Good evening everyone. We like to welcome you all to October 23rd, 2025 planning commission. Mr. Tvation followed by the page of Let us pray. Lord, as we undertake the
business of the city of Leburg, we pray that the decisions we make here today in your sight. Holy name. Amen. >> Amen. >> Amen. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Before we get into the participation, we have a new commissioner here. Would we like to get him sworn in bring
affirm that you will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and the government of the United States and the State of Florida that you are we qualify to hold office under the constitution of the state and that you will well and faithfully perform the duties of the
planning commission of which you are about to enter so >> congratulations >> congratulations >> and Mr. Miller >> thank you Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say uh welcome to Commissioner Robertson. Um he lives in Lake Denim
subdivision in in the city, works in the insurance industry as we talked about. So thank you, sir. >> Welcome, sir. >> And let's see. Have we done the minutes yet, Mr. Chair? >> No, we have not. >> You guys have read the minutes from the
last meeting. I entertain a motion. >> I can't do it because I was here. If you are if you have the opportunity to review the minutes and they appear correct then I would still like your vote please. >> Yes ma'am. >> I make a motion we approve the minutes
from the last meeting. >> It's been motioned properly second. I said it has been second. >> Yes. >> If there are no questions all in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose do say.
Motion carried. Mr. Brand. >> Now we go to Mr. Miller with the ruling. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, sir, >> welcome everyone to the October 23, 2025 city of Leburg Planning Commission meeting. My name is Dan Miller, planning zoning director for the city. staff here
today includes my executive assistant Sabrina Mitchell to my left, deputy director Candy Harper, senior planner Diane Yekl, and senior planner Max Van Allen along with city attorney Jennifer Cotch. Today's agenda in the speaker's registry is available on the table by
the exit door. If you'd like to speak on a case, we ask that you would please sign the speaker's registry with and turn it into Sabrina here on my left. Under the rules of participation, the meeting is conducted under the following process. Chairman will announce each case. The staff will then present exhibits for the record. This on the
screens here, this will include maps, photos, and text. Staff will provide a case background and descriptive information and then read a recommendation into the record. The applicant will have the opportunity to speak on the case. The public will then have time for comments. The applicant
will have an opportunity to respond. The chairman will then close the case to the public. The commission will discuss the case and the commission will then vote on the case and then call for the next case on the agenda. Planning commission is made up of citizens who are appointed by the city condition and
are charged with two primary functions. The first is to make final decisions on cases such as variances and conditional uses and the second is to make recommendations for issues to be heard by the city commission. The city staff does provide recommendations to the
planning commission based on the city's comprehensive plan, the city's land development regulations, and state of Florida statutes. There are four cases on today's agenda. Two of those cases, the Dominium Apartments small uh
smallcale comp plan and PUB zoning are have been requested to be held by the applicant to allow them time to revise the site plan and make some changes to their parking. Um that so they we will
be asking to hold them to the next meeting. Um first up, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. The remaining two cases on today's agenda will receive recommendations by the planning commission and those recommendations will be forwarded to the city commission for the final decision. There will be
tenative dates. There are tentative dates on the today's agenda for those city commission hearings. They're listed in bold on the agenda. Please note those dates are subject to be changed. Uh so we ask that you would check with planning and zoning staff or the city's
city clerk's office regarding final dates. And finally, on behalf of the city of Leburg planning staff and the city of Leburg Planning Commission, we'd like to thank you for your participation in today's public hearing process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, sir. We'll start with our old
business of the public hearing case number SP25-129 1269. >> Swear in. We need to swear. >> Yes, Mr. Brennan. Yes. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. I do. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Now, we'll start with our old business of the public hearing case number SP-25-1269. And since we're postponing that, we entertain a motion sir to postpone it, sir. >> Yes, sir. Mr. chairman on public hearing
case SCP 251269. I move that we postpone this meeting till the November meeting. >> Second. >> It's been motioned and second. Are there any further questions?
If not, all in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose do the same. The motion carried and we'll go right down with the second one that's been postponed which is public hearing case number PUD-25-1270.
