e for e e e e e for e e e e e e e we'll call the meeting to order this is the city Commission meeting it's Monday April the 22nd 20124 time is uh 5:32 um if you'd please rise for the invocation The Pledge Heavenly Father we ask that you look over this group tonight that you give us the wisdom to make good decisions for the city of lebur we do this in your name amen pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all we'll begin tonight uh we have a proclamation it's uh Municipal Clerk's week K uh whereas the office of the municipal clerk is a time honored and essential part of local government that exists throughout the world and whereas the office of the municipal clerk is the oldest among public servants and whereas the office of the municipal clerk provides the professional link between the citizens the local governing bodies and agencies of government at other levels and whereas Municipal clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality rendering equal service to all and whereas the municipal clerk serves as the information center on functions of local government and community and whereas Municipal clerks Contin L strive to improve the administration of the Affairs of the office of the Miss municipal clerk through participation in education programs seminars workshops and the annual meetings of their County State and international professional organizations and whereas it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the office of the municipal clerk now therefore I James a bur Jr mayor of the city of leeburg do hereby Proclaim the week of May 5th through the 11th 2024 as Municipal Clerk's week and further extend appreciation to our Municipal clerks uh Andy pervis and Anna Rodman and to all Municipal clerks for their vital Services they perform and their ex exemplary dedication to our community now you for move on to item three presentations we have none uh item four is public comments this section is reserved for members of the public to bring up matters of concern are opportunities for praise issues brought up will not be discussed in detail at this meeting issues will either be referred to the proper staff or will be scheduled for consideration at a future city commission meeting comments are limited to three minutes and if you come up would you please give your name and your address any public comment Bill City leberg 600 Cascade Avenue leberg Clark uh they had a bass tournament last weekend it was a big success I think but we had big problems with boat ramps people that are paying taxes here couldn't get their boat in Lake Harris period they said in a I don't know what it was email or Facebook or something Al Menard sent out something that said they could put in at the Ballpark and they could park at the old Bar Park but there was people down there that told them they could not park there so no one could put their boat in Lake Harris from the three boat ramps that we have on South 27 Ski Beach and or the ballpark so in the future I would I'm all for the fishing tournaments they're great bring money to leeburg and all that but somebody needs to reserve at least one of those boat ramps for the people that pay taxes on those boat ramps here and I'd appreciate if y'all look into that thank thank you lay brother Steven Gerard sadovski I'm a snowbird my voting address is 1109 West 8th Street line Ohio and as you know beloved mayor Council citizens I'm here for the third time now and I'm here to lovingly guide you in a new direction for your wonderful city of leeburg this new Direction consists of two steps I'll be providing this information to your city clerk before I leave step one is to first place the proposed personate resolution on your city council agenda and then pass between Mother's and Father's Day step two is to men your city Charter with a new Preamble Covenant personhood language that will be voted on by the citizens this November you will have to pass the ordinance resolution however by July in order to submit it to Lake County Supervisors of election because step two date cut off is August 23rd I recently learned that by contacting your Lake County Supervisors of Elections with the loving guidance of your city manager please ask your city manager to notify you when your agenda Embraces step one and step two so that I will have the three to five days to prepare the appropriate personate education brief to all of you you will find this personate education edifying and persuasive you will be personally invested and enthusiastically amplifying the new direction of a future leberg personhood City personhood cities are Conant constitutional and will also legally oppose the new Florida Amendment for that you will also be voting on uh this coming November I always like to conclude with a little Holy Scripture because I think we all need to be edified in that direction so let me please read since I have time remaining Psalm 78 for he established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel which he commanded our fathers that they should make known to their children that the generation to come might know them even the children which should be born who should arise and declare them to their children that they might set their hope in God and not forget the works of God but keep his Commandments and a closing song I think you'll enjoy the joy of the spirit of God is love for his creation I'll give the handouts to Andy you now if that's okay other public comment well I think we're in evening so good evening early evening city council my name is June Presley and I am a resident I live at 3175 brigh Lake Circle leeburg Florida and um I just want to bring to attention a situation that I'm sure most of you are aware of but living down there in this section where it's Highway 33 South and Highway 48 West and 470 at our little intersection okahumpka has turned into a a fiasco and it's very difficult uh very dangerous when we're trying to go and come from our little intersection there um we have people that are seriously cutting people off because we have no left turning Lanes people coming up from the Groveland section on Highway 33 when they get up to do a leftand turn if they want to go to the turnpike or if they're trying to get to The Villages um holds up that entire section I'm hoping that you all are communicating with the planning and zoning and the infrastructure people at the county level so that you are communic the growth that we're experiencing by adding almost 800 almost a th000 homes off a Highway 33 that will now be in the making plus we also have the added homes that have come in from the villages on the 470 side which is 48 or used to be 48 so it's where the Okuma post office is it's almost impossible to get in and out of there in the afternoons or in the early mornings um my mother who's 86 was hit there she is president of our community for almost 60 years um and it was not her fault I thought gosh it's her age she you know just finally had that accident um it has become very stressful and people are starting to road rage also when we have people coming off the turnpike that are coming down 470 trying to get over to 27 that also becomes a very precarious moment because we only have two lane roads so everybody's doing everything that they can to get to work or get home from work I'm a teacher at Carver Middle School and it is just difficult to even get in some days um when we get up to 27 and what we call Dixie Highway that's Mass bedum I'm sure youall are aware of that so I just want us all to be mindful and be present in what we're trying to do to accomplish good things for leeburg because I know all of you are and I know one of our city councilors very well and I know that she's doing her very best as well so just think about our community we want growth I'm not sure how fast we should be doing growth if our infrastructure is not allowing it the last thing I'd like to share with you is that working on what I call middle of leeburg um where I live we just had a home built that was annexed by city of leasburg um it is south of okahoma but I have been given grovelin as my post office not lesburg not okahoma I cannot get to Groveland Monday through Friday before before they close and our section I thought from Ab Meritt Road North was supposed to be kept within what I call annexation of leeburg but they have Annex sections of where I liveed Groveland so they just handed our post office off our our route to the Groveland section because I understand leeburg has is at capacity so again being mindful with almost a thousand homes going into South 33 below okahoma and there's my time so thank you very much I hope you'll take into consideration what I had to say and thank you very much for your your duty to our community thank you Al is there any um there anything in the works or anything on that intersection 48 and 33 that's that's all County right that's going to be a county intersection you well you're not aware of any check with him on that commissioner Canal just so everybody here so you hear the so everybody hears the conversation commissioner Canal asked me if there was any road Improvement projects in the work for the intersection of 470 um 48 and 33 there the answer is not to my knowledge all of those are County and or state roads which would be governed by the county projects or or state projects I don't believe the county in the fiveyear plan had any improvements for those areas most of the county 5year CIP projects are in South Lake um I believe there's one project on 466a up in Fruitland Park which is a county project um and then the other issue the the the speaker brought up was uh about the post office stuff and that those would be a post office matters but I will get back with public works and and make sure they they have our input as far as the roads go there at 3344 and 470 good evening everybody how youall doing um my name is Maddie akkin um this is my second time to this meeting um the first um time I had brought brought up a situation was I purchased a home here in Lake County and I wrote a letter to you Miss Barry about um some issues that I had and after the last Mee I didn't speak so I'm back again to speak on the same issue um the back of my home it's um the c c of Lake County and y'all did a little complishment but it's not a good enough accomplishment with you did it's still trees need to be trimmed um still leaves and the breed need to be picked up um I'm asking for lighting in the um lighting back there because I am a single woman and I do want to be safe and I have had to invest into cameras where I couldn't afford it at the time to make sure you know I'm in a renovation getting the home renovated and everything so no one be can't be squatting and everything so it it still looked bad back there and I'm at 808 East magnan I think that's lak Street um um back in there and I appreciate that you did put like a handicap spot there for me and everything but it needs more Lighting in the back and it's a church right there the church is doing what they can do but your area it need to be clean if you if you're expecting the community to keep their area clean we we are expecting for Lake County to keep their area clean the alley clean also too so if if so y'all don't want that to clean that um I'm asking for a permit or something that I could put a gate around my area to make my yard look like someone that lives there and appreciate their home and their home value of their home and everything so um I never got to respond back for no one the last time I spoke with you off record um about getting back with me about those things so I haven't heard anything back for anybody so I'm just wondering how soon can I hear for anybody about those issues we'll double check with public works we'll be in touch okay my apologies but we'll be in touch okay and you don't know how long it will be for any lighting to get back there or where we can get these other vehicles from not being back there in the back too say that one more time it's on the it's on the side of katr it's on Lake Street in Magnolia and that one side street is the strip of the city's Road that's needs to be decided if it's going it's not a three-way street it's just behind the town homes and it's right next to St Paul am Church correct yes if not let let the owners take that piece of property there's a bunch of tentacles in that not to you know not a bad word there but just I will I will personally contact you tomorrow looks like I got about a three Department issue there electric and a couple different divisions there in public works okay so let me revisit that and we'll be in touch my apologies I heard that last time but I'm hoping this won't be again understood I'm holding you to it thank you any other public comment we'll move on to the consent agenda routine items are placed on the consent agenda to expedite the meeting if the commissioner staff wish to discuss any item the procedure is as follows uh number one pull the item or items from the consent agenda number two vote on the remaining items with one roll call vote and three discuss each pulled item and vote by roll call are there any items anyone would like to pull uh five 5 B1 all right motion motion to approve all remaining items y call commiss conell yes commissioner rean yes commissioner Peterson yes commissioner Barry yes mayor bur yes will someone please introduce 5 B1 I'll introduce it ask be right by title only resolution of the city Commission of the city of leeburg Florida authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute an agreement for security access control system installation and configuration services with Source Link Communications Inc and providing an effective date for approval second discussion uh yes I have a couple questions this this pertains to City Hall and the municiple building yes sir and you know what doors we're talking about on the two buildings yes so let me give you just a a quick background uh this project is a security project it date back to uh our our goal setting session back last summer and the concept was to ensure that our city facilities