I'd like to call the uh planning and zoning commission meeting of Leburg to order. It is Thursday, May 22nd, 2025, 4:30. Please stand for the invocation and pledge the flag. Lord, we ask you to be with us today as we undertake the business of the city of
Leburg. We pray that the decisions were made here today will be pleasing in your sight. We pray this in thy most holy name. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance 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. Everybody's had an opportunity to look at the minutes. Are there any additions, corrections, or deletions? If not, I'll accept the motion to approve. I made the
motion to approve the minutes. I'll second to have a motion. He beat you. Got it. All in favor say I. I. I. All oppose. Thank you. Um I I'm kind of stalling for swearing in because people always come late. Um
but I'll go ahead and do it. If you plan on speaking tonight, uh you need to be sworn in. So at this time, if you please stand and be sworn in. If you don't swear in, you can't speak tonight. So you swear, but you're not obligated either.
Will you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Appreciate everybody. All right, Dano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, everyone. Like to welcome you to the May
22, 2025 city of Leburg Planning Commission meeting. My name is Dan Miller, planning and zoning director for the city of Leburg. Staff present today includes executive assistant Sabrina Mitchell to my left, deputy director Candy Harper on the front row, uh, senior planner Diane Yuckle
over here and Max Allen, Max Van Allen over here, and then planner Melissa Meadows behind me here to my right, city attorney Jennifer Cotch. Today's agenda and a speaker's registry is available on the table by the exit door if you need one. If you'd like to speak on a case,
we do ask that you would please sign the speaker registry which is on the table at the entry door as well and turn it in to Sabrina here on my left. Under the rules of participation, the meeting is conducted under the following process. The chairman will announce each case and
staff will present exhibits for the record. This will include the maps, photos, and text as shown on the screens. Staff will then provide the case background and some descriptive information and read a recommendation into the record. The applicant will have the opportunity to speak on the case and
the public will have time to comment on the case. The applicant will then have an opportunity to respond and the chairman will then close the case to the public. The commission will discuss the case and at that point the commission will take a vote on the case and move on to the next case. The planning
commission is made of citizens of the city of Leburg appointed by the city commission and they are charged with two major functions. One is making final decisions on cases such as variances and conditional uses. The second is to make recommendations for issues which will be
heard by the city commission. The city staff provides recommendations based on the city's comprehensive plan, land development regulations and state statute requirements. Today there are six cases on the agenda. One is a case for a conditional use permit which means
the final decision on that case will be rendered today by the planning commission. Uh this is the case for the accessory dwelling unit which is on the on the back side of the agenda. The remainder of the cases on today's agenda are recommendations by the planning
commission and they will be forwarded to the city commission for final decisions. The tenative dates for the city commission hearings are listed in bold on the agenda. These dates are subject to be changed. So we ask everyone to please
check with our office or the city clerk's office to verify final hearing dates. And finally, on behalf of the staff of the city of Leburg Planning Commission, uh we'd like to thank you for your participation in today's public hearing process. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you very much. Uh, the first two cases are together, so I'm going to I'm going to read both of them, enter them into the record. Um, new business public hearing case number
LSCP25512, Lake Margaretta Estates Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment. And number two is public hearing case number PUB25513 Lake Margaretta Estates Plan Unit development. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The overall proposal for this property, it is generally located south of County Road 48 and east of Number Two Road. The western border of this property lies along number two road and is adjacent to the Eagle Landing project which is underway just across the street and it
and is also within city limits. The total land area consists of approximately 196 acres. The project includes an annexation, a large-scale comp plan, and a reszoning. Approximately 103 of the 196 acres of
the property is already within the city limits. That acreage has city zoning districts of agricultural and estate density residential and a future land use of estate. This is one of the last remaining a parcels we have in the city.
uh because part of this land already lies within the city limits. The comp plan amendment for the property is for the remaining 90 plus acres and the zoning is for the entire 196 acres. So don't let the geographies confuse you. Staff has got this lined out um because
not all the property is in Lake County. A significant portion is in Leburg already. The comp plan for the project is requesting a change from Lake County future land use of rural transition and rural to city of Leburg estate which as
you know is a maximum four units an acre. The zoning from the project will go from Lake County agriculture, city of Leburg RE1 and Lake County agriculture to city of Leburg planned unit
development. Under the background again, the site's 196 plus or minus undeveloped acres. The request is for future development of 586 uh single family units, detached I should say, single family units, which you will see in the conceptual plan. Senior planner Diane
Yuckle will present the maps and photo exhibits which include aerial zoning, future, and surrounding land use maps, wetlands, flood zones, and CRA maps. Did you say detached or attached? Detached. My notes say attached, but it's detached. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Yuck. Um Mr. Miller, as we can see from the aerial, the um subject property is the south side of County Road 48 and east of number two road. for the zoning of the property. Part of the subject property is zoned
city RE1 estate density residential and city A agriculture along with city zoning to the west of the subject property um of city A agriculture and PUB planned unit development for the Lake County zoning.
Part of the subject property is also zoned Lake County Agriculture. There is also Lake County A to the north, south, and west. Lake County R2 estate residential to the east and north and Lake County R6 urban residential and
R1 rural residential also to the north. The proposed zoning is PUB planned unit development. The future land use once again part of the subject property has a future land use of city estate residential along with the estate
density res residential to the west for Lake County future land use part of the subject property has an of rural and rural transition which is also to the east and west we have um lake
county rural transition and urban low density to the north and Lake County rural to the south. The proposed future land use is a state density residential. For surrounding land use,
we have to the north single family, vacant residential, and manufactured home. To the east, we have single family and nursery. To the south, we have single family, timber, and crop land. And to the west, we have single family,
timber, and an orange grove. And the commission district is commission district number three. And for the city boundary, we can see that part of the subject property is in city limits and three of the parcels are in Lake
County. Um it is in the Leburg ISBA and the surrounding developments include Eagle, Whispering Hills and Windmill and Windong down to the um lower southern western. Um, it was annexed in
2008. And for the flood zones, the northern part of the subject property is in the flood zone and and wetlands as well. The northern part of the subject property also has wetlands. For the photos,
um, the top is a closeup of the sign onto the subject property from number two road. The bottom is looking north along number two road from the subject property. The top is looking east onto the subject property from number two
road. And the um bottom is looking south along number two road from the subject property. And then we have looking west across number two road from the subject property. And then the bottom is a closeup of the sign um onto the subject
property from County Road 48. The top photo is looking north from the subject property across County Road 48 and the bottom photo is looking east along County Road 48 from the subject
property. The top photo is looking south onto the subject property from County Road 48 and the bottom photo is looking west along County Road 48 from the subject property. The top is a closeup of the sign onto
the subject property from Triumpy Road. And the bottom photo is looking north along Trippy Road from the subject property. The top photo is looking east across the Triumpy Road from the subject property. And the bottom photo is
looking south along Triumpy Road from the subject property. The top photo is looking west onto the subject property from Triumpy Road. And the bottom photo is a closeup of the sign onto the subject property
from Arrow Lane. The top photo is looking north along Arrow Lane from the subject property. And the bottom photo is looking east from the subject property across Arrow Lane.