>> Might as well keep on hadn't. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Chairman, on public hearing case PUD21270, >> I move that we postpone this until the November meeting on the 10th. It has been motioned and properly
second. Are there any further questions? If not, all in favor say I. I. >> M. >> All oppose do the same. >> Mr. Miller. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Um, just for the record, the Dominium Apartment
Project did request to place this on hold to the November meeting to allow them to time to revise the site plan based on feedback from FDOT and to make site plan revisions based on the parking requirements of the city of Leburg. >> Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
Okay. Enter our new business. Public hearing case number V-25-714 Leburg Boat Club varants. >> Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this year, members of the Leburg Boat Club did approach the city manager and planning and zoning staff to request
review for replacing for placing a large flag pole on the property on the south side of Venetian Park near the current volleyball courts. The request is for a larger flag pole to carry the American flag. It will be on city property and the boat club members were ready to work
with the city in the cost of erection of the pole. They're actually paying for the erection of the pole. Senior planner Max Van Allen will be presenting the standard exhibits at this time which include the aerials zoning future land use surrounding land use wetlands flood zone CRA commission district and some
design exhibits. >> Thank you Mr. Miller. The extended aerial shows the subject property south of East Dixie Avenue and on Lake Harris. The aerial shows the subject property east of Venetian Park Drive and
Lakeshore Drive and directly south of East Dixie Avenue. The current zoning is P public and is surrounded by P public to the north and west, R1A to the west and south, R2 to
the west and north, R1 to the west, RP and SPUD to the north, C2, R3 and PUD to the east. The future land use is recreation and is surrounded by recreation and
transitional to the west. Is state and low density to the west and south. Downtown mixed use to the north. Institutional to the northeast. Conservation general commercial and neighborhood mixed use to the east.
The proposed flag pole location is off of East Lake Harris Drive directly west of Lake Harris. It is shown in pink on this image. Surrounding land uses include residential to the northwest, east, and
south, medical to the north and east, public to the west, commercial office and hospital to the north, and state of Florida to the south. The subject property does have flood zone AE present throughout, though the proposed variance location is not within
the flood zone. There are also wetlands present, but the variance location is also not within any wetlands. The property is within commission district 5. The subject property is directly south
of the greater Leburg CRA. Signs were posted on October 10th, 2025. The top image is a closeup of the sign from East Lake Harris Drive. The bottom image is looking north along the subject property from East Lake Harris Drive.
The top image is looking east across the subject property from East Lake Harris Drive. The bottom image is looking south along the subject property from East Lake Harris Drive. And finally, looking west across East Lake Harris Drive from the subject property. That's all I have.
Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Miss Man Allen. Under the departmental review summary, the project was sent out to all Lake County departments, city of Leburg departments, and the school board. There were no substantiative comments from the city departments. Uh school board, of course, had no comments, and Lake County Public
Works had no comments. Under public responses, per Florida statute and city of Leburg code requirements, project was legally advertised, posted, and letters were sent out to the surrounding property owners within 200 feet. The city did receive two responses to the ads and letters. one in support of the
project and the applicants and one recommending that the planning commission deny they and their reason for requesting the denial was noting that the existing view should be left as is. They were not complaining about having a flag just for the record. Um,
under the recommendation for case number VA25-714, by background, the proposed location is in the underlying public zoning district and is a public park owned by all Leburg citizens. This land area with a natural
shoreline curve, which provides an ideal loc space for a flag pole and flag, as well as any other memorial placements. In addition, the location may act as a safety marker for Boers, which could allow small craft to find safe landing areas within the city of Leburg. The
current maximum size for a flag pole is 60 ft and for a flag is 10 by 10 ft. The variance is required to permit the increased size of the flag pole and flag. The planning and zoning department is recommending approval of this request
for the following reasons. One, the proposed request is to allow the construction of an 80 foot high flag pole and the installation of a 20 foot by 30 foot flag in the P public zoning district. Two, the proposed request would permit a variance from sections
25181 to increase the height of the flag pole and size of the flag as the requested sizes exceed the current maximum for both as stated in section 25-424 parenthesis F parentheses 2E table one. Three, the variance to the current
public zoning does not create a negative impact or detriment to surrounding properties, the city of Leburg code of ordinances, or the adopted conference of plan. The action requested is one vote to approve the staff's recommendation to allow variance to section 25-424
parentheses F partheses 2E table 1 federal, state, and local flags, thereby allowing construction of the requested 80 foot high flag pole and installation of a 20 foot by 30 foot flag in the Public Zoning District. That is all
staff has at this point, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Is the applicant present? >> I do not see them today. My my apologies if they're not here. I'm not sure. >> Yes, sir. Okay. >> What the issue is?