are secured uh this came from different visits uh from the public and sometimes the Public's not altogether friendly uh generally they are like 99.9% of the time they are but there is occasion these days where we get interesting visits where people people are threatening um and it has set off I think some concern amongst city employees um and as you can kind of see around the nation and here locally in the past several years you see different Municipal corporations as well as the county taking action to secure the facilities so as we moved into this endeavor and I don't mean this to be a long explanation but I think it's important um as we moved into this endeavor we um had the discussion back at our Workshop we set it as a goal to make our our facilities secure um and we did a little bit of an analysis of what facilities we thought were and were not secure um facilities that we thought were secure uh obviously the police stations and the fire stations um and the and the electric Department as secured areas because um the public has access to certain points and then the rest the facilities are literally locked down unless you're an authorized person some facilities we thought um that we couldn't address because of the public access throughout the facilities and so if there were safety areas in case of an emergency that employees would could exit to those department heads have worked with the employees on that namely that's the library there's really no really good way to secure the library because the public has access throughout that facility so if an unfortunate situation Rises Lucy has work with her folks on a plan on how you secure yourself that leads really basically two facilities that have a lot of Public Access that are very open to the public right now which is City Hall and the what do we call that the the lrmc or I you know the acronym for it and I call it Dan's office so across the street from City Hall the old library the old Sears building or JC Penney building um there is four Public Department there I'm 1 two 3 four uh purchasing which actually is locked off and secured from the access of the public uh the building department the planning and zoning department are not locked off and secured and then it is probably I would say reasonably locked off and secured so the concept to secure these facilities to keep employees safe but to allow people to come in is to move to a security system where all the doors are locked um and they're locked with automatic magnet locks and employees and Commissioners will be issued a pass and you I call it the swipey pass and so you swipe the door and the access point and then you can get access into the facility and then each employee or each person who's issued a pass that pass is then registered so that it allows them into access where they work and where they need to go employees uh would then receive those badges accordingly uh so for example let's say you're an electric person and you need to come in to see HR you would have a a a pass name badge and you'd be able to swipe so you could get into City Hall you'd be able to swipe so you could get up to the third floor um if you were for example an um a member of the public and you needed to go in and see Jim Williams on the second floor the second floor would be restricted so you would go and you would see our customer service representative her name is Deb by the way who works out in the front she'd sign you in give you a pass and then you would have access to that point and then you would return the pass um that's kind of how City Hall would be locked down um there's I think there 27 different doors that we've identified that need to be locked down basically those are the big Swinging Doors that on each floor they the exterior doors the exterior doors that go into the hallways each hallway has then a door and the elevator so if you've recently been to the County Administration Building that system where you go in and you check in uh with the security agent and then you get a pass that is the similar system that we would set up um over there in the building and planning and zoning departments that situation is a little bit different most of that area is secured or some of that area is secured is a better word it and again purchasing is secured but that open Lobby is not secured and the way it's secured now is just by little divisional partitions with doors that open So the plan there is to actually construct walls that go up enough of a way where we have security but short enough that we still have air flow for so that AC and heat or whatever can get around and so that we have to invest in a major infrastructure project that at that facility and then those two doors now would be replaced with secure doors where um employees if you're building apartment you swipe through you get in if you're typically the the the public that visits now is typically stays in that Foye and they deal with a building or you they have an appointment with somebody in planning and zoning and then we we do that so step one is to secure all these doors so we did a bid we did some research and this this item is about an $80,000 expense a $79,000 and some change to secure doors at City Hall those 27 or so doors and the two doors that will soon be at the at the other office um the the purpose of the security badge um rather than a key per se is that the security badge tracks who goes in and who goes out so we can monitor that and it gives an added level of security versus then issuing out a bunch of different Keys which which is seen more of a of a breach that's why um you know that's why the the the swipy pass so to speak so step one uh assuming that you that this passes is we will install the security stuff over at City Hall first and then the second step will be to start building the walls which we think we can do internally over there at the planning and zon and building office and then once those walls are secured They will receive a door that's similar uh to the ones that are in this contract so this contract secures all the doors with the operations that I just described and um then we need to build those walls the budget that we set aside in Fisco year 24 was 150 grand um right now we're at 80 of that I think there's a couple of uh a thousand or so dollars di Minimus kind of expenses into the research of of this project and so by you approving this resolution we contract with that firm and we spend about 80 grand to do the first and pretty big swipe at securing City Hall and and the Planning and Zoning building next door the um you going to need a swipe pass to use the elevator yes um so the elevator will also be locked down so the entry points into City Hall obviously the front door downstairs is is pretty secure uh for the most part but that's where we do have the most public in most public uh in andout folks paying their utilities or opening or closing accounts so there is a significant amount of public traffic that goes into that area but there will be a swipey pass the the the elevators will be locked down to because the security breaches to get up to the second and third floors are the elevator and the stairwell um when we have obviously public meetings and there'll be kind of kind of Mass public input uh then those facilities will be opened but then closed down automatically after and before meetings all right so you won't need a swipy pass for commission how about on regular base for vertical accessibility they'll be they'll be shut down so what are we doing for vertical accessibility on the second and third floors employees will have swiy passes and Commissioners will have swiping passes so you can have vertical accessibility to authorize Personnel the public the public will need to sign in and then somebody will let them up there yeah any other discussion B call commission rean commission Peterson yes commiss Barry yes commissioner conell no mayor Bur yes we'll move on to public hearings uh tonight we have a second reading would someone please introduce item 6 A1 s ask be read by title only excuse me an ordinance of the city of lebur Florida in accordance with the special magistrates recommendation pursuant to the Sunnyside Lake Landing holding LLC and Seno Ventures Florida LLC ver City lebur dated January 15th 2024 resoning approximately 120.5 plus minus Acres from PUD to PUD planned unit development to allow for 150 detached single family residential dwellings units on a property located south of US Highway 441 and west of Sunnyside Drive as legal described in sections 29 and 32 Township 19 South Range 25 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date for approval second we'll have discussion uh Mr bonis would you please swear in anyone uh offering testimony tonight yes sir if there's anybody here who's going to offer testimony if you please stand and raise your right hand yeah if you're going to come up and talk we need you to stand up been yeah do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence that you will provide would be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you thank you sir uh Dan if you would come up thank you Mr Mayor Dan Miller Planning and Zoning this is a request for an ordinance to reone approximately 120 Acres that is generally located as Andy stated south of us High 441 in west of Sunnyside Drive the proposed project contains 150 units on 120 acres for a gross density of 1.25 units per acre you will recall that this proposed PD is a result of the special magistrates recommendation of settlement in the recent Sunnyside Landing versus city of leeburg case that was pursued under Section 7051 dispute resolution Act of the Florida Statutes the special magistrate has recommended to amend the Pud in the following areas number one the total acreage of the project was dropped from 139 acres to 120 Acres that's due to the additional tract on the east side of Sunnyside Drive being removed from the plan the total number of units was recommended to be reduced from 159 total to 150 and then dropping that total number of units did slightly increase the size of certain open space areas and buffers adjacent to the nearest properties with existing residences it was small but it was there all other requirements of that PUD as you have seen before have been maintained including requirements for 50 70 and 80 foot Lots design and Architectural standards for the houses 25 foot planted buffers around the perimeter of the property there's also a requirement for Boulevard entrance sidewalks upgrading of Sunnyside Drive adjacent to the property preservation of wetlands and recreational requirements all remain as well um understand that staff staff understands that the commission may want to make some amendments to these this request thank you Mr Mayor just for if if you would the these are um some amendments that I think uh the the commission should consider consider and um I've talked with um Mr bionas about these and they've been uh shared with with the the developer and there's there would be potentially three modifications that the commission should make an amendment um to the motion there's was there motion is there a motion yet there's there is a motion okay so you would need a an amendment to the motion on the floor and the motion on the floor is to approve the Pud so the amendment would be to modify the motion on the floor in the following manners a to add our dark skylighting uh requirements that are in more recent puds B to add the tree requirement that are in our most recent puds and I believe that's a tree for every lot two trees for every lot and C to modify paragraph 15 C of the Pug which is the expiration paragraph So that expiration paragraph would be completely stricken ENT and I'm not going to read the what we're striking but basically paragraph 15 C would be stricken that exists Now with an expiration of 120 months 10 years um and then kind of some Wiggly language on if this happens then this may happen so the intent of this change is to um have a more more clear-cut shorter defined action if the Pud does not develop and and it's basically restricting it from the 10 to the six so the modification in paragraph C would be approve upon approval of this P by the city commission a development permit or building permit application must be submitted with the city for work related two one or more phases of the Pud within six years of this approval coming final with no appeal pending or the Pud will automatically expire unless otherwise lawfully extended by the city or section 252 363 Florida Statutes in the event that the Pud expires the property shall be governed by the zoning regulations applicable to the re1 zoning District so that's the language that the commission if if you if you amend would would strike and amend the motion those three ways um so we would need a motion on that if you want to do that essentially the the concept is is let me kind of flush out the three significant points that 15c modifies obviously one is the term of the of the Pud a life of six years versus 10 second which is the last sentence I'll jump to is a specific if it expires because they don't pull permit then it goes back to a specific zoning automatically which is re1 zoning and that's a one for one zoning and and while it doesn't say there a one for one zoning in this case is not 100 acres and aund if you have aund uh right you mess me up there you you broke it if you have let's say you have a a 100 acres and you're only going to use 30 of it and you jam a 100 into 30 Acres that's actually a net one for one what we're looking for is a gross one for one so that's what the re1 is it's it's one acre one house so if it's 100 acres it's 100 houses if it's 30 Acres it's 30 houses it's not it's not a net and then the third one uh modification which is a state preemption uh so just 52 363 of Florida Statutes is actually uh a a law that where State statutes supersedes local planning law and that's a statute that says essentially anytime the governor issues a um state of emergency however long that state of emergency is a a a development entitlement gets expanded so