And the top photo is looking south onto the subject property from Arrow Lane. And the bottom photo is looking south west onto the subject property from Arrow Lane. And that is all I have. Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Yuckle. With that, we move to the departmental review
summary. The project was sent out to all city departments in addition to Lake County government and the school board. The city department responses uh were limited. There were no substantive comments that came back from the city departments. Uh I would like to note that the project is outside of the city of Leburg electrical service area. Uh
this was the school board uh will state that the project will be subject to school concurrency review as it is a residential project. And just for the record that is a review by the school board staff to see if adequate student stations are present. If they are not
the project is subject to a mitigation agreement to provide adequate stations within the school system. So the applicant will have to either provide those adequate student stations or adequate stations must exist within the system for the project to move forward at the time of development. Those
mitigation agreements are usually in the form of a cash payment as the property is platted or something like that as each subdivision is approved. And each of those mitigation agreements, I have not mentioned this before, but I wanted to mention tonight, each of those mitigation agreements not only have to
be approved by this, the school board of Lake County, but they also have to be approved by the city commission. So, they come before uh rigorous review requirements. Lake County Public Works had uh a lot of comments on this one. Uh they advised that there are left and turn left and right turn lanes are
required at the development entrance, which would be County Road 48. They noted concerns regarding rightaway that would not meet the minimum standard widths. That would mean the applicant would have to work with Lake County Engineering to provide adequate rightway before they will approve. Um and this
could potentially mean some redesign in the project. U not it's not a guarantee. They noted that a traffic signal at County Road 48 number two may be required that the and that the traffic study that was provided by the
applicant indicated the need for a traffic light and that the county would review that traffic study to confirm what the study said. And then if that is the case, the developer does have to provide a signal warrant analysis and pay for the signal, the traffic signal
and the associated cost. Um, county noted that they would require sidewalk sidewalks along County Road 48. They will need a detailed survey along County Road 48 to be able to verify the property lines, the rights of way, and
where the utilities are located. Um, they did note additional rightway for County Road 48 may be required to accommodate drainage and offsite improvements. The county also noted they will require 8 ft of rideway on Triumpy Road and that access would not be
allowed on Triumpy Road. So that was in their comments on Gospel Hill and Helgs Road. The county noted there are easements which are dedicated to the public that are not maintained by the county. Those easements must be maintained to allow access rights by the
surrounding par parcels. They also noted that the emergency access points will have to be controlled to allow access by emergency vehicles and the current, meaning the existing users only. For number two road, Lake County stated there will be a minimum 12oot travel
lanes and 4ft shoulder on both sides of the road along the development boundary, which would require additional rights of way as well. So, what they're talking about there is along the everywhere this project has a boundary adjacent to number two road, they would have to be
able to have those 12oot travel lanes and 4 ft of shoulder. Um, there would be northbound right turn lane and southbound left turn lane on number two road would be required. And they stated the storm water management system design
would need to be reviewed by Lake County and St. John's River Water Management District. Well, that's part of the standard review process, but it's one of their comments. And that a drainage and flood study would be performed and submitted to the city and county. And that's also part of the standard process. Under public responses, the per
Florida statute and city of Leburg code requirements, staff did send the project to be legally advertised and posted and letters were sent out to the surrounding property owners within 200 feet. The city has received at this point no public comments. Um,
however, staff did request and we are aware that the applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project with the neighbors in the area. So, staff wanted to thank if any of those neighbors are here. We don't thank the neighbors who attended and provided input. And to the applicant, we
appreciate you holding that meeting um with the neighbors. Under the PUD requirements of this project, the proposal consists of 586 detached single family homes with a two-f floor maximum height. It is a platted subdivision, so individual units,
individual lots would be sold. No other uses are permitted in the proposal. Lots would come in three sizes, 50, 60, and 70 feet widths. 316 of those lots would be 50 feet wide with a minimum house size of 1,700 square ft.
155 of those lots would be 60 feet wide with an 18,800 square foot house minimum and 115 of those lots will have 70 foot wide lot sizes with a minimum of 1,900 foot homes. Um under design and architectural standards the pretty
standard what you have seen before um standard architectural requirements include a list within the PUD and the applicant must select five features from that list to meet the architectural standards. 35% of the uh space overall
space of the project must be in green space. Dark sky lighting is required. There is significant buffering to adjacent properties provided by the PUD, including requirements for a 25- foot buffer tract around the entire property
and the landscape buffers are not part of the lots. They are separate and must be maintained by the HOA. Um, two trees required on each lot. Bea and Bermuda grass are permitted. St. Augustine is not due to its water usage. There are signage requirements uh for the 5-ft
entryway signs. Recreational requirements in the PUD include 2.7 acres devoted to two separate recreation areas with a swimming pool and a cabana with on-site parking, a children's children's playground and gazebo. There's also requirements for a separate
dog park, trails around the retention areas, and the retention areas, which are normally dry, the dry retention areas. We're encouraging people to use those as recreation fields when they're dry during during part of the year, most of the year. So that's allowed. Um and
the recreation amenities must be constructed by the time 50% of the residential units are complete. In addition, development will be on city water and wastewater as all so that as all developments. So there will be no wells or septic. And finally we have the
standard phasing clause which requires the applicant to move forward with substantial a substantial commencement i.e. building permit or site plan within four years or the property has an automatic reversion to the RE1 zoning which is one unit per acre which in this
case at 196 acres rough estimate would be 196 houses. Um so staff is recommending approval for these cases. I'd like to go ahead and read the recommendations if I may, Mr. Chairman. Um how many years was the uh the
rehearsal? Four four years. It's we've it's been standardized right to four years now on all PUDs. Um makes it a lot easier to keep up with. Yeah. So for the project Lake Margaretta Estates large scale comp plan to Leburg Estate
Residential under case number LCP 25512 planning and zoning department is recommending approval of the request for the following reasons. One, the project meets the requirements of chapter 163.3184 Florida statutes for largecale conference of plan amendments. Two, the proposed large-scale comp plan amendment
is compatible with the adjacent future land use designations of Lake County urban low density rural transition rural and city estate residential. Three, the proposed zoning classification of PUD plan unit development is compatible as conditioned with the current surrounding
zoning districts of Lake County. R1 rural residential, R2 which is their state residential, R3 medium residential district, R six urban residential, CFD which is community facility and A district and A agriculture as well as
with city agriculture and PUD plan unit development 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 six and the action requested is vote to approve the staff
recommendation to change the future land use of the prop subject property from Lake County rural transition and rural to city of Leburg estate residential and forward this recommendation to the city commission for their consideration. So staff is recommending approval on that and then under the PUD Mr. chairman for
Lake Margaret Estates's reszoning to PUD under case number PUD 25513. Planning and zoning department recommends approval of this request for the following reasons. One, the proposed zoning classification of PUD plan unit development is compatible as condition
with the current surrounding zoning districts of Lake County R1, R2, R3, R six, CFD and A agriculture as well as with city agriculture and PUB. Two, the proposed largescale comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with the
adjacent future land use designations of Lake County urban low density rural transition rural and city estate residential. Three, the proposed request as conditioned does not appear to create a detriment to surrounding properties based on the conditions, location, and proximity to future compatible
development. The action requested is vote to approve staff's recommendation to reszone the subject property from Lake County Agriculture, City Agriculture, and RE1 Estate Residential to City of Leburg PUB Plan Unit development and forward to the city
commission for consideration. Uh, Mr. Chairman, staff is recommending approval on both these cases. Uh, Mr. Mike Rankin of Land Planning Group and Tares is here to represent the case and answer any additional questions you may have. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any questions of
staff? I I have one quick question. What's What density is in uh Lake County rural? What density is in rural residential or rural transitional?
I don't have agricultural in agriculture. I think it's one for five. I apologize. Okay, Mr. O Kelly. I That's okay. Rural and rural transition are similar, but I don't know off the top of my head. I meant to grab that. Okay. Uh
when I walked out the door, but they are similar in low like that. Any other questions? Mr. Ranken, please state your name and your address, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of
the commission, staff, and audience. for the record, Mike Ranken, Land Planning Group, uh, president and owner. And I'm going to yield my time to Tom Daly, who's going to take you a little bit further in depth report on our project. Thanks.