>> Sure. Of course, if they're not present, I guess we can close and discuss it among the commissioners. >> Yeah. >> Unless there's any public here that wishes to speak. >> Unless there anyone here to speak. >> No. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Mr. Chairman. The only only concern I have is that this is for an American flag. We don't want it to become a political issue that they somebody wants to put a Palestinian flag out or they want to put a you know different things because the flag is
there. So, and I think Dan trying to reinforce that by saying that this would come under military. Um, it's being brought forth by the boat club. I know some of them have military
experience because it's would be a flag pole in the public district if there was any desire by the city or the citizens to add other memorials, >> right? >> Military or otherwise. >> Yeah,
>> that would certainly be an option in the future. It's not what they're requesting today, but it would it certainly is something that could be looked at. As far as a memorial goes, I don't believe they would have to come back for any zoning on that. This is this is just a
variance for the height of the flag pole and the size of the flag, but it would be certainly possible for um memorials and and I'm thinking military, you know, Air Force, Navy, Army, Marines, Coast Guard, anything like that. Um could certainly be added
at the bottom. Yeah. Well, you know, that's just my only concern. You know, we're celebrating America with the American flag, and I just don't want it to become a political issue on any other avenue of of display. >> Yes, sir. Being on city property, I
think the city would control >> what goes on. >> It's my main concern. >> Okay. >> Well, I think it's a good idea. Uh it's a city property. We're we're in America. Let's be thankful they're here and celebrate.
>> Yes, sir. >> Any further discussion? >> The only concern I had was the same one that Ted, but clear that >> and you said this would open it up so they could put a memorial there in the
future. >> Actually, yes, sir. you you could if the city were working with any citizens or the city chose to do so on its own, they could put a memorial there without any type of zoning at all. Um even now um the issue here is just the size of the
pole and size because it's publicly zoned and it is a park. >> Uh the the city could could do that, you know, on its own or with in concert with other citizens. But um what what I'm thinking is if you put a flag there, a
lot of times you would want to put some other kind of memorial in the future and that is certainly an option >> that this commission would not even have to rule on. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Any further discussion among commission?
We're closing now and I entertain a motion. Go >> ahead, Johnny. I'll make a motion that we approve um variance 25-74 for uh installing a flag pole height variance.
>> I'll second that motion. >> Roll call vote. >> Commissioner Kelly, >> yes. >> Commissioner Baroft, >> yes. >> Commissioner Robertson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Sanders, >> yes. >> Commissioner S, >> yes. Thank you ma'am.
Okay, we'll move on to our next case which is uh public hearing case PUD-25-1285 Bannon 2 Planned Unit development Mr. Miller. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is project
consists of a reszoning only on a site consisting of 103.14 plus or minus undeveloped acres. It's generally located on the east side of County Road 48 and north of Austin Merritt Road. The request is for approval of a future development consisting of 294 single
family dwelling units. Under this request, the zoning application for the project is requesting a change from City of Leburg planned unit development to City of Leburg planned unit development with revised conditions. The current PUD
on that property, I apologize, I forgot to bring it with me. It allow I believe it allowed both single family and town homes and this is a request strictly for town uh for single family uses. Uh senior planner Max Van Allen will present the maps and photo exhibits including the aerial zoning future land
use surrounding land use wetlands flood zones commission and CRA maps. >> Thank you Mr. Miller. The extended aerial shows the subject property east of County Road 48 and north of North Austin Merritt Road.
The aerial shows the site directly east of County Road 48 and west of Banning Ranch Avenue. The existing zoning is PUD planned unit development and is surrounded by PUD to the east and south and ARD age
restricted development to the west and south. The surrounding Lake County zoning is a agriculture to the northwest and south. The proposed zoning is PUD planned unit development.
The existing future land use is neighborhood mixed use and is surrounded by estate residential to the east, neighborhood mixed use to the south, and age restricted development to the west and south. The surrounding Lake County future land
use is rural to the northwest and south. Surrounding land uses include pasture improved hay acreage to the west, north, and east, vacant to the south, non-aggricultural acreage to the south, and residential to the west.
The developments map shows the existing banning ranches phases 1 through 4 to the east, Blakes's Ridge to the south, fifth generation/Renaissa to the south, and the villages to the west. There is some flood zone in the
northeast corner of the property. There are also wetlands present in this same area. The subject property is located in commission district 4. Signs were posted on October 10th, 2025.
