Planning and Zoning/ Board of Adjustments/ Historical Preservation - Regular Meeting

order of the planning and zone meeting. City of Lake City. Can everybody rise for the pledge of allegiance, please?

To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands. nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Heavenly Father, we come before you tonight and praise you for this day. How you watched over us and kept us safe all day long. And as we assemble ourselves together tonight to take care of business of our community. We pray that you will give us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding on how we operate. Ask that you bless our first responders, everyone in our government officials. bless our president. Look on us and keep us in Jesus name we pray. Amen. Amen.

All right, Mr. Angelo, can you call roll? Yes, Madam Chair. If you wouldn't mind, right before we do, I would like to introduce our new planning zoning board member. Certainly. Um this is Kendra Jones. She comes to us. She was elected at the last um city council meeting and to be with us. Um, Miss Jones, do you want to say anything real quick or introduce yourself? No, I'm just excited about being on this board. Thank you for the opportunity. You all right? Miss McCullen here. Miss Douglas here, Miss Wilson here, Miss Johnson here, Miss Jones here, Mr. Kuchcci here, and Mr. Leid

here. So, at this time it I know it's not on the agenda, but do does anybody have any revisions to the agenda? Just last couple of times, we've had some revisions. So, no. Okay. Motion to approve the agenda as submitted. Second. Okay. Uh, can we get a hand vote, please? All right. We don't need to call.

Yep. Okay. And we have minutes that have been distributed from January. Last fee February meeting, we did not have a quorum. So that's why the minutes are from January. I assume everybody's had a chance to review them. Any additions or changes? No. Do we have a motion to adopt? Move to approve. Second.

Okay. um hand sign. Okay. All right. Minutes are approved. Tonight we have before us six matters that must be considered and voted on by the planning and zoning board in a quasi judicial manner. Those six items are a CPA 26-01 being an application for a comp plan amendment by owner L City 47 LLC of Florida limited liability company and Pam Stewart and Scott D. Stewart submitted by its agent Justin Tor, I hope I said your name right. Uh senior planner North Florida Professional Services Inc. to amend the future land use map by changing the future land use classification from county highway interchange to city commercial highway of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City on property located on parcel 0881-0000 and 08891-0000 B Z26-01 being an application submitted by owner Lake City 47 LLC of Florida Limited Liability Company and Pam Stewart and Scott Dwart. Submitted by its agent Justin Tabort, senior planner, North Florida Professional Services, Inc. to amend the official zoning atlas of the land development regulations by changing the zoning district from county commercial intensive and county commercial highway interchange to city commercial highway interchange of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida on property located on parcels 30-4s-17-08881-0000 and 30-4S-17-8891 1-0000

CPA 26-04S being an application for a comp plan amendment by owner of lots 1, two, and three of the CNW business park subdivision CW land trust submitted by its trustee Daniel KS, who is also agent for East Park LLC, a Florida limited liability company, to amend the future land use map by changing the future land use classification from county residential mediums high density which is less than or equal to 14 dwelling units per acre and county commercial to city commercial of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City on property located on parcels 02-4s-16-02712-101102 one 103 one 104 1056 and 107 D Z26 6-02s being an application submitted by Daniel Krabs, trustee of CNW Land Trust, property owner of lots one, two, and three of the CNW Business Park Subdivision, and as agent for East Park LLC, a Florida limited liability company, property owner of lot seven of the CNW Business Park Subdivision, Premier Investments LLC, a Florida limited liability company, property owner of lot six of the CNW Business Park Subdivision, and Chad R. Street, property owner of lots four and five of the CNW Park subdivision, to amend the official zoning atlas of the land development regulations by changing the zoning district from county commercial intensive and county residential multiple family one to city commercial intensive certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida on property located on parcel 02-4s-16-02712-1

101 1 2 1 103 104 one 105106 and 107 E CPA26-05S being an application for account plan amendment by owner East Park LLC a Florida limited liability company submitted by its agent Brian Pitman to amend the future land use map by changing the future land use classification county residential medium high density which is again less than or equal to 14 dwelling units per acre to city commercial of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida on property located on park 02-4s-16-2712-009 F Z26-03S being an application submitted by owner East Park LLC of Florida limited liability company submitted by its agent Brian Pitman to amend the official zoning atlas of the land development regulations by changing the zoning district from county residential multif family 1 to city commercial intensive of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida on property located on parcel number 02-4s-16-02712-009. And now the city attorney will run through the procedures to be used in these hearings and to inquire of the members of the planning and zoning board regarding any exparte communications.