Good afternoon. And I'm Tom Daly with the Daily Design Group, 913 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. We're here on behalf of the applicant. Uh, with us, uh, we're urban planners and landscape architects. And so we have uh our civil engineer here if
there's any engineering questions. We have our traffic engineer here. Uh we have the developers here tonight. Um I have a few slides. Can I ask you to go through and No, we gave those to staff.
There we go. Okay. Um like like Mr. Miller said, the property is comprised of uh both city property and county property. The uh areas up there on the north side where it says amendment
parcel A that is uh currently in the county, it has a uh rural transition future land use and in the county that allows for one home per acre. the two little 10acre sites at the bottom, those are also here for consideration for
annexation. Um they're both uh 10 acres and they're allowed one home per 5 acres currently under the future land use. And the main part of the property um which is currently accessed by number two road is currently within the city and it
contains that estate residential future land use which allows up to four homes per acre. So basically what we're doing is we're we're taking this the outlier county property tying them together so that we can have a cohesive development.
Uh all the access to this site is going to be uh from County Road 48. Um and as u Mr. Miller put pointed out, there's going to need to be road improvements on that that road, intersection improvements. um we are prohibited from having any
form of uh access to road number two and we are agreed to that with the exception of emergency vehicles where I think uh Dan had mentioned there's a uh it's called Gospel Hill Road on the maps but it's a county uh easement and folks
there's folks that this property included that um currently use that to access their their sites. Um so can you go to the next slide please? And this is just the um again this is the zoning. Um and again we're
going to take you know we're we're requesting that we we annex the properties in change the future land use so that everything is consistent across the whole 196 acres and then zone the entire property to PUB. Um can you go to
the next slide please? This is our master plan, but it it it's kind of um uh the darkened areas in the center are the city property. So, more than 50% of the site is is within the city right now. And so, uh the brighter colored
village A and the two orange uh uh squares at the bottom are what we're currently asking to be annexed into the city of uh Leburg. You can go to the next one, please. And this is our master plan. Um it'll be broken up into, you know, three villages, two to three
phases of construction. You can see there's a main road that accesses to the north uh the primary access uh off of 48. We're aligning that with a a driveway or a subdivision entrance across the street, but like uh like Mr.
Miller was pointing out, we're going to be going through all the design criteria with the county. Uh it's their road. Um, and you know, we we have a pond that's up there on the north that's kind of the low side of the site uh that fronts along uh 48 uh county 48. And so, you
know, we'll if if we have to, you know, give right away for the improvements that we do, we've got plenty of room to to do that. The the project itself is uh the future land use that we're asking for is up to four homes per acre.
However, we've agreed to cap that at three units per acre, recognizing the transition component of this as we uh go to the basically the eastern boundaries of the uh city's service area, the ISBA.
Uh we're we're all staying we're all west of that line. I don't know you can see it on this graphic, but it's the eastern most property boundary, which is the limits of what the the city uh can uh provide utilities to. And so
everything is within uh the the purview of of the city to be ultimately annexed and uh ultimately served by public utilities. Uh there's a total of with the cap of uh three homes per acre, what
we're uh requesting is uh a total of 586 homes with a mixture of home sizes. There's no commercial, there's no town homes, there's no multif family. This is all single family uh detached residential project with a main amenity
center in the center in the middle of the project. It's the purple in that area there. Um and so that'll serve the entire community. Those green squares that you can see uh those are the uh neighborhood parks and you know this is
a bubble plan so once we get further along but we anticipate having a minimum of three to four neighborhood parks plus the amenity center uh which will contain a pool, a cabana, a playground, all the amenities that you see normally in a a
development of of this character. Um, we have 56 acres of open space, which is quite a bit. Um, we have the Lake Margaretta, which is up there on the the darker green up on the upper left hand side, where that's a wetland,
and we're not proposing to impact that wetland. Uh, we have a buffer required by the uh by the water management district and so all of those will be uh incorporated into our plans. But at this point, you can see that the way our
spine road, our main access road, we're we're avoiding that wetland alto together. So, we don't foresee any uh significant wetland impacts, if at all. Um, we did hold a community meeting uh and I was looking for the date. I didn't
write it down, but we had it over Venetian Isisle. There was about 30 people that showed up um from both the Trippy Lane and then the folks that are uh in the center uh of the property. Uh a majority of the issues at the
community meeting were not just traffic volume but traffic safety. Apparently the way that the road is striped out there, people will pass on the double yellow stripe lines and people pulling out don't see them. And so those are
some of the things when we look at designing our intersection improvements that we're going to take into consideration uh just to try to help an existing problem that that that's out there today. So um and with that um you
know we we appreciate staff's support and we look for your support and I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. Any questions or Yeah, I have one real quick. Um I think
maybe you misspoke. Is it three or four homes per acre? Three. Three. The the comprehensive plan allows up to four. The PUD zoning caps it at three. 2.98. Yes. Below three.
Any other questions? Oh boy. More people, huh? Is that a question? Just a statement. Okay. Curious. Thank you. Thank you. And again, if you have any other questions, I'm here to respond.
Is there anybody here to speak for or against it from the audience? Okay. We'll close to the uh public for discussion and render decision. Is there any discussion on the
project? My statement that I wanted to make is that a point in time and and I I appreciate y'all adjusting uh a little bit as far as density on the project.
48 is a busy road already as we know and five to 600 more vehicles on there minimal is quite a boot plus 27 intersection and coming to Leburg.
Uh there's a point in time where we can grow to the point where we're not comfortable living in where we've always lived. And this bothers me. Uh, you know, if we lived in Missouri,
we wouldn't be having this problem. I understand that. We live in Florida, which I've lived in most of my life. But, uh, I don't know what to do about it. I don't think I can do anything
about it except recommend denial on something that continues to grow. But then when the comp plan for the city and comp plan for the state says that, you know, it fits.
Um, I'm just having a problem with it, gentlemen. I have I'm I'm venting a little bit. I'm with you. [Music] Okay. Um I think there's always been concern about traffic on number two road for any
project has come forward. So this is another issue there even though I understand the main entrance or an entrance is on 48 which is not not really a big improvement but uh in driving through the area and uh
there's probably 60 acres in orange groves that are just producing oranges right now. It's beautiful. I was there yesterday. Um, Trippy Place developed 30, 40 years ago. Very nice community of probably 1 acre, 3/4 acres of two or three acre lots. If this property were
developed into halfacre lots, it would just be a wonderful setting. Um, again, I I have to agree with Mr. Bowerox. Um even though the city commission denied the motion a month or so ago
about it putting a moratorum on on growth uh and some annexations and so forth um that doesn't mean we can't deny a project because we don't feel like it's the right thing for that area. Uh so I
again uh feel like this should not be approved for this kind of density. The zoning uh right now for some of this stuff is one house for five acres. I'm not sure what rural transitional is, but uh it's probably a little bit more of a
density than that. So, that's my take on this. Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'll uh accept the motion to approve or disapprove. I'll make a motion to disapprove.
I second that motion. Pardon me. I second the motion. Okay. Disapprove. Oh. Yeah. Okay. 25. [Music] Are we joining them together? Well, no.
We're voting one at a time. Okay. I second your bio. Okay. Any discussion? Roll call. Commissioner Donaldson. I approve denial. That's a yes. That's a yes.