The top image is a closeup of the sign from County Road 48. The bottom image is looking north along County Road 48 from the subject property. The top image is looking east into the subject property from County Road 48. The bottom image is
looking south along County Road 48 from the subject property. And finally, looking west across County Road 48 from the subject property. That's all I have. Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Miss Van Allen. If um with that, we move to the departmental
review summary. Project was sent out to all city departments plus Lake County government and Lake County School Board for comments. There were no substantiative comments brought back to us from the city departments. The project is outside of the city of Leburg electric area. The school board did note
that the project will be subject to a schoolboard mitigation agreement. Um those come through on these developments uh just about every time in order to for the developer to supply enough units uh
school stations, school desk stations, uh workstations for each child. Um that's a cash payment. Lake County Public Works, we have not received comments from Lake County Public Works on this project at this time unless they came in late and we missed them. And I don't I don't think they did. Uh staff
will note that the city of Leburg does write its PUD zonings in a manner that supports the request of Lake County Public Works in regard to roadway upgrades. So they that is regardless of what they come back with, that issue is taken care of. Um, and for the record,
we do want to note that staff is continuously communicating with Lake County and FDOT on various projects. And should this proposal be approved, all the requirements of the appropriate agency, and in this case, that's Lake County, regarding turn lanes, intersection, lane improvements,
additional rideway for roads and drainage, etc., they all apply like in every other PUD. Um again, Leburg's PUDS are written to support Lake County and FD DOT in the matter of these requests. Under public responses, per Florida
statute and city of Leburg code requirements, project was legally advertised, posted, and letters were sent out to surrounding property owners. The city did receive one response to the ads and letters, which was to formally express their opposition to the project. Their comments included concerns about
water supply, pollution, and destruction of wildlife habitat, and increased traffic. Under the terms of the PUD agreement, this proposal consists of 294 single family residential units on 103
plus or minus acres. No other uses are permitted. The site plan is designed in this one such that the exterior lots will be 60 feet wide with a 7500 square foot lot size and a minimum house size of 1,700 ft. The internal lots will be
50 feet wide with a 6250 ft lot size and 1,600 square ft minimum home size. The project proposal includes the design standards which are part of the city's ordinance section 25-360
which is the architectural standards. It includes selecting five design features for each building frontage to provide design relief on each home and that's in the PUD. There are buffers provided all the way around the project. A minimum 35% of the property has to be an open
space. Dark sky lighting and a landscaping plan is required. Maximum building height will be two floor. Maximum building height will be two floors or 35 feet which is consistent with what's in the area. Use of Bermuda and bear grass is required in place of
St. Augustine. Under the site access, the access is shown on the site plan. one access point's all that's needed because it is a divided boulevard and the developer will be provide as we noted earlier will be required to provide any and all expansions or
upgrades to the entryways and roadways if needed and required by Lake County under recreation 1.35 acres of park and recreational land is required um that's calculated by 200 square feet per unit
which is required in our code Um, this will include a swimming pool plus two more amenities such as a barbecue grills, play areas, ball courts, and picnic tables. Um, this project, like all the other projects in the area, has
to be on city water and wastewater. So, there's no wells or septic on the property. There's sufficient capacity to serve uh the development at this time. Of course, capacity changes every day as it goes up and down um in terms of how many users are on the system at any given time. U
finally there is the phasing or expiration clause which requires that the development commence substantially within 48 months or it is does revert to the RE1 zoning district code requirements which makes it one acre per
unit under the I also wanted to mention Mr. Chairman, in regard Diane, could we put up please the map that shows the developments? Is there one of those in the packet? Um, I
wanted to take a look at that one. Okay. As you can see, and of course, I forgot my pointer today where it says subject property. That's ex. It's laid right to the right on top of that. And um
what you see here is all of the approved developments that are in the area. This development will interconnect County Road 33 and County Road 48. All of the way this site plan is designed and we'll
show that in a moment. But the way this site plan is designed, you'll be able to enter or exit here and go all the way to 33 or vice versa. That's been kind of the plan all along. um with the other developments, this is
being banning five and of course one through four being back to the east that connect all the way um the old banning property of course. So we want to bring that out that this uh this has the same very close to the same density as the
previous zoning. does not have the town homes um has a better design, flows better, and has interconnectivity to the other subdivisions. So, in with that, I'd like to Oh, thank you. Um
I'd like to read the recommendation on this for case number PUB25-1285 Banning 5 project. Planning and zoning department recommends approval of the request for the following reasons. One, the proposed request for a PUD zoning is compatible with the current surrounding
zoning districts including Lake County Agricultural City PUB and ARD, which is age restricted development. And that's the uh villages back to the west. The proposed zoning is compatible with the existing future land use designation of neighborhood mixed use and the current
zoning current surrounding future land use designations. Um, the site is compatible with existing city of Leburg approved developments along County Road 48. It's the same development you've seen going all the way from here back to 33 in the area. It's the same type and
it fits in the same manner. The for the proposed request does not appear to create a detriment to the surrounding properties as conditioned in the PUD document. The action requested therefore is to vote to approve the proposed reszoning from city PUD plan unit
development to city PUD plan unit development and forward this recommendation to the city commission for their consideration. Um therefore, Mr. Chairman, based on a review of this proposal and the fact that it is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and land development regulations, staff is recommending for
approval for this case PUD 12- excuse me, PUD 25-285 banning five. Um, I'd like to add that we have some folks here to represent this project tonight. Mr. Ben Snyder and
Tony Iorio of Hanover Homes and Mr. Andrew McGawan of GI uh are are all here to speak with you any further on the project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Would one of you gentlemen like to come forward?