Mr.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The purpose of uh tonight's procedure is to ensure an applicant provides a complete presentation of their request to the board prior to any testimony being provided by staff. So the applicant receives a full and fair hearing on their application. Any decision of the board is based on evidence presented to do that. We'll follow the following procedure. First, we'll hear presentations from city, the applicant, and any party interveners, followed by public comment uh from individuals and group representatives. Then we'll move on to cross-examination if there is any. And then uh the chair can allow additional response if they if she would like uh in the interest of fairness. Uh after that, then the board can ask any questions of any of the participants. After that, we'll move on to final arguments from the parties and interveners. I'll advise us to law necessary findings and the board can deliberate and vote. Uh all persons have the right through the chairman to ask questions of staff or other speakers to seek clarification of comments made by staff or other speakers. All people providing written materials to the board uh for consideration must ensure a copy of those materials is provided to the clerk uh for inclusion in the record of proceedings. While the board welcomes comments from all persons with an interest in the proceeding part of law requires the board's decision in quasi judicial actions be supported by competent substantial evidence presented to the planning and zoning board during the hearing on the application. confident substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable mind was would accept is adequate to support a conclusion. Uh there must be a factual basis in the record to support opinion testimony from both expert and non-expert witnesses and people presenting testimony may present their test may may support their testimony by relying on factual information provided by city staff, the applicant or other factual information included in the city's staff report. This time I need to inquire of each member of the board individually if they've received any exparte communications on any of these six matters uh before the planning and zoning board tonight and if so to please disclose them. Uh starting at the end, Mr. Carluchi, have you had any exparte communications?

No. All right. Thank you. Uh and Miss Jones, no. Uh Miss Johnson? No. Uh Miss McCllum? No. And Miss Wilson? No. Uh Vice Chair Le? None. Okay. And Chair Douglas? No. Okay. Uh, and we're going to do it a little differently tonight. Uh, Robert, if you could stand, I'm going to swear you in for all the hearings, and then we're going to do these on a property bypropy basis for everybody else. So, Robert, for all six of these hearings, do you swear to tell the truth, hold the truth, nothing but the truth? Not. Yes.

All right. Thank you. Uh, and the uh first hearing we're going to do uh is on the the pairing of uh application CPA 2601 and uh application Z2601. It's a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning related to the same property. Uh for that one, I have uh Mr. Taber as the representative of the applicant. Uh are you going to be the only one offering testimony on behalf of the applicant? Mr. Taber.

Yes, Mr. Attorney. Um madam, uh I apologize. Um I will be the only one offering on behalf of the applicant this evening. Um, and I would rely on the application that we've presented. Um, I don't have a formal presentation for the board, but I'm available for any questions they may have. Okay. Uh, just in advance of the hearing, can you raise your right hand? Yes, sir. Do you swear that any testimony will give me the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir, I do. Thank you. Is there anyone here uh other than Mr. Taber to speak on this particular application tonight? Okay. And, uh, Mr. Zuber, uh, can you stand and take an oath if you're going to speak on behalf of the application? Do you swear that the testimony you're going to give is going to be the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes.

All right. Thank you. Uh members of the board, you have before you resolution number PZLPAC CPA 2601, a resolution of the planning and zoning board of the city of Lake City, Florida, serving also as the local planning agency of the city of Lake City, Florida, recommending to the city council of the city of Lake City, Florida, approval of an amendment of 50 or less acres of land to the future land use map of the city of Lake City comprehensive plan pursuant to an application by Justin Taber, senior planner for Northwater Professional Services, Inc.'s agent for Lake City 47 LLC and Pam Stewart and Scott Stewart. The property owners have set acreage under the amendment procedures established in sections 163.3161 through 163248 Florida statutes as amended providing for changing the land use classification from county highway interchange to city commercial of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida, repealing all resolutions in conflict and providing an effective date. At this time, Mr. Angelo, could you please introduce, summarize, and present the application uh and city staff analysis?