Commissioner Senate. Nay. Commissioner Carter? No. Commissioner Kaplan? Yes. Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Okay. on public hearing case number PUD 25513 Lake Margaretta states plan unit
development. Is there a motion to approve or disapprove? Motion to deny LCP 25. I second your motion. Any discussion? Roll call. Commissioner.
Nay. Commissioner Carvin. No. Commissioner Catherine. Yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Commissioner B. Yes. [Music] Thank
you. All right. public hearing case number SP25519 Dilly Lake multifamily smallcale comprehensive plan amendment and also public hearing case number PUD
25520 Dilly Lake multifamily plan unit development uh we give them a couple seconds to get [Music] me back.
All right, go ahead. Thank you. Batter up. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It came back. The overall proposal for this property consists of 24 plus or minus acres generally located west of US Highway 27
and north of the Florida Turnpike. This request for an edexation small-cale comp plan and reszoning. The future land use on this property would go from Lake County Regional Office to City of Leburg general commercial. The zoning would go from Lake County planned unit development to City of Leburg planned
unit development. Small planned unit development, excuse me. No, it would be planned unit developments over uh 10 acres. The site is currently again it's a 24 plus or minus undeveloped acres. The request is for future development of 300 multi-family units, meaning
apartments, along with a commercial area, which would be along US Highway 27, which consists of a maximum of 10,000 square feet of commercial uses, which you will see in the conceptual site plan. Senior planner Melissa Meadows de los Santos will present the
maps and photo exhibits, including aerial zoning, future surroundings, land use, wetlands, flood zones, and CRA maps. How many units did you say? I'm sorry. How many units? 300 units. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller. As you
can see, this map shows the extended aerial of the subject property in relation to the area. It is west of US 27 and north of the Ronald Reagan turnpike. This closer aerial shows the subject property is west of US Highway 27 and north of Ronald Reagan
turnpike. The city zoning map shows the subject property near city properties with PZ zoning to the north, east, and south. The Lake County zoning map shows the subject property as PED plan unit development and to the southwest there is also PUD zoning. It is also shows it
also shows that there is a agricultural to the northwest, east, southeast, south and west. To the south and southeast there is also C2 community commercial district. This map shows the proposed plan unit development
zoning. The city of Leburg future land use map shows the subject property. the general commercial and low density and estate residential to the north with general commercial and estate residential to the east and southeast. Can you try to project a little bit more? Yes,
I can hear you but I hope they can come back. No worries. The Lake County future land use map shows the subject property as regional office with regional office to the east and south with urban low density to the northeast, south, and west and rural to the west. The proposed um future land use map
shows it as general commercial future land use. The surrounding land uses are to the north timber and pasture improved hay. To the east pasture improved hay, to the south vacant commercial, pasture improved hay, single family residential
and hospital. To the west vacant government state pasture improved hay and non-aggricultural acreage. The flood zone and wetlands map shows that the subject property does not have any flood zones or wetlands. The subject property is not
within a community redevelopment area. And is in commission district 3. The top photo shows a close-up of a sign from US 20 highway 27 in the northern part of the subject property. The bottom photo shows look it shows it
looking north along US 27 from subject property. This top photo shows us shows of you from looking east across US Highway 27 from the subject property. The bottom photo shows looking south along US 27 from the subject
property. The top photo shows looking west onto the subject property from the US Highway 27. The bottom photo shows a close-up of the sign from US Highway 27 from the southern part of the subject property. The top photo on this page shows uh
looking north along the US Hobby 27 from subject property. Bottom photo shows looking east across US Highway 27 from subject property. The top photo shows looking south along US Highway 27 from subject property. And the bottom photo shows looking west onto the subject property
from US Highway 27. And that is all I have. Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Los Santos. With that, we'll move to department review summary. project was sent out to all city departments plus Lake County governments and school board. Uh the under the city responses, we received no substantive
comments from the city departments. The project is outside the city's electrical service area. School board advised that the project will be subject to school concurrency review and the comments that I made previously on the previous project would apply here as well. um the review by the school board and the and
the very high potential of a mitigation agreement depending on the year because school enrollments go up and down each year. Uh so adequate student stations would have to be provided under Lake County Public Works. Um they took a rest
on this one advised that the access would have to come from US 27 via DOT. So there's no they said they saw no Lake County roads involved in this one. Under public responses, per the statutes of Florida and city code requirements, the
project was legally advertised, posted, and letters were sent to the surrounding property owners within 200 feet. And we received no comments back, no phone calls, no letters, no emails. Under the PUD requirements, this proposal consists of
300 multifamily apartment units, three floor maximum height, an area of commercial development along US Highway 27 to include a maximum of 10,000 square feet of retail uses. I believe they're proposing about 6,500 on it right now.
No other uses would be permitted in the proposal. Um, under the design and architectural standards, the standard architectural requirements would apply. 35% of the property is in open space, which is, I believe, well exceeded here. Dark sky lighting, significant
buffering, including the 25 ft buffer tract, which is standard in our PUDS and goes around the entire perimeter. Um, the landscape buffers have to be maintained by the HOA. Uh we are requiring a 4ft high earthen burm along US highway 27 with
the appropriate landscaping on top of that burm that will help create a buffer between the highway and the residences. Um again beer bermuda grasses permitted in place of St. Augustine. Full landscape plan is
required. Signage will consist of one there there basically two parcels on this as you'll see on the site plan. one larger parcel with the apartment complex and one smaller parcel with the residential. We're allowing two monument
signs because it's a high-speed highway. We're going to go up to 25 ft with 80 square feet uh per sign face. Um staff feels like this is different from our standard code, but it's on Highway 27. We've been doing this with the anything that's got
a high speed. The speed limit is 55, but we know how that goes. And um we feel like it's a safer option for drivers to be able to see it a little better. Um in addition, the apartments would have decorative entry feature on their
entrance road of concrete, brick or stucco, no more than 5t in height on each side of the roadway when you come up the roadway to go enter the depart the apartment property. Under recreational requirements, there are 1.4 acres required of recreation. That's
based on a calculation of 200 square feet per housing unit. Um, there would be four recreation areas. These areas would be set aside for various amenities. There's a swimming pool and amenity building required, a walkway trail around the circumference of the
retention area on the south side of the property, a children's playground with play equip equipment, and a separate dog park. Um and then finally we have the standard four-year phasing uh requirement same as in all the other
PUDs. Um in addition all the water the water and wastewater must be on the development must be on city water and wastewater. As you can see the site plan up there. I think there's 10 proposed
for 10 buildings. Um the retention pond is here on the south side. North is to your left. Large retention pond with a trail here. And then these are the apartment buildings here. That's the
amenity center there. So it's an easy walk to the trail. And then this these are garage units which along here which you would be able to rent with the apartments. This is all open space in in here. And on the left of the screen
here, that's the um retail space, which I we'll just call that parcel B for for now. Um so in reading the recommendations for the project under lake uh excuse me
under Dilly Lake multif family and convenience store request to amend the comp plan to city of Leburg Commercial under case number SSCP25-519. The planning and zoning department is recommending approval of the request for the following reasons.