>> Thank you, sir. >> And uh we've got a presentation. Andrew Macau with GI Consultants in Orlando. Our address is 618 East South Street, Orlando, Florida. And we're I'm here on behalf of the owner um Handover
Land Company, whose representatives are also here uh tonight. So, we have a presentation for you here. Wanted to get into a little more detail. Thank you, Dan, for teeing me up so uh efficiently. And all right, so uh Banning Ranch phase 5
and uh just zooming out a even a little bit farther than we had u before you can kind of see where the site um is this uh >> doesn't seem to be working. Okay. Um so
the uh I'll I'll point with my finger. Um, so the the site, um, as Dan noted, it's actually between, uh, County Road 48 and 33. And I'll show you how the plan to connect the the road between
those will actually go through the other um, handover owned developments in that area. Yeah, it's not working. Can you go to the next slide, please? >> Thank you. So this is a close-in uh recent aerial of the site. You can see
um the uses surrounding um next slide please. Uh so as Dan mentioned, this was a previously approved PUD and unfortunately this is the best uh >> Oh, is it working now? >> Never give me technology even when I
asked for it. One more one more slide please. So this is actually the best image we could get of the current site plan. Uh but it was a previously approved PUD in in 2008 and uh it did expire in 2010 because no um
activity commenced within that time period. Uh it was 300 dwelling units. 148 of those were single family homes and 152 were town homes. There was also 30,000 square feet of commercial that was approved as part of that PUD and
overall they had 2 acres of of parks and recreation which constituted um 31 and a half uh% open space in total. Next slide. So with our proposed PUD amendment, we're reducing the number of
proposed units by six. So 300 down to 294. and all 294 of those will be single family detached homes, no town homes. We're also removing the commercial program from the PUB and increasing the
overall uh amount of acres of parks and recreation space and also the open space overall will increase to uh 41.6. Next. So, as Dan mentioned, there is uh going to be an interconnection between all of
the phases of banning from east to west uh county road 33 to county road 48. You can see the phases progress from east to west there from one all the way through to five. Five being on the farthest west. And the next slide will show you
how that road actually aligns. that's the the road that is proposed to go all the way through all of those projects and handover does control all all of those um banning projects. So um
so there's uh there's no uh no hindrance to this plan actually coming to fruition next. So looking uh close in on the project itself uh we're proposing two phases equally split split between 147 units
and 147 units. Uh 50 lots will be the 50ft lots will be 241 maximum out of the total and then um no less than 53 60-foot lots. Uh next slide.
So, the amenity center will be uh kind of on the east end of the project um as it transitions to the the phase four banning project. The main entrance will be off of County Road 48 to the west.
There's a a connection pro u proposed to the adjacent project which I believe now is called Blake Ridge. Uh and then the spine road you see um how it just kind of connects off to the east. That's where it will connect through to the next project.
Next. So the storm water has been um pushed uh to the north to the greatest extent possible to help buffer against any future development that occurs on that northern property which has come before the city several times um and is
currently tabled as I understand um at the uh at the city commission. But um we will be buffering against that property with uh with our storm water retention and also to the south a little bit. But where we do not have the storm water
ponds, we will have the landscape buffer. Uh you'll see that's kind of on the southeast portion and then along County Road 48 will be those buffers totaling uh 5.2 acres just in buffers.