let's say hurricane comes the hurricane the governor says there's a state of emergency in pulk Lake Sumpter counties and we're in that state of emergency for a week that means the developer would have their ex the the expiration of the development would be four years and one week right or or if it happens and there's two years or six years I'm sorry if it happens and there's two years left uh you know so anytime that state of emergency exists that time gets automatically put on um I think that's a bit of an olive branch I won't speak for the petitioners um our council did speak with them they seem amenable to the change um and you know it's it's a bit of an olive branch I think to to allow the city to put a little bit more of a restriction that this PUD would expire before some of the other puds that we've recently approved so if if if the commission likes those modifications we would need a motion to amend do we have a motion to amend so moved any discussion on the motion to amend yeah just for clarification so the you got so the motion is to amend and I would just change the motion to amend as described by staff which is the three-point Amendment Andy you good with that and here's you're good with that Mike Dan has the tree and Street Dan has the the the tree and street light language and that's the language which for 15 C so let have roll call on the amended motion Peterson yes commissioner Barry yes commissioner canel yes commission rean yes mayor bur yes okay so now we'll uh can we hear from the petitioner good evening mayor fellow Commissioners Brent Spain theak and Spain 1809 Edgewater Drive Orlando Florida on behalf of the property owners and applicants before you this evening and before I go through and I'm going to try to go through it as quickly as possible a slide presentation because we're all very familiar with the project I'll State on the record that uh special counsel did reach out to me regarding the proposed modifications and our clients are amable to those so we we have no objection to doing those three things and shortening the PD life lifespan so with that said I just want to jump into a quick PowerPoint it's got more slides than um we'll talk about but we'll jump through them the first two slides just go over the standards for resoning you all hear these on a bi-weekly uh basis monthin month out so I'm not going to go through these a couple I just want to emphasize of the first two is one obviously a PUD a site specific rezoning is a quasi judicial decision you all have heard that a buzz term while you've been serving during your term which means at the end of the day your decision needs to be supported by competent substantial evidence and then the second to last bullet point up there is that one of those things that can constitute competent substantial evidence are the staff reports from your local planning staff and your professional experts so in this case I'm going to end up introducing a binder which is essentially historical public records related to this case including from the prior PUD but the staff reports throughout the history of this project have consistently recommended approval and their recommending approval tonight on the modified plan next slide please and then on this slide I just wanted for purposes of this evening because it ties into the hearing from a couple years ago is the last bullet point and you probably saw some of this in the special magistrates order is at the end of the day when you all sit there you sort of put on your judge's hat uh instead of your normal City Commissioner hat in that type of role you've got to apply the city's adopted criteria so it's not a decis decision of well what do I think might be best what do I just personally like at the end of the day the decision for you is whether or not a proposal any proposal that comes before you whether it complies with your adopted criteria next slide and then just very briefly for the folks in the crowd a few of the newer Commissioners how did we get here we talked about this briefly at the meeting ear earlier uh last month March 25th but I didn't have a PowerPoint but just running through it this application initially started back in May of 2021 we filed the development application it initially actually was for 164 units on the 130 139 Acres it got reduced to 159 prior to the public hearing so the public hearing that's the second bullet point in March of 2022 that's when you all the city Commission held a public hearing on that that application was a little broader than what's before you this evening as Mr Miller indicated the matter before this evening doesn't include the 18 and a half acres on the east side of Sunnyside Drive so back in March two years ago you had an annexation a future land use change and the Pud this evening the only thing before you is a new PUD on the what I call the parent track the 120 Acres but but back in March it ended there were only four Commissioners in attendance it was a 2 two vote which procedurally ends up being a denial So within the 30-day time frame our client exercised a few different rights one of which Mr Miller alluded to it's what we call the special magistrate process under the statutes we also on the plan amendment that had failed we filed for mediation as allowed under the Community planning act and then we also filed what's called a petition for rid of ccori in Lake County Circuit Court which that litigation has always been abated it's been essentially put on hold since it was filed as we worked our way through the special magistrate process last summer uh July 2023 some of the folks in the room attended the special magistrate hearing it was special magistrate Carlos Alvarez if you're a Florida Gator fan he's also known as the Cuban Comet and played on the Gator football and is in the College Football Hall of Fame um but he's practiced land use law for 48 years in Florida so he was mutually selected by the city and my clients to serve as the neutral special magistrate and in July of 20123 he held an all day evidentiary hearing so it wasn't just a showand tell people got called as Witnesses they're put under oath and all that we have to put on Expert testimony the city did the same and and both sides got to submit proposed orders and in January of this year that is when the special magistrate issued his recommendation and as Mr Miller alluded to the conclusion the ultimate conclusion was to recommend approval of the modified Sunnyside PUD that's before you this evening and that denial the same would be and these are technical terms on the statute unreasonable or unfairly burden the use of the applicant's private property and then we all know last month we were before you on the settlement agreement accepting the magistrates order and that's where we are tonight is on the second stage of that and we're here here tonight to implement that and ask for approval of the modified PUD next two slides so this is just a project aerial you all are very familiar with the site so next slide this is the existing future Lanes on the property it's in the staff report but it's a state residential which is for dwelling is per the acre under the city's comprehens plan next slide and then this is the existing zoning on the property those who attended special magistrate may have heard this the property is actually still zon PUD as we sit here tonight and has been zon PUD the issue was whether or not the prior PUD had expired or not expired and that's what was the impetus this for our client to initially apply for a new PUD because the staff had indicated it was the city's position that the 2005 PUD had expired but as we said here it's still the same color in the map we just don't have a PUD in place as Mr Miller indicated during the special magistrate hearing if my client went in today and asked for a building permit the answer would be no because essentially you have a zoning with no PUD on it next slide and we can jump to the next one so this is the revised PUD um this a copy of it was attached to the settlement agreement it's in the agenda packet I'm going to go through a couple of the modifications that Mr Miller touched upon I do want to indicate that as Mr Miller stay there are 80 foot Lots there are 70 foot Lots there are 50 foot Lots what's important about the layout out and it's difficult to see it up there they're colorcoded by dots on the lot but all the exterior lots are 80ft lots every lot that borders Sunny Side Drive is 80 foot every lot that borders an exterior buffer is 80 80 feet in width the more narrow Lots so the 50 and 70 foot lots are all interior on the development so they they back up to conservation areas or Wetlands next slide this is just this pie chart is on the modifi plan but that just shows a breakdown so it does show the yellow are 80 foot Lots so it demonstrates the vast majority of the development consists of 80 foot lots and again all the perimeter lots are 80 feet in width next slide so Mr Miller alluded to this um these are distance measurements and over the next few slides I'm going to go through how the the plan was modified but the applicant removed five Lots in key areas and as a result of removing those lots it resulted in increased distances from the nearest existing residences so this shows on the northern part of the PE you'll see the houses to the left on the bottom in my client's project those are 472 feet and 434 feet from the existing residential structure and then the house up on the uh right side s of the Northeast and that drawing that's 263 ft next slide and then these are the increased distances on the southern side we have an increased buffer along the southern side it's a 30 foot buffer instead of 25 ft and then you also have which I'll walk through in a moment a reduction in the Lots so these lots are larger in size but you can see the distances are 475 and 472 ft to that nearest Residence so by development standards sort of what you probably see on a monthin Monon out basis those are substantial separation distances between those houses next slide please so what did it look like back in So 2005 there was a PUD approval but the applicant at that time the prior owner actually came through the city and got a preliminary subdivision plan approved that's what's on the over head right now this is a picture of the 2006 PSP and again this was reviewed and approved by the city it was found compatible with all the surrounding areas and I want to highlight the three areas on the plan because that's where we made modifications to enhance compatibility so if we start sort of dead center what I call the north Lots circled on the 2006 PSP you'll see there were five Lots in that area if you go up on the top right which I call the East you have four lots and then when you go down on the southern border and you see them circled in red there are six Lots on the southern side next slide please so when you compare that to the modified plan you'll see that the northern spot up there in the middle of the slide we have eliminated uh two lots versus the 2006 six approved PSPs so we have four lots and as a result again that increases that open space immediately to the east which helps increase the separation from the existing residences to the north the area on the east at the top that's exactly the same as the approved PSP from 2006 it's four lots and then down on the south where on the 2006 PSP it was actually six Lots across that bottom which again had been found compatible by the city we've actually increased those so those lots are substantially larger there are only four Lots along that southern boundary and you'll see off to the right on the slide there's a quote out of the special magistrate order for the folks in the crowd and I'm I'm quoting from page 29 from a strict compatibility standpoint the revised Sunny Side PUD concept plan is not only an improvement over the 2021 Sun side PUD submitt with 159 units which the city's planning staff deemed compatible with the surrounding area but it is an improvement over the 2006 PSP that the city approved next slide so one of the issues you may hear about this evening's compatibility so I want to touch upon just a few points on it one is there's a policy in the city's comprehensive plan it was referenced by the m magistrate and that's flu future land use policy 1.6.5 and it provides impertinent part quote compatibility with surrounding established neighborhoods shall be considered during the comprehensive plan amendment process and why that's significant in this case is in the second bullet point you'll see that in 2006 the city adopted a comprehensive plan Amendment for this property and in went from Lake County Urban expansion which is 4 to one and Lake County Suburban which is up to three to one dwelling years breaker to City estate residential and conservation and the city estate residential as I indicated earlier allows up to four units per gross acre so presumably in6 when that plan amendment was adopted under the city's own comp plan there was an inherent compatibility analys is done and it was determined that four dwellings per acre on this property is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood but what did the city planning staff determine while this PUD was going through the process again that's the third bullet point the city planning staff had concluded quote the proposed request for a PUD plan unit development zoning is compatible with the current surrounding zoning districts end quote and his quote is consistent with the city's growth management plan feature land use El goal one objective 1.6 which is Lane use compatibility and then the last two bullet points are what the special magistrate part of his conclusion one was that there was no evidence or testimony introduced during the evry hearing that would support a finding that the Sunnyside PUD would create a legitimate compatibility concern regarding any surrounding land uses end quote but then the special magistrate didn't just take all of our words for it I think it's important for the folks in the room to know the special Magistrate on his own with no parties there