One, the project meets the requirements of chapter 163.3187 for a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment. Two, the proposed request is compatible with the adjacent future land use designations of Lake County Regional Office and urban low
density and city of Leburg general commercial. Three, the proposed request is compatible with the proposed zoning of city of Leburg PUD, which is planned unit development as its condition. uh 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 and 1.8 A and the action requested is vote to approve the smallcale comp plan amendment from Lake County Regional Office to City of Leburg General Commercial and forward this recommendation to the city commission for their consideration. under the
zoning portion of this case under um project Dilly Lake multif family request to reszone from le uh Lake County PUD to city of Leburg PUD under case number PUD 25-520 planning and zoning department is
recommending approval of the request for the following reasons. One, the proposed zoning classification of plan unit development is compatible as condition with the current surrounding zoning districts of Lake County Agriculture C2, which is their community commercial and city of Leburg PUD, which is planned
unit development. Two, the proposed smallcale comp plan amendments compatible with the adjacent future land use designations of Lake County Regional Office and urban low density and city of Leburg general commercial. and three, the proposed request is consistent with the existing patterns of development in
the US Highway 27 and Ronald Reagan Tur Pike area. Action request is vote to approve staff's recommendation to reszone the subject property from Lake County PUD Plan Unit development to City of Leburg PUD Plan Unit development and
forward that recommendation to the city commission for their consideration. Um, staff is recommending approval for both these cases. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Robbie Moon and Mr. Milan Nandy from the firm of KPM Franklin are here to
represent the case and answer any additional questions you may have, sir. Okay. I have one question for clarification. Earlier you said it was multif family and residential. You meant retail, right? Yes, sir. I did. Thank you. I meant multi. You said retail the second time, but the first time you said
res. I just want to clarify it. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I was listening. Uh, any questions to staff? Sorry. Thank you. The applicant, please state your name and your address,
please. Oh, good evening. Robbie Moon with KPM Franklin, 6300 Hazeline National Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32822. Thank you. Yeah. No, we appreciate working with Dan and Candy and their team, and we encourage staff comments. And if we could just maybe add a little more kind of context and flavor to the
site plan here. So it is a proposed I guess mixed use of a 300 multif 300 unit multif family and then retail which the desire is going to be a sea store a convenience store with a gas pumps or fueling stations. Uh commissioner Bowers socks we can understand appreciate traffic and
I think the biggest generator of this project will be the the gas station which will be mainly capturing a lot of passing by trips that are already there. So necessarily generating new trips you know from here and then the traffic methodology was submitted with the application and they did show I think only like 30% of the trips going into
town per se. So most of the trips will be coming and going from the turnpike directly not impacting the downtown you know core area concerns uh to the we worked uh exclusively you know with U DOT US 27 due to proximity to the turnpike they limited our access to a
directional entrance on the very northernmost or plan left there which would be a directional intersection which most of the traffic will come in then there will be a right turn only leaving the gas station and then we will have an emergency access only a little further south. So the multif family, but
majority of the traffic will be coming and going from the northernmost entrance. The layout, as you see, there's a lot of greens. We've done, I think, you know, open space requirements 35%, we're probably 45 or 50. The pond, it should be more of a blue shade. It will be a wet pond, you know, with a fountain per staff requirements. It'll
be a nice uh amenity and water feature there. Um the burm, you know, I think which the client was going to suggest doing a burm anyways. that provides some buffering from the road for noise plus helps you prevent you driving by and seeing the parking lot there too as well. So the burm goes both ways and
then we think we've laid out the buildings here pretty well. It's a pretty I guess sparse laid out. It's real roomy. We have the pedestrian connectivity internally. So it's going to promote internal, you know, communication of uh pedestrians and kids and families within the development, not walking along the road. There's going to
be a dog park in the uh top right there. There's a we've done a good job saving some large oak trees. There's going to be a a playground in the southwest corner page, you know, which will be, you know, within the trees, a mail center, the walking trails. I think we've done a good job with the working with the developer to kind of lay out a
nice, you know, pleasing development without cramming a lot in there. Uh we worked with city utility departments. We understand there's utilities being brought down this way, which will be part of a pro share to pay for the capacity. And then also the entrance off 27 is a shared entrance with the
Nicholls property to the to the north. So that would be a shared access to help you know again limiting access of 27 promoting safe vehicular movements you know from this property and also serving the other properties to the to the west and to the north and I'm here to answer any questions or you want anything else.
Toby have a question. Yeah and I think you that we the architectural elevations are included in there. We think those are visually pleasing as well. We're here to happy uh and to answer any comments or questions staff may have. Okay. Yes. Uh what is your market area? I think
probably I'm a civil engineer and not a marketer. So I mean I'm assuming they're trying to probably you know a lot of folks you know I'm you know we work in Orlando. We have a lot of staff that does live in Lake County or the areas or they insute you know to and from. So, I'm assuming they're probably, you know, projecting a lot of folks from, you
know, within Orange County. Disney or, you know, I mean, if you're even trying to reach out that far or what? I mean, if I, you know, we, I think Disney folks would probably try to live closer to Disney for that commute, more workforce housing, but this isn't, you know, a high-end, you know, unit that would cost
people out of the market either. You know, I think it's a good workforce housing mix, you know, but while also being aesthetically pleasing as well, too. So, the, if I may, Mr. chairman, as a former marketing person years ago, um sitting there on 27, you never know, uh
sitting there on 27 next to the turnpike, that's going to extend the market a little bit, right? And as you would know, and um so staff doesn't have any concerns about that end of it. I did want to ask, if I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moon, a question. We talked on the phone, was it
yesterday? Was it Did I speak on the phone with you yesterday? Well, you spoke to Toby and we had some emails reviewing the PUD documents. Yes. Were there any issues? I know that there was a typo that I wanted to bring up. Um, we I think we built this one off of a previous PUD and I'm I'm looking in
here. I thought this was the case that had that 100 foot buffer. Did you Did you That was that was the other case. Okay, sir. That's okay then. Thank you. I just want to be sure that if we had any minor changes to make, we made them. But this one was uh we didn't have any
issues on this one. Okay. Thank you both. Appreciate it. Something. Thank you, Mr. Moon, um for your presentation. I applaud your effort on the green space. Um I'm just saying this because I want it to be said so it goes
on the record. Um have you guys ever considered any child care or school options along with your pro with your uh project? I mean it is I mean 10,000 square feet commercial so it does give the
availability there. So I think probably let the market speak to it. I know they're looking at the convenience store but we could have take that consideration. Well I just you know the same effort that we do in for convenience stores. I think we should be thinking more about child care and the children. Yes, it's um nice to have a a
activity center. That's wonderful. Um, but also we thought about the dogs, but what about the kids, you know? So, and and I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna speak that to the um to you guys until somebody gets it. The first project that comes to
us, yeah, we put a you know, we're we're intentionally bringing that um if I may, um we we were thinking about that at the staff level because it's 300 units. So the current commercial portion of this
is showing was it 6,500 give or take on the um building there, but the actual um amount staff thinks you could probably get 10,000 square feet in there. So we intentionally put uh
daycare centers in the permitted uses. Okay. For that reason, we were thinking about you. Thank you. I'm I'm just going to say it to you. With 300 units, there's potential for a bit of market and people traveling south leaving Leburg. So, we we did put that in there, but I I appreciate you bringing it up. I
love I love the puppies, but you really want to, you know, turn me on, say child care, and say that, you know, that we you actively you know, there's there's a lot of companies out there that provide that that, you know, are on that level that
are seeking that. Um, but I'm just saying you're gonna bring the kids, bring the, you know, we're g and we're gonna have school issues and um, so I just, you know, take it personal and then don't take it personal and then if you want to tell people, hey, if you
want to do some business in Leburg, we got to think about the kids. Yes, ma'am. In the forefront. But thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Anybody in the audience to speak for or
against? All right, we'll close to the public and uh for discussion and render a decision. Any discussion? I got a question. Well, it's gone now on the site plan in
this parcel to the south next to to the turn bike. What? Who is that part of this project? Is that county property? I don't know what this this right there. What is that? Right. This No, no. Right there where the the hand is. Yeah. Right there. What is that? It's an out
personal that probably retention bond for the turnpike. It's not part of this. I believe it belongs to the turnpike authority. I I don't sure that I think it's state or something. It's either state or turnpike authority or but I believe it's retention. Okay.
on the site plan. The I guess convenience store, gas station is on the front of that. And what's in the back? It's on the north. Uh the the store is right here. Okay. So that's this will be the entrance coming to the apartments like this. You get your boulevard here and then you can get
into the convenience store or whatever commercial use gets ends up being being there. And then there will be a a right out here and an emergency access point right through between these two sets of garages. So you have to take a right if
you're going to go south or north you take a right turn then go down do a U-turn somewhere unless unless DOT approves otherwise. Okay. Where is there the other side is a simple left turn.