The 2.5 acres of parks and then um uh other miscellaneous areas. The yellow uh area that you see is a preserved area that is also flood plane that's being preserved. Uh and then you can see the three park areas that we've got um just
interspersed through the project. Next, so as far as traffic goes, uh there's a 7030 split expected um with 70% going onto County Road 48 and 30% actually
going to the east towards County Road 33. And that is uh primarily due to the fact that it's um that's the best way to get to the turnpike going south is to cross um through that that street um over to 33 rather than going up and
around. And next slide. So considering the peak hour traffic on 48, you can see the breakdown between the existing traffic in green uh the banning ranch phase 5 which is this
project in red. The uh orange column actually is all of the other approved projects, the the other PDS that have that have come up um that have been approved on County Road 48. And actually, just um just to make sure I'm
getting all my facts straight, the that actually also includes the Oak Ridge project, which is currently tabled, has not officially been approved yet, but that actually includes that in that count. So just to be overly cautious um
we included that in the in the counts and then blue will be the leftover available capacity by the year 2031 on county road 48. Next slide. Oh next slide.
So also considering county road 33 since there will be impacts um to that as we said that 7030 split uh between the two directions. Um the same same colors apply here. The green being the existing traffic on 33, red being the
contributions from just the banning phase 5, the orange being all the approved uh projects and and PUDs on County Road 33 and then blue being the available capacity um left over by the year 2031.
And I believe that should be the last SL. Oh no, we got one more animation there. All right, uh next slide. That's it. So, if you have any questions, I'm here. Also, handover and um the civil and the traffic engineer are all here to answer your questions.
>> Yes, I have a question. Uh who determines the available traffic that the blue who determines that? >> Is he sworn in? >> He is not sworn in. >> Good afternoon. Uh >> you're not sworn in? >> Uh no, not yet. I was in
>> He be sworn in. >> Yeah. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Yes. Thank you. Good. Good evening. I say, traffic and mobility consultants. We're traffic engineers on the site on this project. Um, so the way
this is calculated is the the actual capacity is determined by the county. So that's the fixed number and then and then it gets filled up as existing traffic is what's out there today and then you we add to that the approved
development strips that are not built. This is by the way the year 2031. So all the approved traffic that is from other projects added on top of the existing numbers that's out there today and then we add on top of that the project
traffic from the phase five banning which is proposed development today and then the balance which is the maximum capacity uh determined by the county minus all the other volumes. The balance is the available capacity.
>> Define available traffic capacity. >> So for example on 33 the capacity of the road is 900 vehicles per hour. That's how much the road can handle before the road fails as in reaches maximum capacity. capacity is like that's the
the maximum level the road can handle before it's it begins begins to um operate at a level service F. So 900 is the number. Existing traffic, just to make it simple, let's say existing traffic was 300 cars on the road today
in the peak hour. And then all approved projects are adding another 200. So that's 500. And then our project, this project is adding another 100. So that's 600. So we have 900 is a max. 600 is
what's on the road plus what will be on the road. The balance is 300. That's the available capacity for to be used by future projects. >> So what that says is that this project and the other ones that have been approved
do not reach capacity of existing roads. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. >> And just just to add to that um your fundamental question about what is capacity that is a defined amount. So the county defines that amount for us
based on the conditions of each roadway. So everything kind of draws down from that defined amount >> depending on what time of day. >> Yeah. And this is the peak hour. So this this would theoretically be the worst
the worst point of the day. It's the highest peak of the day which is a PM. >> See that? So the existing traffic that that's there in the projected does not exceed the capacity of the existing roads.
>> That's correct. So the road today is not >> and it still won't even with the projects that may get approved or will you guys >> correct correct that the the orange is all the other products within the vicinity. um of the of this development that are
adding trips to to County Road 33. That that's represented by the orange column. >> And it says 900 cars per hour. >> Yes. That's the capacity of the road. Yeah. >> Wow. >> I didn't determine that.
>> I have a question. Yeah, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. you know, this 900 cars per hour, they have to go someplace and most likely they're going to head north
into Leburg. Uh that's just compounded so much more traffic coming into on 27 into Leburg. I have driven and sometimes the traffic
is backed up to Lake Harris now. You know, I believe in Santa Claus because of my kids, but I cannot help but wonder eventually we have got to stop or slow down growth.
And I understand that we're legally committed to a lot of this stuff. They've already been approved. But Santa Claus isn't real. And the traffic in Leburg,
especially coming from the south north, is in my opinion a couple of times a day at ma maximum capacity. So I I understand you're just talking about 48 and its capacity, but 48 goes
to 27 and 27 comes to Leburg. And u I just had to vent a little bit on that because it it's really something we all have to consider. I mean uh it's not the way we remember it
anymore. And I've lived here since 1957. John was born here. Uh we've seen an awful lot of changes and a lot of it has been wonderful. But
the growth situation at some when we're designated as the largest growing city in the United States, we need to do something about slowing that process down. And I personally I needed to vent.