to try to influence him or comment did his own independent uh site visit not only of the what I call my client the Sunnyside P property but he actually acknowledged and stipulate on the record he drove the surrounding area and visited the surrounding area and you can see and this is a longer quote from him I'm not going to read the whole thing um but he went out of his way to indicate this in the order that came back to you all that he had done a site visit to the site and the general area and that that site visit did not disclose any grounds by the residential nature and density of the Sunnyside PE consistent with the revised Sunnyside PE concept plan would not be compatible with the surrounding residential Lane uses and then he made note that he had practiced 48 years so you all wouldn't think it was just a little puppy lawyer trying to tell like hey I don't think it's compatible it's it's an individual with almost five Decades of land use experience next slide please so you all have seen this before so I'm GNA go through this quick it's just so it's in the record uh next slide is one we did submit an environmental uh report we actually this is an excerpt from the original Environmental assessment and then next slide please uh based on some feedback when we were going through the original uh review process the environmental Consultants did an update but as you'll see in the uh PD before you this evening one of the conditions is our client has to come back before they actually do site development work you always have to do an environmental assessment one thing that probably is definitely out there a go for tortoises and as you all know there's a process to go through uh to relocate those go for tortoises or to preserve the areas it's not you don't get to inum them like Florida unfortunately did many many moons ago so I just wanted that in the record but again there's a condition in the Pud we'd have to do an environmental assessment as we get to site development work next slide you also you may hear some about it tonight you heard about it a couple years ago and it's in the magistrates recommendation but the traffic impacts so again there was a traffic impact study done uh this is an excerpt from it it had concluded that the roads were sufficient for the trip generation from this project and no level of services would be tripped and that's again an excerpt from it next slide so the last time we we were we were before you we had updated it with 2021 traffic volumes and that's what this slide does to show that even after our project accounting for our traffic and I think it's important the original traffic study analyzed 219 houses with the 2021 numbers when we updated we were looking at at again at 164 but even here it continued on the far right side it will show you the number of available trips on those roadways even after our project's developed next slide so then we had an tried to predict out in 2024 this again was from the the prior hearing and to demonstrate to youall there would still be capacity even after our project so these again are those charts that demonstrate that that there's available capacity after our project we're not making or resulting in any roads failing but then next slide um since the magistrates order we went and Lake County P Works has new traffic counts for those three stations so we looked at those three stations and said okay well how do the new Lake County numbers for 2024 compared to the last numbers from 2021 so you'll see the three stations here station 451 that's at Sleepy Hollow south of 441 so in 2021 the count from the county was 4,640 trips the new 2020 4 numbers from the Lake County not from me or my traffic Consultants are 4730 so there's been an increase of 90 trips per day so once you factor in our client's project and the trip trp distribution the available trips after my client's project there's still 197 trips available on that uh segment of roadway you go to the next station station 423 you have Sunnyside Drive west of tomato Hill Road and you can see in 2021 the counts were 2,709 and in 2024 the counts were 2594 so there's actually been a decrease at that station of 115 trips so after our client's project you have a available trips of 470 and then the last station station 414 which is Sunnyside Drive south of the three-way intersection in 2021 the County's trip counts were 1, 1523 and in 2024 the County's uh trip count was 1,267 which is actually a decrease of 256 trips which after this project leaves an available trip capacity of 764 and again the source for that data is Lake County Public Works next slide please so this is a slide this uh relates to testimony and evidence from the special magistrate hearing about uh pavement ratings you may have seen that in the special magistrate order it's hard to see the colors uh on that map but they're colored green red orange and yellow and the area leading East on Sunnyside drive down to the 90 90 degree uh Bend in the road is orange which based on the information from Lake County had a pavement rating of eight and then as the magistrate had recognized in his order when you get to my client's property that pavement rating drops and it's shown on here in red which is four but then there's a condition in the Pud that requires my client to bring that segment of the roadway up to County pavement standards and so the magistrate recognized that and these are a few bullet points from his recommended order quote the petitioner's traffic impact study was reviewed by the city as well as Lake County and Lake Sumpter Metropolitan planning or organizations significantly neither the city nor the other reviewing entities raised any issues with the petitioners traffic impact study which we've talked about that in fact there are more trips available now than when we did the uh traffic study and then the second bullet again goes that to the fact that the unrefuted testimony both from my client and the City Planning staff at the hearing was that Sunnyside Drive has sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic and that and this is the more important part quote all segments of Sunnyside Drive will have a sufficient pavement rating following the development of the Sunnyside PUD as conditioned so again it's a requirement my client's going to have to comply with that the area that's on that map in red that's along my client border uh and to its entrance this community will have to be brought up uh with repavement repaving so again the last bullet point is just to the extent the city council City commission's denial of the Sunnyside P was based upon traffic concerns or Perce the perceived condition of Sunnyside Drive such denial is unreasonable or unfairly burdens the petitioner use of the parent track next slide and so this is just sort of goes back to that point at the beginning and it sort of this leads me into my conclusion slide is the Sunnyside task report which we all are very familiar with in the room we heard a lot about it two years ago it was the primary focus of the special magistrate uh hearing it took up the majority of the day I think was testimony about it and it took up a large part of the recommended order but I want to walk through it to this these documents or slides get into the record so what's on the overhead before you right now this is the resolution that you all are familiar with from back in June of 2004 and this has the language where the city council at that time purportedly adopted that recommendation but then also included language it's said well unless otherwise approved by the commissioner by the city Commission so again that was June 202 uh 2004 not 2024 2004 which is important for the chronology here so next slide please so this had come up when the project was initially going through review and these are some excerpts from the minutes from August 2020 and December 2020 where the former late City attorney Mr Morrison have been specifically asked asked about the Sunnyside study and whether it was applicable to the property and in the top bullet point and I'm reading from the minutes Fred Morrison explained that there's a Proviso except as otherwise determined by the city commission and they passed for first PUD so it's like a typo but they went on all the study was adopted in 2004 is not considered binding on future city commissions and then in December of 2020 it got brought up again and former City attorney the late Fred Morrison indicated that in his opinion is essentially the same as it was the last time it was implemented by way of resolution which is important this the special magistrate touched upon that and he went on to say the city uh commission has the authority not withstanding the task force report to approve this if it is the desire the commission so that was before we went through a magistrate hearing and that was the former city attorney's uh view of it so next slide please so this is just a this is the 2005 PUD that was approved this was approved in December of 2005 this was more than a year and a half after the Sunnyside uh resolution and you'll note that in this 2005 PUD ordinance the city did not apply the Sunnyside task Force study report to the property and approving that 2005 PUD in fact at the magistrate hearing both my consultant and the city's planning staff acknowledged that the 2005 PUD doesn't comply with this the sunyside task force uh report next slide this is the 2006 PSP which we you already saw a bigger picture of it but again this was approved in June of 2006 more than two years after the adoption of the Sunnyside resolution and again the city did not apply the Sunnyside Task Force study report to the property when it approved that 2006 PSP next slide and then this is the 2006 plan Amendment ordinance which strangely the land use was done after the zoning on this property typically you see it the other way around but this was approved in December member of 2006 so this was the last approval of the three approvals it was after the PSP was approved it was more than two and a half years after the adoption of the Sunnyside resolution and again when you look at the 2006 plan Amendment there's no language restricting the density bff or dwelling is breaker or somehow subjecting the property to the Sunnyside task force report next slide this is an excerpt from back then in 2006 you had to do what it was called an objections recommendations and comments report from Department of Community Affairs back in the old days so you would do a it was an orc report you the city would have to do a response to that this is a chart that was in the city's uh orc response for that 2006 plan Amendment package in this chart there were several plan amend m one of which was Sunnyside Landing but you'll see this this is looking at trip generation the scenario column on the left it says adopted and proposed so it's recognizing what my client's land use was under the county then County Urban expansion four dwelling a per acre County Suburban three units per acre plus 50,000 square feet of commercial and then what is proposed it's a city estate residential four units per the acre and then in the allowed development column it says up to 480 units so again the indication that while this was going through the process the intent was not to apply the sunyside task force report to the property next slide please this is the second to last slide so these are just some of the key magistrate findings on this point again the magistrate entered a 40-page order for the folks that are in the crowd it's it's a public record but he essentially focused in on three points one was the historical evidence and that's bullet points one which I've quoted two things from but he indicated the testimony and historical evidence introduced during the evidentiary hearing established that the city did not apply the sunnny side Task Force study reports of the parent track in approving the 2005 PUD and the 2006 PSP which we went over and that the 2006 plan Amendment also contained no language restricting the site nor does the future langus map include any Aster or notation so again he focused on the historical evidence that the report was never intended to apply to restrict the density on this property and there was a reference to the then former planning director's testimony back in 2006 where she had explain that quote the density in place at the time the Sunnyside report was approved are still valid and the attorney at that time Steve Richie had demonstrated what the density on this property was under the County's future land use map and comprehensive plan so then the magistrate went to a second Point said even assuming the study report was intended to apply to the parent track that it would be unlocked lawful to apply them because the density level limitations recommended therein are not codified in the city's comp plan or the city's Land Development code and this was the point mayor you had alluded to at the last meeting that you all weren't on the city commission you all aren't responsible for that why there was that oversight or whether it was done purposely or not purposely but that was an issue for the magistrate and he indicated that given the Undisputed fact that the city has never formally codified the recommendations of the Sunnyside Task Force study into the city's comp plan or the city's LDC the density level limitations set forth therein are not legally binding and do not apply to the parent track but he went a step further and said well okay well even assuming that historically the intent was to apply it and let's assume that it was how it was written that somehow it can apply to the property he then analyzed that the resolution as adopted has no objective criteria in it which is very important under Florida law because when you're sitting in a quasi judicial capacity you have to apply the adopted criteria and they have to be objective and whether it's leeburg Orlando Orange County seminal County Lake if they adopt a provision that just gives unbridled discretion to the board or commission to just do whatever it would like Florida courts have said those type of