Mhm. Oh, there's a light here and a light. There's a light before you. I know what you're talking about. Yes, sir. So, you can took it and you turn. There's two. I think there's two opportunity. That piece of property is owned by EML 27 Properties LLC. There you go. This one.
Okay. What we need is a realtor on our commission. Yeah. You need a land man. Need a realtor. You got it. I say as far as the demand, I'm curious. This is not probably your guys
job, but uh to put in 300 apartments. I mean, obviously they've done some marketing and some research to determine the demand for this. So, I see the city of Leburg's got a huge amount of apartments going on over there behind the uh
Marriott Hotel here. 250 plus or minus there. I'm just curious how these determinations are made, I guess. Well, I think I know why. because we're the first fastest growing city in the state of Florida. Third in the United States. Third in the United States. Yes. Right
here, which is crazy. I'm sure this is people, you know, just going to Orlando to commute, work, and come back. And you also have the uh uh Christopher Ford Industrial Park close by. So, and I do think that those two sets of apartments that you referenced, Mr. O. Kelly are
two different markets in terms of the hospital is going to have and Beacon College and downtown is going to have a heavy a heavy presence over there while this is going to be more the Chris Ford back to Okala back to Leburg Lady Lake and down to Minola
Claremont area. Cool. All right. Any other discussion? I'll accept a motion to approve or disapprove. Uh yeah, sorry. Um on public hearing case SP25519. I make a motion to approve.
Okay. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Roll call. Commissioner Carter. Yes. Commissioner Kaplan. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Firefox.
Yes. Commissioner Sen. Yes. Okay. And uh new business number four, public hearing case number PUD 25520. Uh is there a motion? I make a motion to approve.
Second. Is any discussion? Roll call. Commissioner Kaplan. Yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Brosoft. Yes. Commissioner Senate. Yes. Commissioner Cart. Yes. Happy multif family. Take care. Take
care. Thank you. Take care. Uh new business number five, public hearing case number AMDT 25596 section 25 292
18 mobile mobile food vendor ordinance revision. Okay, Mr. chairman. Um in updating the ordinance section 25292 parentheses 18 um by under the background to comply
with the state of Florida preeemptions um at the state level and clarify the approval processes for mobile vendors. The the staff is proposing updates to the code of ordinances specifically section 25292
parenthesis 18. Uh this would include replacing the permitting process with a letter of location compliance and removing the fees from mobile food vending. The prospective vendor would have to provide proof of
statemandated documents to the planning and zoning staff. Basically the state of Florida has gone in and preempted what cities can do in regards to food trucks, mobile vendors like that. So clarification, this is basically
clarification on how to obtain permission to be a food vendor, which would be included in this code update. And there would be three scenarios where you can be a a food truck or food vendor. One is to get a temporary use
permit, which allows you to go onto one property under a letter of location compliance for a limited time up to two times a year. So it's quite restrictive in that hot dog stand or something. Yes. Um the second way is to get a special
events permit which is those are um run by the recreation department for events like the bike fest. Those come under one big permit. You put your food truck in there and the recreation department or whoever it is that puts that
particular permit in. So, it's one permit there. The most common way is the third way, which would be a mobile food vendor letter of location compliance. Basically, um, and Max is going to give us a presentation, but basically what
they've done is taken away city's ability to do very much about it. So, we have taken and and Max has done a a good job with putting together the ordinance. We've sent it out to different city departments including code enforcement and recreation. The city attorney's
office has looked at it. Um, and so I think a few local business owners have also looked through it. So, and the city manager, deputy city manager, etc. So, at this time, I'd like to ask Max Van Allen, senior planner, to make a
presentation to the com commission on those proposed changes. Thank you, Mr. Miller. First, we're going to look at a map of the central business district and the historic preservation district because these are two areas in
which mobile food vendors are not permitted unless they are in conjunction with a special events permit. So, we wanted to identify these areas. Today we are discussing proposed revisions to the mobile food vendor ordinance city code section
2529218. This section regulates food truck vending activities within the entirety of the city limits. The state has preempted the regulation of food trucks and hot dog carts, also known as mobile food vendors, to their jurisdiction. Thus, some changes to the
code were necessary. Several city departments, as mentioned, are directly involved with the regulation and enforcement of mobile food vendors. Planning and zoning assists permanent and temporary vendors through letters of location compliance
and temporary uses. The Leburg Fire Department conducts fire inspections for each food truck. The recreation department handles the special events. Code enforcement ensures compliance with regulations.
Since the state legislature has preempted the regulation of licenses, registrations, permits, and fees, local governments may not require additional fees, permits, or additional licenses and registrations prior to
allowing mobile food vending activities. basically saying that the state is the first and foremost regulator of these activities and that what the state requirements are are what goes. However, the city still has the
jurisdiction to regulate time, manner, location, and require proof of statemandated licenses, registrations, permits, and insurance. So basically we're asking them to provide their documentation from the state and then
we're uh regulating location time and manner in line with the state level changes. Planning and zoning has two major goals with this code update. One to comply with state requirements and definitions and two to clarify the
permissions processes for city staff and vendors alike. To comply with state requirements and definitions involves revising the code, such as removing the previously required fee and permitting
process, adopting state definitions for both hot dog carts and food trucks, adding state licensing requirements for both types of mobile food vendors. These changes streamline the permissions process and allows for
crosscode consistency. Second goal to clarify the city code permissions processes or outlines for staff and vendors to use while navigating the different pathways. The proof of statemandated licenses, registrations, and insurance are
required prior to vending as a mobile food truck or hot dog cart. So, as discussed, there are three pathways. The first being the location compliance letter coming from planning and zoning. This is one mobile food
vendor per property and they may vend year round at this one location provided they are keeping the same business hours as the primary business on location. So let's say the gas station shuts down at 12, the mobile food vendor would have to
shut down and leave the premises by 12 as well. Second is a temporary use permit, also from planning and zoning. This allows up to three mobile food vendors per property, but they may only vend up to
two consecutive days once per year. So, this is intended for, as in the name, those more temporary situations. Maybe a business is throwing a bash or some sort of block party, that sort of thing. They could have them come and vend in that
situation. Finally, special events is the last uh pathway and this is pursuant to recreation department requirements and the associated event length and location that they determine. If adopted as proposed, this
code update will a comply with Florida statute requirements and definitions. This will update non-compliant code sections, no longer require any permitting or registration fees, and have the state and DBPR definitions in
our code. And second, we will clarify processes and requirements by outlining these processes for clear expectations and requiring copies of statemandated licenses, registrations,
and insurance for efficiency and public safety. If anyone has any questions, I'm available. Thank you. Presentation, Max, I have a question. Yes, ma'am. So, with the regular um let me see go
back to the So, if you're going to have the regular um location, one MFV per property, um I guess that's something y'all already talked about cuz I'm saying um you know, sometimes you have larger
parking lots or larger areas or something like that like even like at the mall or something like that. Sure. So, is there an allowance for places like that because apparent you know that's a big parking lot. Sure. So, at this time it's the temporary use permit.