So, thank you for hearing me out. Uh I know we would legally be in a problem of saying no, we can't do this because we've already we've already proved it before. So, you know, >> it's expired. >> Pardon? >> But it's expired.
>> Yes, it expired. I understand that. >> I have enough. Anybody else want to add anything? I think I've expressed myself, >> but it does look like the percentage that they're abandoning five wouldn't wouldn't really cause any
big concern. >> No, I think your plan is good. Yeah, >> the fact that you're connecting with 33 >> and 48, >> that's good. You know, I mean, that's a good plan. >> And uh I'm going to vote to approve it,
>> but I'm not happy. >> Any more questions from the commissions? >> Yes, I do. I've got some questions. Uh provided this project goes forward.
You've got 294 single family homes and I heard one swimming pool and two and a half acres of parks. I see two little parks and
then a little building where I guess a swimming pool would be. It's off the edge amenity center. >> Yes, sir. That's a clubhouse pool type area. >> Okay. These these two parks
and 294 homes and then you say there's 41% of space. Well, they were all retention ponds. I think the property
is dense, too dense for the And I I don't see the traffic, the density, the small parks, the one pool for 300, 294 families.
I think it has to be opened up a little bit more on the land that you have for people to go instead of getting out on the roads and looking for a park to go somewhere. So
basically I think the project is dense and I think the 41% open area is false because retention ponds are not you know something that people can use not even to fish
that's all >> so the um the current code and I know this doesn't make anybody feel any better the code uh allows you to count the storm water ponds in the open space.
>> So that's the the the percentage is what the percentage is because that's what the code >> not >> allows us to do. >> Yeah. Well, when you when you figure the uh acreage per house sounds a lot, but you're adding in retention ponds, which
are useless other than retaining water in case of hurricanes and excess rain, etc. Um, I think if some of the homes I've got no objection on on the size of the lots and the sizes of the homes, that's nice.
But you need more open area, usable open area. And if you It's just It's too dense, right? Any more questions from commissioners?
>> I have a question for for staff. Dan. >> Yes, sir. >> The property, I believe it's to the north, was there was concern on that property, I believe, because of the road improvement responsibility on 48. Is it the other
property that's to the north of this was tabled or waited until further discussion with the county who would be responsible for improvements? The 48's a very narrow road. >> Yes, there there was discussions going back and forth between the city and
county regarding um who would be responsible. Right now it's a county road and uh the county was asking the city to take over the road. >> Okay. And that is not clearly called out in the ISBA, the interlocal service boundary area agreement, which is why
the city um at this point to the best of my knowledge is not willing to take that road. But it is a county road and each developer that comes in is required by statute, by law to improve their portion
of that road. Now that >> right, >> you know, as you all know, that usually means widening of the road, um, extra ride ofway for retention, widening the road, widen adding shoulders, doing turn lanes and things of that nature that
keep it from clogging up. Uh, but yes, it does. I mean, that that is fact. Any every time you add a house, no matter if it's one house on a street or a thousand houses in a subdivision, it does add to the traffic. I do know that there is work going on and planning going on for
uh some improvements at the intersection of 33 and 48470 >> and that is being funded by some of these same developers as a matter of fact um who are working on that. So um it is it is a tough call. Um staff
likes it because it creates that connection between 48 and 33 and doesn't throw all the traffic out there. Uh so you do have a path all the way through from 48 to 33 and we think that's an important part. Um you know the
commission obviously can do whatever it likes. Uh staff does like the project based on what it does for the transportation network connections as one of the reasons we do like it. And it's the same as what has been approved
previously along this area. >> Yeah. That was back in 2008, I believe, or expired in 2008. >> It expired in I think 2010 and the other zoning was like 2008 or something. I I don't remember the specifics on that. And uh but this removes the town houses
and makes it all single family, >> right? But the density is within six of the >> but regardless, you're going to split traffic on two roads. That's true. But you're going to increase traffic on each one of those roads. >> True.
And may I say that 2010 and this is 2025. How much traffic has increased in those 15 years? And the project is going to be done in 31 did I see? How many another six years? How much
more traffic is it going to be? So that's all. Yes, sir. >> No more questions from the commissioner for the applicant. >> Chairman, I want I have one other thing I want to add. Um Ben just came up and
reminded me that um the in our initial application for the lot sizes. We had proposed a lot depth of 115 ft and we noticed in the um in the sample
ordinance that the lot size was increased. the lot depth was increased to 125. And so, um, with with your permission, we would like to to knock that at least
back down to 120 for the flexibility uh that that provides. 125 is not a typical lot depth. 120 would be much more typical. um even though we were requesting 115
that was just something that we noted from the uh the draft ordinance and that that was all. >> Thank you sir. >> Are there anyone from the public who like to come forward making the comments?