Yes. All right, board members, you have in front of you tonight, you have a comp plan amendment, which is CPA 2601s. Um this is for parcel number um 08891-0000 which has a future land use designation of highway interchange county and parcel number um 08881-0000 which has a future land use designation of commercial um county. This petition um CPA 2601S is a request to change the future land use on parcel number 08891-0000 from highway interchange county um to u commercial city and change of future land use on parial number 08881-0000 from commercial county to commercial city. Um the parcel is surrounded by the following uh future land uses. On the north you have um highway interchange county. On the east you have commercial county. On the south you have environmentally sensitive. And then to the west you have a highway interchange county and commercial county. This is the location of the first parcel which is 08891-0000. Um this is the subject property here which is the currently the Little Caesars at the intersection of I75 and Highway 47. This is the next parcel which is parcel number 08881-0000 and it is the larger parcel um that you see here in orange and which is currently under construction. As you know, this is part of the joint plan uh planning area that we entered into with the county. Even though this area is not contiguous to the the city, we um came up with a joint planning area which is allowed by Florida statue to um be able to annex in and reszone this property and your all land use

applications. This was accomplished in December. Um the city or the county adopted it on December 15th and then the um city then um adopted it on December 18 or far backwards on that city county on the 15th and the county was on the 18th. Um staff review Swan River water management said there is an existing environmental resource permit um ERP 023-234495-2 that expires September uh 21st of 2028. Parcel 08891-0 does not appear to be part of this project. Any deviation from the permit uh plans will require a permit modification failure to construct the project be um by September 21st, 2028 uh will require a new ERP permit. Um and at this time the staff um finds that this petition is consistent with the LDR and the comprehensive plan and the recommendation is to approve resolution PZLPA CPA 2601S.

Thank you. Mr. Angelone, are you moving your uh presentation and the application into the record? Yes. Thank you. And at this time we'll hear from the applicant, Mr. Taber. Yes, sir. Uh good evening, Madam Chair. I was looking for the word chair a moment ago, but was wanting to call you director, so my my brain finally kicked on for me. Um, I'm here tonight representing the applicant. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have. I don't have a formal presentation for you in the interest of time, but we do appreciate staff's recommendation of approval and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, is there uh any uh public comment on this? Seeing no public comment, I assume the parties are waving cross-examination. Uh, Mr. Angelo, you're waving cross- examination. All right. Uh, are there any questions from the board, Madam Chair? Okay. No questions from the board. Mr. Taber, Miss Angelo, are y'all waving final comment? Yes.

All right. Thank you. Uh, final comment being waved. Uh, at this time, the planning and zoning board should base its decision only on evidence presented by sworn witnesses. In addition, the board may recommend to the city council the adoption of this change to the comp plan if it preserves the internal consistency of the city's comprehensive plan complies with applicable state laws and does not confer special privileges or rights on any person. At this time, the board may discuss the application testimony and any financial fact on which the board wishes to base a decision and vote uh on a recommendation to the council concerning the proposed resolution number PZLPA CPA 2601. Madam Chair, thank you. Do we have any excuse me, do we have any discussion amongst the board?

No. Move to approve resolution number PZLPACPA26-01. Second. Okay. Uh, show of hands. Roll call. Sorry. Both. Let's do both. Uh, Miss McCullum. Yes. Miss Wilson, yes. Miss Douglas, yes. Miss Johnson, yes. Miss Jones, yes. Mr. Kuchi, yes. And Mr. Light, yes. Okay.

Would you like to proceed, Madam Chair? Yes.

All right. Uh, members of the board, the next item you have before you uh is uh resolution number PZ. I'm sorry, is resolution number PAL LPAZ2601, a resolution of the planning and zoning board of the city of Lake City, Florida, serving also as the local planning agency of the city of Lake City, Florida, relating to the reszoning of 10 or more contiguous acres of land pursuant to an application by Justin Taber, senior planner for North Florida Professional Services Incorporated as agent for Lake City 47 LLC and Pam Stewart and Scott D. restored the property owners of set acreage. Recommending to the city council the city of Lake City, Florida approval of an application to amend the official zoning atlas of the city of Lake City land development regulations by changing the zoning district from county commercial intensive and county commercial highway interchange to city commercial highway interchange of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida, repealing all resolutions in conflict and providing an effective date. And this is related to applications E2601. Mr. Yes. All right. Board, before you tonight, you have application um Z2601s and it Jamie, no presentation.