There was discussion of doing it by acreage, but we got feedback from code enforcement about the difficulty of enforcing that. But that's certainly something we can reinvestigate and work with them to look into for those larger properties,
especially like the mall, the plazas with multiple businesses. Is there a pathway for them to like um if they wanted to be considered for more than one one truck? Not at this time, but we could certainly investigate it. Yeah. I
I mean, I think it's worth investigating just someone who's coming from the industry. Yes, ma'am. Um just food. Food is a hard industry. It is very hard. It's very difficult. But there's one thing that we have to do. We have to
eat. And um for people that are, you know, going into that industry and um you ha you you have to applaud their efforts as well, but you know, we don't want to make barriers to make it hard for them to be able to do that, you
know. So, I mean, that's the first thing I'm thinking about is the mall or other plazas that really could hold more than one food truck. Sure. Um, and us saying, "Oh, you can only have one food truck." It's very restrictive, but I understand
with the compliance, I mean, with the code enforcement of saying, "Oh, we're going to map it out." But if there was some way, and I would be willing to help any way that I could, um, something that we could get in there to say that they
could even request permission to get another truck. And then maybe we worked with code enforcement to say, "Okay, following along with the the code that, you know, it's safe to have x amount of trucks that would bring x amount of people." because, you know, we don't
want a 50 foot lot with four trucks on it. You know, that's going to be dangerous. But then you have somewhere like the mall that could have four or five trucks, you know, just along the perimeter and that's, you know, we still we want to be good for business if we
the people are here and it's a hard business. So, you know, if we can have a consider I don't know what, you know, I know I'm not it's just a suggestion. Thank you. We'll look into it and see what we can do with code
enforcement. Yeah. And if, like I said, if I can help and and you did an excellent job. I mean, I think that's great what you did on there. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for covering this quite
well. There's these mobile restaurants need to be regulated of course for cleanliness, for safety issues. A lot of them are gas operated, so they can be dime bombs if they're not
properly taken care of and inspected. Most of them have fire suppression systems in them that need to be current and up to date. And those papers they're required to hold, they need to have available when they show up for an event
so that the fire department can res can look those over and make sure they're in compliance. Uh I'm for the the food vendors as well, but you also don't want them sitting up next to a restaurant that's established, right? You know, and compete with them because they come in,
you know, boom, boom, boom, and compete with the local restaurant. So that that's something that also needs to be considered. But insurance and safety is the biggest concern. They they do um through the chair to Mr. Fire socks. Our fire department does go
and do a review of each one and they have the uh appropriate safety equipment. Um there was some discussion about Max, do you recall some discussion about the mall and is isn't there a maximum number up to three units? Was it
that's through the temporary use at this point in time. We did investigate further, but as I said, code enforcement gave some feedback about the difficulty of regulating via acreage. Okay. So, I think that's an opportunity for us to enhance this and so go into it a little
bit more. If if it passes as it is now, it would still be one permanent on the mall. Correct. But if we give the ordinance a chance to kind of settle in because it's a different than what it's a little bit different
than the old one. Yeah, I'd rather I'd rather bring it back than to pass something like that now without doing some kind of if everything is going well. We could figure out because the mall could I agree that the mall could hold more than just a they they had a
food truck rally, right? Yes. And and if they do a rally like that, it might fall under special event. But if we just want to have two or three, something like that, I think that's a fair request. But it might be best to let this ordinance
work for a few months and let's see how it works. Just a thought because I do agree that the ball could hold more. Yes. I mean, my my thing is what if they do what if someone with a larger parking lot came to you? What's you know, we're going to say no? Right now we be one
unless they had a temporary use permit and that's only two times in what two days max. Two days once per year. Yes. Yeah. So it is restricted but the the issue became this this was an issue that was brought to us from the city
commission and they were seeing a lot of them that had were a great number of them were violating the terms of their permits in the terms of the number of chairs and the umbrellas. And uh we had
one that was pouring their grease directly into the storm storm water system. So this so when the state did their preeemptions on what cities could do um we took the opportunity and plus
the impetus from the um city commission to let's go ahead and make the changes and um we have a I think we have a really good code enforcement office that got out there and and cleaned a lot of them up. So, they do look better than they did, let's say, six months ago. For
sure. My only question is if the governor takes away DBPR, what are you going to do about I don't know. I do not know that. I'm doing my doctor's thesis on that. Oh, are you? Well, yeah. I I mean, and the DPBR,
they're around town a lot. They're they're always out. Um I I think I'm still on the little call chain that says they're in town. So they're they're in town, you know, a lot with that and just even being a former owner, you know, you
come in, get inspected a lot. But I just that that that's my only concern is that just making it hard for larger parcels to do it because we we want to be a businessfriendly place and food trucks are are just
they're the they're the thing we have to stay forward with it. You know, we can't get left behind. But I guess I don't I mean if we pass it like this, are y'all gonna come back or y'all just gonna like act like I didn't say
nothing? We we would seek some feedback from the city commission. Okay. Okay, this works. Then then I would go to the city manager
and say, "Hey, planning commission wanted to do this when it passed, let's say 6 months or a year or whatever, whatever time period it works and say planning commission was interested in expanding the number of available units
for a large parcel meaning and we could come up with an acreage and like yeah, we don't have but what what I was saying because like you like She you said that code enforcement says that's kind of you know that is tfical. It is. So what I was thinking of
was like a a special consideration something going down you know if they wanted to have more and say okay we're going to send code enforcement out to your requested spot and they're going to be able to deem that it's safe for that piece of
land to have more than one truck. you know that they could if we're under discussion. I I don't want to do something like that until code enforcement looks into it and figures out what the best way of doing that. I don't want to pass it and then figure out if it's good or not. Right. And and
I I mean I agree with you, but I think there's a certain I I think yeah the the order of of let's staff would request that we pass it as it sits. But then if you I can go back let's say 6 months a
year some number whatever time period that is we'll see how it works. M if it's working then I think and it's just a guess but maybe the city commission would be in would be okay with because they're the ones that eventually have to pass it right would be okay with okay
we'll expand it to a maximum of three on a large property and then we could have a discussion about what is a large property okay they could have an event permit you know like you can get a big event permit and do more things you can do a special event permit and have a
Food Truck Fest. Yeah, you know, you can do that as well, but I think you were talking about more like three say on the mall permanent, right? As opposed to I think there's one right now. Just you could always do some sort of conditional use or Yeah, that's what I was saying.
So, per property. Yeah, that's what I was saying. Like not a blanket Okay. thing. a thing that says if if the mall came to the city, I mean came to you and said we have two other food trucks that want to be on this property, we already
have one. And then then we say as a city, okay, we're going to send code enforcement out there to see if first of all that one truck that you got is following the rules. And then is there space for the other two trucks to safely be on that property? And then the code
enforcement is really going to have the final say if if we're gonna be having an issue on this property with having and they may even say h well you got one you can put one other truck there but you can't put two other trucks there you know I think it a lot of it depends on
how many of these end up going back to code enforcement court how many of them get cited how many of them you know do they get a clean bill of health from the DBPR righted but I don't it's just it just seems unfair scared to me with the one right now that if they came to you,
you we're going to say no. We have had to say no. And why don't we move forward because we've discussion. Okay. No, I think we're Yes, it's a Well, I'm sorry that I was so passionate about the No, there's nothing wrong with it. No, I
just like to I think we both agree uh that this could be reviewed again in the future. So, okay. I'd like to make a motion that we uh approve uh case number AMDT-25- 596- section
25- 292 18 mobile food vendor ordinance revision. Could we motion? I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Jamie. Can I Can we add that we in that that we would come back in a year?