If not, we'll close it to the public and uh we'll discuss with amount of commissioners. >> Welcome to the plan zoning. >> Ted, I agree with you. It's too much traffic, too. >> Well,
it is, but you know, we we're up against the rock in the hard place. It's been approved. It was approved 15 years ago. >> Yeah. >> A lot's happened out there in the last 15 years. >> A lot more homes.
>> I'm not against the project, but what I'm saying is if they take away some of these houses and put in more open space for the people to use one pool. >> Yeah. >> 294 homes. Well, some of the homes can
have their own pool as well. >> Again, I I don't see any place here for >> for um guests parking. Where where do they park? How many how many I don't see a
>> elevation for houses and like how big is the driveway? If you have a right >> a guest home, where do they park? I don't see any spaces for guest parking or anything like that.
>> Maybe they could address that. >> Andrew Macau with GI Consultants. So for for the amenity center specifically, you can see that there there is a parking area just shown. That's just a, you know, that's just a placeholder graphic, but that would be a typical uh a typical
uh design for an amenity center. And then, um, the roads, the roads are are typically, um, wide enough for on street parking. The cars will be, um, I believe they're all twocar garages. So, all of
the garages will be two-car garages. Um, and the driveways would be, you know, the sufficient width for that. And um the 50 and 60 foot lots are are more than wide enough to accommodate um uh cars in the garage and in the driveway.
And um overall the the the project will abide by all the the standard um the standard parking requirements of the city including um guest parking. Um, showing every single guest parking spot at a at a a
PUD is not something typically that we would do, but um but definitely we would be abiding by all the minimum standards. >> Just if I may, Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, the front setbacks on these projects are 25 ft. So,
notwithstanding that people put things in their garage, we all know that. But the point being that two cars in the garage and two cars in the driveway gives you four. And again, you know, my own garage is full. I >> in a perfect world.
>> In a perfect world, but that's the that's the design. That's that's correct. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Any more discussion among the commissioners? If not, if not, I would entertain a motion.
>> Go ahead, Donnie. I know you're talking. >> I'll make a motion that we deny the project as it st stands on >> I second that. >> PUD251285. I second it. Yes. Roll call vote.
>> Commissioner Baralt. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robertson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Sanders. >> I'm saying not to cancel, sir. I'm saying no.
>> Commissioner Simeone. >> No. >> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, >> wait a minute. You want to say yes to your >> You made You made the motion to deny. >> Deny? Yeah. >> Deny. >> Oh, yes. >> Okay. >> Yes, I want to deny. >> Commissioner Kelly.
>> Yes. >> Right. Thank you. Is there anything need to be discussed then? >> Uh yes sir. I have some announcements if I may, Mr. Mr. Chairman. >> Yes sir. >> So I for the past couple of months um at
the end of the meeting we would announce you know we're taking applications for new members to the planning commission. Again I just wanted to say welcome to the planning commission, Mr. Sha Robertson. Um we're happy you're here. U
let's see. And next, our next openings, potential openings occur in 2026. Mr. Senate's term expires in 2026 and Mr. Simeone and Mr. Acriman. So,
that will be a full three years for all three of those terms. So, we will be advising everyone to um reapply at that time. Um, I wanted to mention that staff has been looking for
a new staff planner for several months and on Monday we will have a new one. Um, Mr. Melzdc Ortiz or as he's going to be called Mel Mel Ortiz will start on Monday. So, next month we'll introduce you to him. Uh,
he's uh brand new so we get to uh train him. >> Break him. Yes sir. Thank you. That's exactly right. >> First his first job business. >> Yes sir. And um he has >> where did he go to school to learn all this? >> University of Houston. >> Okay. >> In Houston, Texas. And he has a master's
degree in planning. And then finally and so we're excited about him coming Monday. We may get to see him tomorrow. I think we talked to him today. And then finally, um staff is working on some new binders for the planning commission. And I don't know if all of you remember, you received a three- ring binder when you
first came on the planning commission, and we want to update those, but we'd like to pass them all out to everyone who's on the commission now, so everyone always has the same um information. And with that, that's all staff has. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> Do we get to pick the color of the
binder? >> No, sir. Pink is not available. >> Hot pink for everyone. >> Oh, come on. If if there's no questions, anything from the commissioner, meet >> I think that was a sexist response.