Provisions are unenforceable per se and that was the last conclusion that the magistrate had reached was that there are no objective criteria or standards that govern govern when that t study report would or would not apply to a particular parcel of land and that to the extent it granted the commission unbridled discretion it would be unenforceable under Florida law and he cited a Litany of cases to that effect and then his final bullet point in his introduction where he summarized his recommendation quote there is no land use regulation in Florida and likely in any state that is enforceable or valid under such circumstance circumstances such a scenario is the definition of unreasonable and arbitrary and certainly unfairly burdens the use of the property next slide and this is the last one and I appreciate girl all's patient is we're before you this evening to try to bring this in for a landing it's I mean the mayor comment on I think another commissioner common it's been a long road for all involved including folks in the room my client you all your staff and we're here this evening to ask you respectfully to approve the Pud consistent with the magistrates recommendation and the City Planning staff staff report and it would be the modified P plan subject to those additional three modifications that you all moved to impose this evening and again we submit that that modified plan complies with the city's comp plan and Land Development code um for the folks in the room I would note the magistrate also as part of his recommendation did recommend that the city actually take the steps to implement the Sunnyside task report into its comp plan Andor l development code so that this type of situation doesn't repeat itself in the future um so there is that and I know from the mayor's comments at the last meeting that I believe you all are already in the process of doing that so again we're happy to answer any questions as I indicated it's looks are deceiving but I do have a binder I would like to introduce into the record it has 35 tabs um everything that's in here is part of the development file for this PUD other than tabs uh one which is a hard copy of this presentation but again with the mayor's permission I'd like to introduce this with the city clerk and we're happy to answer any questions and would ask for a few minutes of rebuttal Mr Spain we'll accept that uh do we have have questions uh for the petitioners from any Commissioners any questions okay so at this time uh we'll have public comment uh if you would uh please uh don't come to the mic and just repeat what the person before you said uh okay again if you'd give us your name uh and uh your address good evening Zach bro I'm an attorney representing Mr Tucker who's going to speak on his own behalf as to the facts but he asked me to briefly present some of the legal issues that we see here uh the most basically um that I perceive when I've read the special Magistrate's recommendation and I want to clarify the term order has been thrown around I just want to be clear he is not a judge okay he's a special magistrate he makes a recommendation the case is actually still abated a circuit court judge in Lake County will ultimately decide if you don't approve this tonight whether or not there was competent substantial evidence to support the denial two years ago so I just want to clarify that while we're here but one of the things that he talked about was the future land use and Mr Spain talked about this heavily tonight the future land use and the three units per acre and four units per acre one of the things that's mentioned though somewhat as an aside is that its current zoning is PUD going back to 2005 and the reason that I'm bringing that up is if you actually look at the 2005 PUD and the annexation agreement you'll notice something interesting the annexation agreement says the annexation of the parent tract the 120 Acres roughly we're here about tonight is subject to the terms of the Pud that Mr Spain was alluding to this ordinance referred to from July of 2005 the reason that's relevant is that PUD set a density for this project of one unit per acre more importantly the special magistrate actually noted in his recommendation uh an interesting Proviso of that ordinance and explicitly says that when the ordinance lapsed the applicant can come back and ask for the same density that the applicant had received or they would get a lower density of the estate residential one not the future land use estate residential the zoning which as you've heard your staff wants to amend this application because that's a onetoone zoning density so this parcel coming before you tonight they're talking about future land use the Pud zoning that it actually had um which is somewhat from the special Magistrate's recommendation um he thinks there it didn't go away he thinks staff was wrong the special magistrate thinks that there was no notice given there was nothing done with the applicant it doesn't Clearly say what happens to the Pud that PUD says one to one and it says if it expires it goes back to a state residential one: one for zoning this is 150 to 120 higher than one to1 it's 1.25 the other interesting thing about that ordinance is that it mentions that it runs with the land it does not tie into any sort of termination so as a basic premise the starting point and this was all brought up back in two years ago in 2022 excuse me um the sunyside task force was discussed because if you go back and read the minutes that were introduced back in 2022 in 2005 staff and I cannot pronounce her name but Laura melan and your community director in 20 5 stated the reason you went for a one toone density in your PUD even though the future and land use was three or four is because of the Sunnyside task force report that was why they went for the one toone density on the Pud so even though the special Masters correct it was not codified into the Land Development code the Pud that is the Zoning for that property that the buyer bought with that knowledge is a onetoone zoning and the minutes from incorporation of that PUD reflect that the Sunnyside task force report was the basis for that decision this parcel is mostly in the one:1 density with a little bit 1 to three and there was a timeliness analysis that went on um and as a final point on kind of the legal issue there's a lot of discussion about what you can consider this state of Florida does talk about that staff can be competent substantial evidence that does not mean that's the end of the conversation that's why you're here that's why you're a commission you can in take public comment as evidence you don't have to take generic things I don't like it I don't want it that kind of stuff you can disregard that's totally correct however that does not mean that general public comment about specific concerns that are fact-based statements about this area about the project about the concerns can be competent substantial evidence and more importantly you don't have to win that you beat the applicant that the courts in Florida have been very clear you they don't reway the evidence as long as this body heard evidence and decided we like that evidence better that stance it is not the job of the court to reway the evidence and so from our standpoint what was heard two years ago there was absolutely confident substantial evidence to deny the 2 two TI and that essentially what the special magistrate did was reway the evidence and decide what he thought was the better outcome so we would say that the Pud and that present zoning still controls on the one: one it's an appropriate for that area and that the competent substantial evidence that was presented two years ago was sufficient to support that decision thank you I'm going to agree with what attorney broom said um and in fact if the applicant would have come in with the uh one to one like the underlying zoning is this room would be empty right now so um I want to speak more upon the way us residenc oh by the way Murray Tucker greater Sun side Area Property zon station uh 6839 tusil lebur Florida um back on April 27th uh they filed for RIT um y all familiar with flutra do you all have the statutes would you like the statutes do you care anybody like to read them are you something me to read from them section five the governmental entity with whom a request has been filed shall also serve a copy of the request for Relief by United States mail or by hand delivery to owners of real property contiguous to the owner's property at the address on the lus county tax Ro I get the letters from Planning and Zoning so does my mother two different addresses none of us got anything nobody here got any notice this was going on the statute requires us to be notified never happened I've done a public record search I can find nothing nothing in the newspapers no evidence of letters zero and then we'll move on right after we found out that they had filed for RIT uh Zach and I filed as interested parties and once again I've got a whole list of dates here of your shade meetings of your of the uh mediation that we were supposed to have received notice on no got notice for that two days prior three days prior our attorney was out of town I mean three days notice on that uh lots of notices um the magistrate meeting on the April 25th it went a newspaper on 4:16 the most important one is the actual hearing on 719 I've got a copy of the Daily Commercial it was inserted on 716 3 days notice no letters to any residents per required per fludra you're supposed to notify us within 40 days three days notice how is it reasonable for working people to try and rearrange their schedules to come to a hearing and show up and the magistrate deemed this because there weren't a lot of people there they said no no public well duh three days meeting three days notice that's against the law it goes against the statute look at the last shade all right sorry I'm not a public speaker so anyway like I said didn't know so I I found out about the magistrate because I happen to be with the mayor and the city manager at a Habitat for Humanity project and he told me about it I've got the records from The Daily Commercial it's right here my thing I can give you a copy of it Zach's email name address and phone numers on the bottom we're interested parties there is no excuse for him to have not been properly notified I had to tell him hey I heard from the mayor we're having a meeting oh and he reached out to pronz oh yeah we're having a meeting I mean it it that's ridiculous magistrate not a judge yeah already know that here no okay I'm going jump around a little bit here the other night on four I'm watching the the 401 electric Advisory board on TV Lakefront TV you Tim Morris's chairs it he's a good buddy of mine I'm watching it it's really funny at the 30 minute mark on a meeting that happened on 41 the electric director gets up and starts talking about all the big projects coming up and lo and behold he says oh and a big one on Sunny Side hello I mean we haven't gone anywhere yet and the electric Department's already talking about doing it uh does that seem right now here's the biggest problem I have whatsoever and talking with you Commissioners and listening to what you had to say is the fact that all of you are sitting there and saying well we've been told we have to accept this we have no choice our hands are tied we we have to do it well no I mean last time I checked y'all were the bosses these guys work for you this is the same development you turn down nothing has changed we have shown plenty of evidence that if you looked hard and I said the other day postpone this get a second opinion I still strongly believe you ought to do it because I believe we can show that there's plenty of evidence that your denial was correct now if it went back to the 120 we would not fight for lower because we don't think we deserve lower but under the current laws the one 20 good but the fact that this has all been so prejudged I mean you're not looking at this on the Merit of the Pud you're looking at this on the Merit of what some attorney or somebody told you that's what you all have said almost verbatim um and because of the lack of the lack of notifications the lack of due process uh I I find that this uh this whole thing is uh is very very questionable I think it needs to be looked into very carefully thank you oh I got one more thing I'm sorry I forgot the last most important thing well not most important thing but it's one thing uh here's the order filed by the judge when RIT was uh filed for uh the order says line number three the petitioner shall file a status report with this court within 15 days of the completion of the special Magistrate's proceeding either dismissing this proceeding or requesting further action by the court as of today there's nothing in the court knet stating that that it's been done so this order has not been filed or followed another procedural due process so thanks my name is uh Mark Ary I live at 7393 Sunnyside Drive I'm an affected resident uh within 200 feet of the proposed PUD so um I stand before you to request expert testimony uh I the reason I'm testifying as an expert is because I'm very familiar with the Florida land use laws and zoning regulations before moving to leeburg from Orlando over five years ago I served as my hoa's president uh the Pud consisted of 65 single family units during the time I served under the HOA as a board member Arc committee and president I participated in a number of interactions with local and state authorities and legal councel and on behalf of the HOA we weren't Incorporated um our uh HOA was actually um uh part of Orange County so I had interface with a number of uh County officials Orange County officials I'm very familiar with this so um let's start at this just will be gone I repat all these Tre see will be gone don't let them you otherwise they will be gone in fact I had a conversation with Mr Miller I said so Mr Miller what about the hell side Mr Arne Mr AR we need you at the microphone because no one can hear what you're saying well I always