward this recommendation to the city commission for their consideration. Under the zoning recommendation for the reserve at 44, case number PUD26-957, planning and zoning department is recommending approval of the request for
the following reasons. Number one, the proposed request for the PUD zoning is compatible with the current surrounding zoning districts, including Lake County R1, R2, and CFD um AAG and C1 neighborhood commercial and with city of Leburg PUD plan unit
development. Two, the proposed zoning as conditioned is compatible with the proposed future land use designation amendment to city estate residential and the current surrounding future land use designations. Three, the site is compatible with the existing city of Leburg approved
developments along County Road 44. And four, the proposed request does not appear to create a detriment to surrounding properties as conditioned in the PUD document. The action requested is vote to approve the proposed reszoning from Lake County R1 and R3 to
city PUD and forward this recommendation to the city commission for consideration. Um, Mr. Mr. Chairman, based on review of this proposal and the fact that it's consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and land development regulations, staff is recommending approval for case
numbers PU uh SS SCP 26956 and PUD 26957, the reserve at 44. Mr. Jason Lee, the applicant for the property, and Mr. Chuck Hyatt, the engineer from Half Associates in Tavaris are here to
represent the case and answer any questions you may have. Thank you, sir. Any of the applicants want to speak? If you would please state your name and where you reside. >> Good evening. Chuck Hayyatt, 902 North
Sinclair Avenue, Tavaris, Florida with half. I am the engineer of record here to answer any questions you may have. But one thing I wanted to add was that the county land use is urban load which allows four units per acre. So for round
numbers mathwise 10 * 4 is 40. We're asking for 23 which is about 2 and a half units per acre. So happy to answer any questions if you have. >> Okay. Any questions for Mr. Hyatt? Hearing none. Someone else was willing
to speak. >> Good afternoon. >> Please uh pull the microphone down for you and >> Good afternoon. Is that better? >> Um so my name is Rita Maria Colado. I'm here with my husband Eddie. We are one
of the um affected properties that live off of Silver Lake and um I sent the email. So, one of our concerns is the this is one of the final
lots that um remained that remain as a wooded buffer um for the area surrounding Silver Lake. everything else has already been developed and the it would have both a direct impact on both our quality of life, the character of
the community that we intentionally chose to move to. Um so we're concerned about that mature canopy destruction, the difference between true preserved existing mature buffer versus new
landscaping which would be dramatically different. the long-term impact on the quality of our wellwater. Um the displacement of wildlife and where they go, how they get displaced, do they end up in our yards? Um the
proposed development pattern does not appear consistent with the large lot environmental and stateome character that historically surrounds Silver Lake. Um so after reviewing the actual site
plans um many residents became increasingly concerned that the proposed 25- ft landscape buffer perimeter setback that you can see on one of the lot plans. It does not actually preserve any of the mature trees. um only the
canopies fall within the 25 feet but the actual trees fall outside of that which means that I don't know that any would be retained so it would be largely cleared um and so um
right now the overall aspect of the lots that exist are very immersive very um in the middle of nature and um this would dramatically impact that. So we would like to request if we can
reconsider the 25 ft to perhaps be increased. Ideally we would love to have a 100 foot preserved natural buffer area. So that would enable us to actually retain some of the mature trees that are currently there. On the plan if you look at the
dash line around the perimeter you'll see none of the actual trees fall within. It's only the canopy itself that goes over the 25 ft. Um, so we so over the years, our family and our neighbors, we've observed a lot
of species of mammals and birds um and different animals that live on that area. Um, I I believe I even appended pictures to the email. So, we're concerned once they get relocated
what happens. Um, the land is not empty land. It's very much alive. It's very much part of why a lot of us invested in Silver Lake. >> Okay. I don't turn this thing off. >> Okay.