I'm okay with that. have to revise the motion. I'll revise the motion to include then we come back in a year. Thank you. I just don't want to do staff work, you know. I'll second the amendment. Okay. To be
reviewed within a year. Okay. Uh it's been motioned and seconded. Any discussion? I think we discussed it. Yeah, we got a discussion. We killed it. Beat that poor horse. Um, roll call.
Commissioner Kelly. Yes. I totally agree with you. Yes. Commissioner said, uh, yes. Commissioner Carter, of course. Yeah. If you'd have said no, that's not a yes. So, one year, um, we'll have we'll just
go ahead and put it on the agenda for we'll create an agenda for next. Well, take it to staff first. Have them discuss it. Go over it. Yes, sir. Because I don't want to I don't it's it's not our job to plan it out. Plan it out. What I'm saying prove it. Yes, sir. What I'm saying is we'll bring you a report with what we found a year from
now. Okay. Cuz that's why I was trying to stay away from a little bit during that discussion was I I don't want to become a the project here, you know. No, I understand. So, we'll bring a report to the planning commission a year from now. See what what has happened, what we found, the number of permits. Uh did we
find any violations in code and things like that? Yeah. Because like you know six months from now things going smoothly then get with code enforcement and say hey you know let's let's chat about this you know an ordinance for that covers every possibility. I know I just saw uh in
Apabka there was a place called the backyard and they had about five or six food trucks and um I thought about that as a business. Yeah. Right. And so I think something like that would be able to come to the city and ask for some sort of plan district zoning so that
they would be able to facilitate something like that. But our everyday food trucks that are kind of driving around and moving on a regular basis, this would probably cover 95% of them. Thanks, Jennifer. Okay. Uh, new business number six, public hearing case number
CUP 25553 Montaduo accessory dwelling unit conditional use permit. Sorry if I butchered that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this is a request for a conditional use permit to allow for an accessory
dwelling unit in an existing R1, which is low density residential zoning district on approximately halfacre of land. 45. Property is generally located on the west side of Watershore Drive. Particularly, it's 313 Watershore Drive. Conditional use permit is required for an accessory dwelling units. Uh Melissa
Meadows de los Santos will present the maps and photo exhibits at this time, please. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Uh the extended aerial shows that the maps the subject property in relation to the area it is west of west sorry west of
waterhore drive and north of US highway 441. The close-up arrow shows that it is west of water shore drive. The city zoning map shows the subject property is R2 medium density residential with the surrounding zoning is R2 medium density
to the northeast and south. Lake County zoning shows that it is R1 rural residential to the west. Future land use map show for the city shows that the subject property as RE1 estate residential with the surrounding feature land use to the northeast and south is
RE1 estate residential. The Lake County future land use shows there is urban medium density to the west. Project. Project. The map. This map shows that the
proposed teacher the This map shows the proposed conditional use overlay for the subject property. The surrounding land uses are to the north, east, and south single family residential to the west multif family
residential. The flood zone and wetlands map shows that there are no flood zones or wetlands on the subject property. The subject property is in the 27441 community redevelopment area and the subject property is in commission district
5. The top photo shows there's a close-up of the sign on Watershore Drive. The bottom photo shows that it's looking north along Waterershore Drive from the subject property. The top photo shows looking east across Watershore Drive from the subject property. The
bottom photo shows um looking south along watershore drive from the subject property and the final photo shows let's looking west on the subject onto the subject property from watershore drive and that is all I have Mr. Miller. Thank you Mr. De Los Santos. Um under the departmental review summary the project
was sent out to all city departments plus Lake County government school board under city departments no substantiative comments from the city departments. School board had no comment. Lake County Public Works had no comment. There were no public responses. Uh we did send the project
out per the Florida statutes and code of ordinances of the city of Leburg. It was advertised, posted, and letters sent out. Again, no no comments from them. Under the recommendation for the Mont accessory dwelling unit, which is a
conditional use permit for for one accessory dwelling unit in the R2. I misspoke previously. It's R2, not R1. when I in my introduction in an R2 medium density residential zoning district and a state residential future land use category planning and zoning department is recommending approval of
this request uh for the following reasons. Number one, a conditional use permit is required for under chapter 25284 the use table. Number two, the request meets the require the criteria set forth in section 25141 conditional uses and section 25284 district use
regulations of the city of Leburg code of ordinances for the granting of a conditional use permit. Three, subject to the conditions listed below, the proposed conditional use does not appear to create a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties. And four, the request does not create a negative impact or an inconsistency with the city
of Leburg comprehensive plan. Uh no specific or difficult conditions on this one. It's the allowance of the development of one accessory dwelling unit at this location. It is subject to all other city of Leburg code requirements and including zoning and
building code impact fee regulations. Um granting of this permit does not um exempt the property from the any other governmental agency's requirements or impact fees and
violations of this these conditions can result in the permit becoming null and void and it has to be signed within 90 days. Action request is vote to approve the conditional use permit for the subject property to allow for the development of one accessory dwelling units. Uh, so staff is recommending approval and if I may, I would like to
thank Miss Montado for her patience sitting through. It is unfortunate that she had to do that. Um, we have to put these in the order generally. We have to put them in the order that they come in. So, thank you very much. We really appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Any questions of staff? She
got a lesson in city government this or not. I I have a question of staff. Yes, sir. What does a accessory dwelling need to allow? Okay. Uh, thank you. I should have explained that in the beginning. Um, when you build on a residential lot,
you have what's called your primary dwelling unit. That's your house. And then if you want to have what we would then call a mother-in-law suite or something like that, an accessory dwelling unit is generally a dwelling unit that is separate
from the primary dwelling unit, the house. So, and there's a number of them in uh Palmora Park and places like that where it's just a a separate garage that could be converted into a a small unit. The city of Leburg allows it under um
chapter 25. There's maximums in terms of the number of square footage and so uh Miss Montado and her family met all the requirements in this case and get their own address as well. It would be be it
can uh get its own address. Usually it would be like a B or something like Yes, ma'am. 109 and a half or something. 109 and a half could be 313 and a half. I I'm not sure how it would be addressed. Um but in in and as staff does think
that due to the rising cost of housing, not just family situations and things like that, but just in general without even getting into family situations that the there are a lot of dwelling units that are going to go in uh because it's a lot cheaper to build another house no bigger than 800 square
feet or so, right? essentially in your backyard, your sideyard if you have a large enough lot and someone can live there peacefully and have a nice decent place to live rather than a starter home which in Lake County, you know, you're looking at
300,000 plus. So, uh, that's the big wave of the future. It's, uh, really taking off in California in some places, and that tends to be a bell weather, like it or not, that tends to be a bell weather what happens in the rest of the nation sometimes.
Another question. Could Okay. Could this be rented? Yes, sir. Because dwelling unit curious. Any other questions of staff? Is the applicant have anything to add?
I just hope you all approve it. Okay. Um, any questions of of the applicant? No. Okay. We'll close to the public to uh for discussion and uh render a decision. Mr. Chairman, if you're ready, I'm ready
for a motion. I'm ready. Go home. Public hearing KU P2553. I recommend approval. Second. Oh. Um roll call. Still not. Commissioner Fire. Yes. Commissioner,
yes. Commissioner Carter, yes. Commissioner Cather, yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. [Music] So, when's the pool party? [Music] [Laughter] [Music]
Take care. Uh, any other business before this? Uh, body bodies? We're out of here.