thought it projected pretty well but okay that's what my wife tells me um so all these trees will be gone all of them I had a conversation with Mr Miller a few weeks ago I said are we going to be looking at the same situation as uh Hillside and Hillside um was a smaller development but again it's on the corner of Old tr's Road and Sleepy Hollow and those of you who lived here more than 4 and a/2 years you remember that was a wooded area and the two developments that overlooked it overlooked at the trees in Surprise the developer came in took every tree down and Mr Miller told me we have no control over the developer he could do the same thing think about that one of the most beautiful stretches of Sunnyside every tree is going to be gone sunnide at the top the road gets narrower as you go down for those of you the Liv area you know that uh it's so narrow that you've got a couple little curves going down towards the lake and you're in trouble if a big vehicle comes your way there are Corners that have as slow as 10 miles an hour to go around those Corners mayor Barry right before the 2 two Denial in March of 2022 he stated the exhibits that the developer showed included portions of sunyside where he said there are tire tracks tire tracks along the road and do you know why those and I said yeah one of those tire tracks is probably mine because if you have a school bus if you have a large truck coming from the other direction you don't have enough room you have to turn over and that poses a serious problem and it would be very serious and critical if you approve this now let me point something else out this is part of the uh proposal that I got from Dan I think this is appendix a uh and this is supposed to apply to this HOA the survey of trees on the property shall be conducted as follows if existing on the property all specimen Heritage and historic trees shall be surveyed staff staff uh pnz staff I believe will review the tree survey and such tree shall be saved wherever possible during the site plan review process this may include amending the site plant to review and save specimen Heritage and historic strees a survey of 100 feet by 100 feet plots indicating that all protected trees 4 in uh by diameter by diameter and larger should be surveyed for each distinct vegetative VAR for use and replacement area site areas that are to be reserved as six and trees do not need to be included blah blah blah blah BL mayor Barry made a proclamation at the last meeting he he said that I think it's 26th of April you're going to be leberg is going to be C celebrating Arbor Day tree day how ironic is that when we're here at this meeting two days prior and all these trees are going to be down it's not just the way the trees look they provide a function this area is prone to flooding and you take all these trees down and you m IM what's going to happen to our insurance rates from FEMA yeah exactly so now I want to turn to this could you bring up that slide that shows the Pud okay thank you you have that slide that you could bring up at the Pud please no no the other one the this one right here yeah okay well while he's looking for it let's just point this area out this is where I live my neighbor is right here and um you can see all the other areas the buffer zones with the wetlands and the and the Green Space are there uh except for our area and these last two homes you have a culdesac that ends at Road C with eight homes on either side attorney Spain made the comment that there's going to be hundreds and hundreds of feet between the existing structures I have the quote the developer when concern was expressed by certain Commissioners around December of 2020 they put them between the project and the existing residential homes which were walked through most of the Lots do not abut to any ex existing residential they abut to conservation and wetlands the ones that do ab but properly are very limited well guess what we're one of those limited and there are hundreds and hundreds I repeat hundreds and hundreds of feet between them again he respectfully asked for their approval so they can move forward and bring a wonderful project to the city of leeburg so I'm going to go on record as not receiving a March 20th communication from the cities of leeburg announcing that for all those on the public record located with 200 ft of the above resent request an application has been filed and uh the case will be considered by the special magistrate get this the case will be considered on April 24th 2023 what April 24th 2023 I thought that meeting was in July you said it was July 19th July 23rd and and there will be no public comment will be heard because of the nature of the meeting the nature of the meeting is supposedly quasi judicial but I would I would present to you that it was more of a legislative issue legislative issues don't require as much formality than a quasi judicial in fact on uh Amendment a if you read the fine print got to find it bear with me here Mr Ernie I need you to wrap it up please sir okay mayor at the very bottom of this document it says revised March 4th 2024 per special magistrates recommendations entered on January 15 2024 legislative format legislative format not quasi judicial there's a whole standards set for that Supreme Court of Florida says that you need you can't just come up here and say I don't like this development so I'm G to I'm going to be opposed to it you have to have fact base and mayor Barry you did have fact base because you pointed out that those tire tracks were fact-based introduced evidence by the plane of now and uh it's a safety hazard and U one I'm I'm sorry just one more thing and I will wrap up uh one thing chapter 166 Florida statute provides Miss municipalities with broad powers to adopt zoning regulations to set regulations for how property can be developed and what specific uses zoning laws are in place to regulate land use in the public municipality to serve the health safety and general welfare of the public Florida law has also W in weighed in on what constitutes a legitimate public purpose should the local government consider denial of the resoning application a legitimate public person a purpose can include general public health safety and Welfare issues such as traffic safety concerns and the impacts on the local environment so the Supreme Court of Florida has defined substantial evidence and such evidence will establish substantial basis of fact which which one fact can be issued and reasonably inferred there are also penalties proper notification isn't given your attorneys can refer to the sunshine Provisions if it's intent Provisions can uh provisions and penalties can range from $500 fine and I'm not accusing anybody of doing anything on this but there are Provisions you need to be aware of your attorney I'm not an attorney so I can't aware you uh make you aware on the con the consequences of improper notification not only improper notification but the type of meeting when you when I get this letter that says nobody can uh testify that's not true that's not true thank you have any more public comment my name is David cin I'm a resident of Sunnyside also an officer of the Sunnyside homeowners association and I'd just like to bring back to you the issue Council says that book has everything you need to know about this package and this development except it does not show that the owners of the development are properly registered with the state of Florida and they are required they're required to file they're required to pay an annual fee and they have not done that and they didn't do it after being told at a prior meeting so I'm I'm concerned that you can't believe what they're telling you the other thing I would like to ask is how many of the councilmen have actually spent any amount of time driving the roads at Sunnyside I cannot believe that that's the most important thing that y'all need to be doing and that probably would get a whole bunch of hands raised if I asked how many of them have how many people here tonight have had wrecked or been run off the road it happens very frequently and based on what you see at the at where Sunnyside meets or where uh sleepy holla meets the highway we're rapidly becoming one of the most accident prone roads there is and yet we have a study done by the applicant that says the road traffic has gone down and I would suggest that Common Sense dictates that that's BS thank you Bill po 600 Cascade Avenue prior property owner of Sunnyside grew up in Sunnyside are y'all afraid that the special magistrate is all what's happening the citizens of lesburg are telling you what they want and you're letting a magistrate who said Mr Spain said the special magistrate made a recommendation that doesn't mean you have to vote for it you do not have to vote for it you can vote against it plus you have 40% of this re uh this project is 50 foot lot is that zero lot line Dan that's not zero lot line what the heck is it you can't put a tree on a 50 foot lot and they requiring two trees per lot it doesn't work go to The Villages they got trees in the medians they don't have any trees around the homes they got bushes maybe and one more thing you know this is just a recommendation don't be afraid to vote against it or whatever the way that the Sunnyside people want is Mr Spain said you had a uh Carlos Alvarez come and speak to you he was a record holder at University of Florida 1969 through 1973 but he's also a conscien objector in Vietnam during the Vietnam war and got banned from the team so you're listening to that man so I'm sure the veterans appreciate Carlos Alvarez the public comment uh Mr Spain as a petitioner do you have any uh any other comments uh yeah mayor I I'll keep it brief [Music] um if I could have my PowerPoint brought back up to the conclusion slide please and while that's happening I'm going to just jump through a few of the points that you heard one on from Mr Braum the attorney the suggestion that when the Pud expired it automatically reverted to re1 so one dell it one to the acre one to one which is not the case in fact that was a major point at the magistrate hearing it's touched upon in the order the city planning staff acknowledged that none of the steps were actually formally taken to implement that revision or recision section in fact that's part of the reason for the clarification on paragraph 15 C and the current PUD is so that type of event doesn't happen again so under the modified PUD it will automatically uh expire if the Pud if a building permit or development permit is not submitted for within six years it's automatically expired and when it automatically expires it reverts to the RC uh re1 zoning regulations but that that's actually not a correct statement that never happened on this property you heard about the special magistrate and the accusation he rewe the evidence but the statute actually provides for what's called a denovo evidentiary hearing if he wasn't allowed to consider evidence then he actually would be the Circuit Judge sitting in pellet capacity but the statute allows for an evidentiary hearing so he heard sworn testimony everybody was put under oath including the city planner and my witnesses as well Mr Tucker made several several remarks or comments claiming that notice wasn't right regarding the magistrate proceeding one the magistrate proceeding briefly entails two parts one is a mediation phase and the second is the hearing phase folks that timely petition to become participants they're not parties under the statute they're participants if they timely submitted for that they don't participate in the mediation phase so the fact that someone's telling you tonight well I didn't get to participate in the mediation phase well under the statute they aren't a party to the mediation phase and as you all know the mediation phase was not successful the case went to mediation it did not get settled so it went to the hearing stage the reference to April I forget what the date was April 23rd or April 22nd 2023 that was the original date of the special magistrate hearing it was actually cancelled at the city's request because my client had made a settlement offer to the city commission and a shade meeting was scheduled as Allowed by law and request at an open city council meeting to consider that settlement offer that settlement offer was not accepted the special magistrate proceeding was rescheduled for July 2023 and Mr Tucker personally attended that meeting he was given every opportunity to speak several members of the public attended and Mr Tucker did not raise any objection at that hearing in fact the transcript to that hearing is in the binder that's been introduced saying you know dear magistrate I didn't get notice of this hearing they were provided multiple opportunities to make comments at that meeting the magistrate was willing to hear from anyone and everyone who was in attendance and they indicated that the city attorneys had raised all the issues they wished to raise so they did not need to make any comments there was a comment by Mr Tucker that somehow myself and my clients have not complied with a circuit court order because we have not know notified the Circuit Judge within 10 days of the special magistrate proceeding has concluded well the proceedings have not been concluded you all have approved a settlement agreement at March 25th under that settlement agreement you accepted under the statute the special magistrates recommendation and this is the step two to implement that recommendation by approving a modified PUD in that settlement agreement it specifically states that within five days I believe of this decision if you were to approve the modified PUD this evening becoming final that we will dismiss that ciary proceeding which will be the notice to the judge it will be shorter than the time frame so my client has fully compliant with the Court's order you're from an individual and no disrespect I've served at an as an HOA president as well but being an HOA president does not make you a lane user expert what you a land use expert is being a certified