>> Pam, your time is up. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else that would like to speak? You want to handle that? Yeah. >> Oh, sorry. >> Your name and your address. >> Hi, good afternoon. I'm sorry. I'm a
elementary school teacher, >> which is why I have no voice, so I apologize. Um, my name is Anna Martinez, 8735 Spring Court. We back up, my husband and I, we back up to the corner of the preser of the property. Um, and
our concern is also the habitat, the wildlife. We moved here 20 years ago from South Florida, ironically, from the same neighborhood, and we meet here in South Florida. And um, we're just concerned how the wildlife will be
relocated. Is it through through sound waves that it can impact us healthwise or are they going to set up traps? What's going to happen that is going to affect our properties? And then what is the timeline? Will are
we going to be given a timeline as to how long from beginning to end? Will we be notified prior so that we can prepare ourselves when this happens? So those were really just my questions and I just wanted to
we're just very concerned about the wildlife. We have bald eagles. We have just the owls. We have the owls. We have the bald eagles. We have a bear. We have coyotes and we see them all the time in our cameras and we're just worried about what's going to happen then to the
surrounding areas and where is the retention pond going to be. Is there a retention pond? >> Yeah, if you're looking at the map northwest corner or southwest >> so it's the Okay, so that's where the retention pond's going to be. Okay. And
then the flow would be towards Silver Lake. It all flows towards 44. >> Oh, it's going to So, what is the elev? So, everything's flowing to 44. >> So, is there is there any way to request that we don't have twostory homes built
on the outer property just so privacy because based on how everything is being built, when you drive around the other neighborhood, the they've elevated the lot so high that they're looking into the homes of Silver Lake. So, is there
any way that we can meet halfway be considerate to the neighbors that we've been living there for over 20 years where no two-story homes around the perimeter so that we can maintain our privacy? And if you could consider saving some of the buffer so that the
landscaping I look at my backyard and it's beautiful. I see the cardinals. I enjoy my backyard and I know it's going to be interrupted. So is there any way that we can meet halfway where we can just you can extend the buffer a little bit more where we can
preserve that? >> Yeah. >> Thank you. I appreciate your time. >> Thank you very much. >> Anyone else like to speak on this subject? >> You have to be sworn in to speak. >> Yes, you do.
>> You can be sworn in now. >> We can cuss you in if you want to s stand up. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth? >> Good evening. Uh my name is Robert Long. I'm the uh association president of
Silver Lake Silver Lake Springs right next to this development. And u and I can only echo what these fine ladies have said about the development. My concern >> address, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. It's 8732 Spring Court. Um, my concern is how many
cars are you guys going to put on Highway 40? I mean, it's already a mess. And you reduce the speed limit to 50. That I mean, I sit out on my back porch having coffee at 6:00 a.m. in the morning and it's steady stream of traffic going down that road at 60 70
miles an hour. It's just a matter of time. As you guys increase the density of the population along Highway 40, somebody's going to die. It's a crazier road right now, you add more houses, it's just going to get crazier. There's I don't know how many houses you guys have approved in that area, but it's
hundreds hundreds of houses. Hundreds of cars are going to be added to Highway 40 >> 44. Sorry. I would just ask that you guys consider the density of the population compared to the two-lane highway that goes through that area.
It's it's nuts already. You guys keep adding houses, you keep adding cars, people are going to die on that highway. It's not made to have all I mean, if you look at the big picture, all those neighborhoods that have been built around our area, you know, I think across the street there's there's 140
houses going in. Right next to that, there's another hundred. All those all those green spots are you guys are calling it low, but it's from where we're looking on the lake. It's all high density. It's all track home. It's going to involve so much traffic and and
people are going to come out. They're going to hit North Silver Lake Road. They're going to get on Silver Lake, which people drive 40, 50 miles an hour. We got six car dealers that test drive on that road already. And now people to get to the grocery store, they're going
to have to take North Silver Lake Drive, get on Silver Lake Drive and over to Radio Road to get groceries. There's I mean the the grocery store, the closest grocery store is the Publix on 441. And and I'm just I'm kind of at a loss. I don't understand how many people you guys are going to put out there without
the infrastructure to deal with them. I mean, the neighborhoods are great, but the city and county uh infrastructure is sorely wanting in this area. And I would I would beseech you to consider the traffic impacts of all these neighborhoods topped off by this last
one. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else from the audience who's want to participate? If not, I'll close this part of the discussion off from the audience and we'll discuss it as a commission.