land use planner aicp like your city planner or my expert Mr Bello or getting a masters in urban and Regional planning or an undergraduate degree in planning there are comments and I'm almost done mayor there are comments regarding accidents and the safety of the road if I could go uh two slides so we had heard about uh some of this at the last time we were here at the meeting and it actually was raised at the special magistrate hearing so the top bullet is from the magistrates order just indicating that the city had introduced no evidence or testimony during the hearing to substantiate any alleged accident history on the surrounding roadway Network that would somehow be relevant to the case and again and he quotes a case law about speculation and conjecture are not competent substantial evidence but we went to Lake County Sheriff's Department they have what's called an accident dashboard it's available online and we went back 10 years uh in preparation for this evening to see what accidents have been reported in that area and that those are the findings those aren't my data it's not my client's data that's Lake County's accident dashboard so you can see 2014 zero accidents 20151 it was at Sleepy Hollow and Recreation Complex entrance intersection disabled driver 2016 One cisy Park Lane departure 2017 zero 2018 two accidents Sleepy Hollow and Recreation Complex entrance intersection aging Road user and then the second accident was out Southeast end of Sunnyside Road distracted driver in Lane departure and these are the descriptions that the sheriff's department has entered in to their database 20190 2020 Z 2021 zero 2022 there's between two or four accidents and the reason we say that is because the data on the accident dashboard doesn't identify if those are a single event or a multicar uh vehicle multi vehicle event so you have between the East End of Sunnyside Drive by The three-way intersection in Ashton Ashton Woods Road they list one commercial vehicle two teen driver three intersection four distracted driver five Lane departure so again we don't know if that those descriptions refer to separate events or a multicar event 20230 2024 zero so I understand there were comments before and I understand there were comments this evening but the data from Lake County Sheriff's Office doesn't indicate a substantial number of accidents being reported on the roadway there was a comment repeated from the last meeting about one of my clients not being registered with the state of Florida that corporate entity is one of the property owners they're a Texas limited liability company they don't actively do business in Florida they're a property owner in Florida and then the last couple things there was a comment about the trip count in fact I think somebody referred to my initials when they said what those numbers were that I talked about those aren't my numbers they're right off of the County Public Works website they're their trip count numbers so when they put out a little you know the little rubber wire across the road and people drive over it that's how they get the trip counts so the trip counts that the county did themselves show that on two of the segments the counts went down from 2021 so again that's real hard data we're not speculating like previously when we tried to extrapolate out and said what will it look like in 2024 now we know because the County's done the trip counts and then there were some comments about the the recommendation or whether I I've referred to as a recommended order recommendation and Report the fact is we went through the process it was a very uh thorough evidentiary hearing in a very detailed order it's 40 pages long and I would encourage the folks in the audience to read the document because again it was on multiple issues that the special magistrate considered the prior decision in his role listening to the expert testimony the sworn testimony concluded that it would be unreasonable to deny my client's project under the stat statute and in conclusion I know you all have a difficult job you always have a difficult job whether it's determining millage rates or zoning decisions and Zoning decisions are some of the most difficult that come before you and I didn't blabber the point earlier in the slideshow and your City attorney if need be can advise you but a lot of times these hearings seem like there's there's emotion their neighborhood it's the biggest investment we make in our lives is our house typically but these hearings are not popularity polls in fact my firm represents city councils and county commissions across the state ESP special land use Council and that's usually how our clients get in trouble is because they make a decision based on the popularity of the decision rather than what the role is in a quasi judicial decision and a zoning s specific zoning is quasi judicial it's not legislative legislative is when you adopt a zoning code or you adopt the entire zoning map the decision's clearly quasi judicial and these hearings are not popularity polls the issue is whether or not we comply with the city's adopted criteria and that adopted criteria in two places the city's comence plan and the city's Land Development code and you have a detailed order that you voted to accept at the last meeting that opined that we comply I with those criteria and this evening not a single individual has come up to you and cited a specific section of either your comprehensive plan or Your Land Development code and said Mr Spain's client's project does not comply with Section 6.1 Point Blank Land Development code your city's planning staff has reviewed this project five times now and each of those times they have recommended approval and each of those times have concluded that we meet the Land Development code requirements we meet the comprehensive plan requirements the only requirement and I put that in quote marks that was that issue at any time was whether or not we met the Sunnyside task study report and as demonstrated this evening in the special magistrate recommendation that task report was adopted by a resolution it has no criteria and under Florida law it's not enforceable or applicable to my client's property so again I understand it's a difficult decision I know voting for my clients's project this evening won't be popular with some folks in this room but I'm here asking you respectfully to do it so that all involved can move forward and move on so thank you for your time and your patience Dan if you could you could come back up please you have any comments uh to add to that no sir I think Mr Arie misquoted me but that's fine this kind of thing happen so we'll be happy to answer any other questions you might have anyone have questions for Dan we've already had public comment um yeah yes when we brought up Mr Spain we have already yielded we've had public comment and then we let the the petitioner yeah just not to take over for the mayor here obviously uh but there is a specific public hearing process that process is we swear in the witnesses that was done the next process is we hear from the city that was done by Mr Miller the next step is we hear from the petitioners that was done by Mr Spain then we move into comment from the public that was done everybody had opportunity to speak then the process allows the petitioner to respond which is Mr which was Mr Spain came up then the process allows the city to respond Mr Miller did that and now this part of the process is back to the commission for commission deliberation and vote so that that's the process of a public hearing so do we have any comments from the commission with regard to this issue I have I have a couple for our attorney the the present proposal on the floor if it were were to be accepted would be would we be the city be responsible for any type of legal fees on their end so no as part of the settlement agreement that you approved at the last meeting um each party would then bear their own attorneys fees and costs if you accept the proposal here okay if we happen to go to court and we lost what would be the possibility would would then be responsible for a portion of not all their attorney fees then you may be subject to reimbursing for attorney's fees and costs any idea what those are no other comments please please sir please sir this is the opportunity for the Commissioners to discuss it we've already had public comment so is someone having trouble here hearing okay you didn't hear what Jay said at all okay so the question was whether the city could potentially be liable for attorney's fees and costs in the event um that you decided not to approve of this revised PUD and proceed with the litigation and lost correct correct comments by Commissioners I guess I'll speak for myself I can't really speak the whole commission but uh okay I I will speak for myself not the whole commission um you know I was on the Commission in 2022 we voted it down um you know there was a lawsuit I feel like the city gave it a good fight um we now have legal counsel strongly advising us to settle this and I don't yeah I'm not completely happy I did think City commission I'm always learning in this role I thought the city Commission was the final lipus test I thought we were kind of the Common Sense logic approach uh I vot I voted against this project over track over the roads I you know the roads are inadequate I don't care what Traffic Engineers uh professionals say the roads in Sunny Side do not support it but at the end of the day um yeah I can't support spending more money on a lawsuit when I have legal counsel telling me it's a loser uh I don't take this lightly but uh I just wanted to kind of I guess get a few things off my chest I'd like to make a comment as well this is not an easy decision by no means not easy at all I've listened to all of the comments presented tonight all parties have a vested interest I reviewed the timeline from 2005 to present I reviewed the Pud I also have read the special magistrate legal opinion and recommend ation to approve the Pud of equal weight is the advice from our legal councel and to settle pending litigation I would be negligent in my duties as a commissioner to ignore the legal advice and potentially navig negative financially ramifications for the city at this time I think it's at the best interest that we move forward as stated early thank you any other comment don't more comment roll call commissioner Barry yes commission conell yes commissioner reesman yes commissioner Peterson yes mayor bur yes we'll move on to uh actually let's take a take about a two minutes if anyone is leaving they could leave now uh we're going to move on to the rest of the meeting we'll take two minutes 0 we do the best we can sir listen we're not here to discuss it I I got two minutes okay so that's I don't know I mean that's that's information that is straight off of their website e e e e all right guys guys come on if you'd come back in please we'll move on with the meeting okay we are in public hearings non- routine items uh we're moving on to Item B which is first reading of ordinances would someone please introduce 6 B1 introduce ask be read by title only an ordinance of the city of Leb Florida amending and reinstating ordinance number 2018 -2 as amended by ordinance number 2018-35 and is further amended by ordinance number-14 providing a short title providing findings and intent granting certain non-exclusive franchises to Gibson Place utility company LLC Gibson Place water conservation Authority LLC Blue Goose utility company LLC blue water conservation Authority LLC Oki humpy utility company LLC Oki humy water conservation Authority LLC and their successors and assigns parentheses each a franchise and sometimes collectively referred to herein as the franchisees Clos parenthesis a franch franchise period of 30 years to construct own operate and maintain certain services and Facilities to serve areas within the adjacent to The Village's AG restricted development setting forth the terms and conditions under which such franchises shall operate providing for conflict and severability and providing an effective date Grant if you would please swear in yes sir Mr Mayor uh anybody here who is present and wishes to provide any testimony on any of the first reading items here on 6B of the agenda if you would please stand and raise your right hand so you could be sworn in yeah all right do you swear or affirm that all testimony you'll give tonight will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you all thank you Mr Mayor yeah uh Al if you would just obviously all these are on first reading um so this is report for item one two seven and eight in in this section of the agenda um when we endeavored and with to partnership with the villages brought the villages in um we did we did several different um agreements uh that associated with Municipal Services um and we have these agreements kind of scattered throughout different ordinances and the like um the purpose of these ordinances is as The Villages has grown in corporate limits of leeburg we are trying to consolidate all our different agreements to all the different areas that the Villages now owns or will potentially move into the future into basically I'm gonna I'm gonna lie but basically three documents but it's really going to be four I'll explain in a second um to where all these agreements can be found these specific agreements deal with um section 163 of Florida Statutes which on High level is typically what are considered Municipal services so Municipal corporations have the right by statutes to provide Municipal services and Municipal services are defined by a bunch of different things fire police Library water sewer electric gas so State statutes gives mun Municipal corporations the right to provide those quote unquote Municipal Services as we've endeavored with the villages is we've traded off Municipal services and typically when a municipal service trades off what is statutorily their right to provide you enter into franchise agreements or you enter into different service type agreements um where the city