Commission have any statements to make? Any comments? Yeah. Where did you get the name Nuthatcher Drive? >> That's on uh is that this one or is that the one to the uh >> That's a different one. >> It's up at Lake at the point silver lake
point. That's actually a bird. Well, we found out too. There's some interesting names in there. >> Oh, okay. You don't like >> it's a it's a type of bird. >> Any relevant comments? Um, I have um, correct me if I'm wrong,
but in regards to traffic, that's not something that we are at. Um, >> thank thank you for asking that, Commissioner Carter, because that's there's a legitimate concern there. Okay. And um, the issue there's a couple
of issues here. One, County Road 44 is a county road. Um the other is that and I I would really appreciate people listening to what I'm saying here. State legislature allows
or require has certain requirements. One of those requirements is that we as a staff cannot recommend and it would probably be unwise for a commission to recommend denial based solely on traffic. We cannot do it
legally. Right. And that's very difficult because understanding your concern, sir, and and they're legit and we get it. Um uh but the state legislature continues year after year to do things that make
it um easier and easier to develop and it puts us in a position of sometimes we want to say no and we can't. Now this is 23 units. it's going to have next to no impact um traffic-wise and everything else. The larger ones, yes, they they do
have an impact, but and I forget the exact quotation out of the statute, but it's in chapter 163 where I can't make a recommendation of denial if traffic is the only reason, >> right? >> And and so it makes it extremely difficult uh for us to do that. Now, one
other thing that has been going on very recently is that the city of Leburg and Lake County did get together um very recently to talk about some potential potential
uh no annexation zones. So, and it would cover a lot of 44 going up >> basically this this area up north. this this small parcel is obviously not included in it, but um there was some
there were some meetings with actually city of Leburg uh Lake County and all the cities in Lake County to talk about those kinds of issues. >> Growth is a real difficult issue and it's really um a lot of people are not happy and we recognize that. So, um, at
this point, the way the law is written in Florida, from a planner's opinion, the best you can do is manage it. You can't stop it. And, um, with respect to the things that have been expressed here tonight, we we hear it. We understand it. Um, we're at a loss to do anything
other than what the law allows us to do. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> And that's very difficult. that and that's why I was making mention of that because a lot of things are not us as uh as a commission in particular wanting to do this but we also have an obligation
to the law and so that's that's where we you know it's that fine line that we do we're here to yes listen to the concerns of the citizens as well but we also have a legal obligation. So in order for those things to change and for the
community as a whole to really if they want to see change in that that's going to be with their state rep their representatives and their legislators. Yes ma'am. >> Right. Because all we're doing is upholding the laws that the people that they put in place put there. >> And and that that is correct. And the
other thing is for a small development they've done a really good job of putting this one together. I think so too because it's half >> there's pluses and minuses on everything, >> right? >> So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Anybody else have any comments? I just got a question um regarding the
state law. Would a city be required to annex a piece of property that is is that against the state law? >> No. The city has discretion legislatively whether or not it wishes to annex property and expand its
boundaries or not. >> My thought would be no. We have enough traffic and development going on out there. We have a if we have that legal option, I would say to deny or have a much lower density uh proposal this this group of people.
>> Commissioner, you have you actually have that. So, we have to be careful because you said traffic. We can't go against traffic and it is a lower density. It's half. They could put 40 plus. >> What does the zoning What does existing zoning allow as far as density? >> 40.
>> Four. Four units. >> Yeah. >> No, four. >> You said four or four. >> Four. Four units per acre, which is 40. >> Okay. That's a county zoning. I thought it was zoned uh what's it existing zoning? >> Well, the the density is comes from the future land use. The future land use is four units
an acre. So then they're f the future land they're requesting is four units an acre in the city. >> Okay. So the existing zoning the existing zoning >> the existing zoning is R1 and R3 and I R1 is >> I think it's one acre one unit per acre
and I don't know what R3 is to be honest >> in the county. >> It's higher in the county. Yes sir. >> Okay. >> So us taking it kind of saving it. It seems to be a wash is what I'm concerned about. >> If you're in the city, you have to be on water and wastewater.
>> Yes. >> Any other comments, questions? >> Yeah, I have a question. Uh the compatible size of the existing lots >> compared to these lots. What's the difference? >> Do we have halfacre lots to uh compared
to 60 foot lots >> to the There we go. To the south they're larger. To the north, east, and west, they're some are even smaller.
Same size and smaller. So they're larger as you move south and east on from this property. And they're the same size or smaller when you move north and west. >> So the subject property, the lots are compatible with the lots. compatibility
is described by the state as um they can coexist over time without unreasonably creating issues. I don't I I'll find the exact wording on that, but that's uh
residential to residential is basically considered compatible. Even if it was apartments or town houses, it's still residential. That's not in the eyes of the general public, but that's in the eyes of the law. >> Yeah. But I'm looking at the physical >> size of the lots. How are these people
have >> um halfacre lots and now you want to put a 60 foot lot in there? >> The down to the south and down to the south they can be a half acre. I don't remember the exact size on
>> you have one acre. Okay. So there's there's some larger. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's some larger there to the south and west, but they are consistent with what's on the other the other side >> around Silver Lake. They're probably at least an acre. >> Yeah. >> Or more. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion on what are we doing? Five or six here or both? >> Number five. >> Number five.
>> Okay. I'll make a motion on SP26956 reserve at 44 to deny. >> I'd like to second on the floor to deny. I have a second. >> All in favor of the motion signify.
Roll call. >> Mr. >> No. Deny. >> Yes, that's that's a yes. >> That's a >> yes. >> Commissioner Robertson. >> No. >> Commissioner Carter.
>> No. >> Commissioner Bowers. >> Yes. >> Okay. on public hearing case PUD26957. I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll do the same. Uh case PUD26957
reserve at 44 to deny. >> I make a a second to that. I have a second of that motion. Roll call. >> Commissioner Simeone. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Carter. >> No. Mr. Robertson, >> no.
>> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> As you understand, this is uh going to be kicked down the road to the city commission and uh tenative date is July 13th.
Okay. >> Is the interim June one not? >> Okay. >> All right. The uh first meeting, the first reading is June 8th, 2026. The final decision that Commissioner Bower
Sox was talking about is on July 13th, of course. >> What was my final decision? >> July 13th, sir. >> And and also just pay attention to public notices and things as you know after first reading it's possible that
second reading date could change. Um, so just make sure you pay attention to the upcoming agenda schedules. >> Okay, fellas. I I want to put in a request for double pay. >> Okay. >> I don't usually have to. I was chairman
for years, but uh I >> But uh is there anything for the good of the order? >> Mr. Chairman, I do have one announcement, please. Um some sad news. Sabrina Mitchell, who uh is normally by my side here, uh lost her mother last
week. Um Miss Mloud, Loretta Mloud, she was 76 years old. Uh services are Saturday at Tares Community Church and just wanted to appreciate everyone's thoughts and prayers for Sabrina at this time. They were very close family and just good, wonderful people. And uh
>> do you have a a direct uh phone or email contact for her? Maybe we could >> I can get that to everyone. That'd be nice. >> Okay. Make sure she knows we're thinking about. >> Thank you, sir. And and u we'll do that. >> Okay. Is there anything else anybody on the commission would like to discuss or
bring up? >> Well, just while we're talking, I mean, I realize what we did just now is probably not going to go through with the honestly with the commission, but it's just a voice to make them more aware of, you know, what's now. I know the state law is going to probably
override whatever we say don't to, but whatever. Well, >> it's just I think I'm with a lot of people in the community. You know, we got to prove some things we don't want to. >> Uh but we can say no if we don't like it and we get overruled, we get overruled. Well, we're just a voice of the
community and uh we just do the best we can and I think we've got a good commission and I think everybody seriously makes their decisions pro and con and uh we move on. If there's nothing else, I'll move for
adjournment. >> Third, fourth, and fifth.