receives a fee or something like that in exchange for the right to provide the service so these four ordinances contemplate essentially two three things I'm going to jump to the bottom seven and8 is what we're we call the 163 agreement the 163 agreement lays out how we will provide Municipal services to all areas of the villages that are in corporate City Limits and it's broken down into two sections section A and section B essentially those are the existing 470 properties and then the other properties like secret promise Renaissance trails and those type of things that have brought back in section seven and Section 8 or item seven and eight show where what is item A and B but basically seven and eight cover all of the areas that potentially and probably will be all of the villages in the city of leeburg so the 163 agreement lays out all of the municipal services and how we're doing that if you recall back in the day we our our our fancy name for that was the hanging Chad agreement it was everything that we didn't contemplate went into one agreement and that's the 163 agreement so that agreement contemplates fire Services Recreation impact fees Police Services roads blah blah blah blah all of that is consistent and repetitive and the same summed up in one agreement so that's that's ordinances in exhibit s and8 this specific ordinance deals with franchise fees for water sewer and reuse so as the new residents who live in the city of leeburg which is V Villages property they will buy water sewer and reuse from the entities named in these ordinances then those entities will pay the city of leeburg a 5% franchise fee all the language in those agreements is all the the same that we did in past agreements and it sums it up item number two is solid waste franchise Solid Waste franchise is a is a an associate is is a is a separate entity brought in by The Villages so we separated it out so in like really super high Layman's language it's not it's not a partner it's not a sub entity of The Villages it's a separate contractor so we've separ ated out Solid Waste Service with Tri County Tri County sanitation that is essentially um the the agreement that says Tri count sanitation will collect the waste a little bit different service levels than what we provide but whatever Tri County sanitation provides to those Village lesburg residents 5% franchise fee back to the city in exchange for providing the municipal services on this particular agreement as a side note the villages did come back to us at a previous time asked the city if we wanted to physically provide those Services instead of franchise them we put a pencil to that and for a few different reasons we felt like the profit margins and the service levels were different than our native load if you will so we we've agreed that now best for that part of the city to remain in the franchise agreement so that's what section two contemplates or item two items seven and eight contemplate all the other remaining uh Services um and what we will do between now and when you hear this on public hearing and second reading as we will double check I'll be working with um Mr Chandler over at The Villages just to make double check and double make sure that everything is the same and the intent again is everything we've improved in the past is the same moving forward and we'll double check that I did note late late this afternoon one minor little discrepancy only in the fire assessment fee section of that so I'll get that reviewed I'll report back to you accordingly and if there's any modifications or differences that is done an error and it will be corrected before the 13th that's the end of the report mayor do we have any questions okay uh we have had uh the swearing in Grant so was that strictly for this item or was that for all the items yes sir I did that just to cover all of the second reading items in case there was any staff yes sir in case there was a staff presentation your audience comment yes sir okay so uh this item will lay over we'll have a uh a second reading on 513 yes sir date certain okay so if someone would please introduce uh I'll introduce 6b2 to be an ordinance of the city of lebg Florida providing a short title providing findings and intent granting a non-exclusive franchise to Tri County sanitation LLC and its successors and assigns parentheses franchisee impres a franchise for a period of 30 years to construct own op operate and maintain certain services and Facilities to serve areas within and adjacent to The Village's age restricted development setting forth the terms and conditions under which s such franchise shall operate providing for conflict and separability and providing an effective date so under the same discussion any questions on this okay this will also lay over for a second meeting on 5:13 do we want to take we'll take questions on the second reading typically the questions are taken on second reading um so certainly be sure to to show up for that I think if if the mayor wishes to hear any public comment um you know I'll leave that to his discretion yeah would you like to make public comments sir well come on up Bill pul 600 Cascade Avenue I just want to know how you determine the franchise fees is it level with the fees that the city citizens leeburg are paying now I mean you're you're we're going to get a franchise fee from The Villages correct Fe no so no no no so the the villag is is going to do the the village is going to do the services correct it's okay so then we're going to get a franchise fee from them for the water Etc yes that's correct so is the level of the expense of the Mone the franchise that we're getting is that level with what I might be paying for my say my trash in other words I'm paying $18 or whatever for a trash can uh and so this franch this company Tri County whatever they are they're going to charge $18 and we're going to get a percentage of say the profit of Leber's um $18 you know there's somewhere there's a profit line in there Mr poke I don't know the answer to your question but you know what I'm talking about Mr Po I don't know the answer to your question yes the what you were asking is uh leberg resident who is on leeburg Solid Waste pays about 1756 a month for trash 18 bucks whatever The Villages is going to pay Tri count sanitation plus 5% okay so the the tri County sanitation let's call that X so it's X Plus 5% I don't know what x is I will find out so the city gets 5% whatever X is we get five is that equivalent to 1756 I don't know I will find out what they answered I will find out what the answers are water sewer reuse and sanitation and I'll have those compared to what the city pays think they act I'm not going to answer because I don't want to reaction but I'll get that answer for just wanted to make sure that the the current citizens leeburg and the new residents are paying equal amounts to get their services understood okay introduce 6B three I'll introduce has be right by title an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan of the city of lesburg changing the future land use map designation of certain properties containing 4.72 plus minus Acres from low density residential and Industrial to low density residential for a property Journey located east of Flatwoods Road and West of South Street l in section 28 Township 19 South Range 24 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date any any questions for Dan on this this is a phase three correct come on up Dan this is good evening Mr Mayor again um I was sworn in originally been sworn out a bit tonight so yeah I think you're good yeah just uh you're still under oath Mr thank you um Mr Mayor this is just a change of future land use only and going from low density residential and Industrial to low density um the Planning Commission last month approved a conditional use permit for the property uh the desires to put for 44 single floor apartments on the property all we need to do is fix the land use and it won't be going to two stories so uh staff has pleased and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer any questions for Dan this will also lay over till uh the 13th of May for a second reading okay would someone please introduce items 6B four and five 6B four and five by title only 6B for an ordinance amending the future land use map of a comprehensive plan of the city of leeburg changing the future land use map designation of certain property containing 10.08 plus minus Acres from institutional to General commercial for a property Jal located north of US Highway 441 and west of College Drive lying in section 15 Township 19 South Range 25 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date 6 B5 an ordinance of the city of leeburg Florida changing the zoning on approximately 10.08 plus minus Acres from P public to PUD planned unit development to allow for commercial uses including restaurant retail and indoor storage for property generally located north of US Highway 441 and west of College Drive lying in section 15 Township 19 South Range 25 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date Dan if You' please come thank you mayor uh these next two cases would be a small scale comp plan and a PUD zoning the subject property is North of Highway 441 right across the street from Cracker Barrel the city currently owns the property and U basically wants to sell off the property do a lot split um has city has no plans to utilize it therefore it's being sold the future land use because its Old Airport property is institutional that will go to General commercial the zoning will go from public to plan unit development again it'll be split into Parcels later and later platted uh the permitted uses that we've worked out with the developer or the proposal General retail restaurants Pharmacy medical those typical uses such as that I would like to clarify one use please to modify the outdoor storage wording to add many warehouses I think we already have some wording in there for outdoor storage but what we meant to have was many warehouses with outdoor storage because many warehouses already have outdoor storage and um we do have architectural standards dark skylighting irrigation requirements and everything else in this standard PUD second reading is May 13 Miss Andy yes sir questions for Dan on this all right this again will uh lay over until 5:13 so someone would please introduce uh 6v6 be right by title only an ordinance of the city of lebur Florida vacating a 7,367 square foot portion of Park Avenue generally located between West Meadow Street and the city's Fountain Lake bike trail as shown on the official map of the city of leeburg Florida recorded in plat book 2 page 19 of the public records of Lake County Florida and providing an effective date excuse me thank you an any questions for for Dan or for Al on this everybody okay this again uh we'll have a second reading on the 13th yes sir all right I'll introduce 6b7 G up your title only an ordinance of the city of leeburg Florida requesting for a chapter 163 Florida Statutes development agreement Amendment for the Villages of Westlake areaa to incorporate the property known as secret promise with other adjacent properties to update the agreement to reflect year and remove information no longer needed to clarify the definition of VLC Villages Land Company to include the Affiliates of VLC to add references to Community Support districts which allow non-age restricted residential uses to incorporate and update the provisions that were contained in chapter 163 public facilities agreement between the villages and the city the public facilities agreement and the Amendments will be terminated when this chapter 163 Florida Statutes agreement amendment is completely and fully executed to update the agreement to reflect the current requirements in Florida statutes for chapter 163 agreements this request does not include changes to population density Building height or intensity for property J located north and south of Florida Turnpike west of County Road 48 and east of the Sumter County Line as legally described in sections 67 89 16 17 18 19 20 21 29 30 31 and 32 Township 20 South Range 24 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date again this will lay over until 5113 will someone please introduce uh 6p8 I'll introduce 68 to be read by title an ordinance of the city of leeburg Florida requests for a chapter 163 Florida Statutes development agreement Amendment for the Villages of Westlake area B to update the agreement to reflect year and remove information no longer needed to clarify the definition of VLC Villages Land Company to include the Affiliates of VLC to add references to community to support districts which allow non-age restricted residential uses to incorporate and update the provisions that are contained in chapter 163 public facilities agreement between the villages and the city the public facilities agreement and Amendment amendments will be terminated when this chapter 163 Florida statutes agreement amendment is completely and fully executed to update the agreement to reflect the current requirements in Florida statutes for chapter 163 agreements this request does not include changes to population density Building height or intensity for property generally located north and south of the FL Florida Turnpike west of County Road 48 and east of the Sumter County Line as legally described in sections 67896 16 17 18 19 20 21 29 30 31 and 32 Township 20 South Range 24 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date again this will lay over until 513 let's move on to section 6C non- routine items which we have none informational reports uh we have Financial reports from January and February from 2024 are there any questions on either no question city city manager items none for you tonight City attorney items I'm sorry I got backwards no items Mr Mayor thank you roll call commissioner Peterson nothing tonight commissioner Barry tonight commissioner Cel no commissioner rean one thing just hope to see everyone out at bike fest this weekend mayb uh nothing tonight thank you move for gerit got a second oh