Okay. Okay. Anyways, this is a companion application for the previous CPA 2601 and they are changing the future land use from commercial highway interchange and commercial intensive county to commercial intensive or commercial highway interchange uh city and um it is in the same joint planning area which was adopted by the city and the county in December and um and as far as the staff review comments it's still just the same staff review comments from the Swany River weather management And at this time, the uh staff recommends the adopted resolution PZLPA Z2601S.

And that's it. I'd like to move my application presentation in the record. All right. Thank you, Mr. Angelo. Mr. Taber, for the applicant. Once again, Madam Chair, uh Justin Taber with North Florida Professional Services. I don't have a presentation for you, but of course on this application, I'm happy to answer any questions if the board may have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh any public comment? Seeing no public comment, uh I'm assuming the parties are waving cross-examination. Uh and at this time, uh the uh board can ask any questions that they have. Madam chair, anybody have questions?

Okay. Uh seeing no questions, uh is there any final comment, final argument from the parties? Seeing none, uh, the decision of the planning and zoning board should be based only on evidence presented by sworn witnesses. In addition, board may make its recommendation to the city council after taking into consideration those matters listed in section 15.2.2 of the city's land development regulations. At this time, the planning and zoning board may discuss the application and testimony and any findings of fact on which the board wishes to base a decision and vote on your uh recommendation to the city council concerning uh application Z2601 as memorialized in resolution number PA LPA Z2601 uh following an appropriate motion and second.

Madam Chair, thank you. Do we have any discussion amongst the board members? Motion to either adopt or deny. Move to approve resolution number PA LPAZ26-01. Second. All right. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Angelo. Miss McCulla? Yes. Miss Wilson? Yes. Miss Douglas? Yes. Miss Johnson? Yes. Miss Jones? Yes. Mr. Kucci? Yes. And Mr. Lick? Yes. Congratulations. All right. Shall I proceed, Madam Chair? Yes, please.

All right. Thank you. Uh the next two items are a future land use plan amendment and reszoning related to the CNW uh business park. Uh Mr. Angelo, on behalf of the city who's already been sworn. Uh Mr. Craps, I see that you are the agent on this particular reasonzoning. Uh are you going to offer any testimony tonight? Okay. If you could stand and take an oath, please. And is there anyone else that's going to speak on this particular matter tonight? Okay, seeing no one, do you swear the testimony you're going to give will be the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth?

All right. Thank you. Uh the next matter is uh application CPA 2604S represented by resolution number PZLPA CPA 2604S a resolution of the planning and zoning board of the city of Lake City Florida serving also as the local planning agency of the city of Lake City Florida recommending to the city council of the city of Lake City Florida approval of an amendment of 50 or less acres of land to the future land use plan map of the city of Lake City comprehensive plan pursuant to an application by Daniel Crap trustee of CNW land trust property owner of lots two and three of the CNW business park subdivision and as agent for East Park LLC, a Florida limited liability company, property owner of lot seven of the CNW business park subdivision and Premier Investments LLC, a Florida limited liability company property owner of lot six of the CNW business park subdivision and Chad Strait, property owner of lots four and five of the CNW business park subdivision. for the property owners of all said acreage under the amendment procedures established in sections 163.3161 through 163.3248 Florida statutes as amended provided for changing the land use classification from county residential medium high density or less than or equal to 14 dwelling units per acre and county commercial to city commercial of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City Florida repealing all resolutions in conflict and providing an effective date. Mr. Angelo.

All right. So board before you tonight you have uh comp plan amendment CPA2604S. This is for partial number 02712-101 102 one 103 104 105 106 and 107 or commonly known as the CNW business park subdivision and it has a future land use of residential medium high county and commercial county. This petition CPA 2604S is a request to change the future land use from residential medium county um or high county to commercial county or and commercial county to commercial city. The parcel is surrounded by the following land uses um future land uses. On the north you have residential medium high county. The east you have commercial county. The south you have commercial county. And to the west you have commercial county and residential medium high county. This is the location of the CNW business park. Um up here to the north would be Windong Apartments. This is Brford Highway coming through here with Real Terrace um through here. And this is the seven lots that we are reszoning. The only comment we had was from Swing River Management. Um these partials are within a permitted master uh system ERP-2023- um two or 207040-1. Application uh shall be submitted to verify conformance with the master system and construction cannot commence until sun water management ERP has been issued. And at this time, staff finds that the um application is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development regulation. Therefore, the staff recommends to approve resolution PZLPA CPA 264- RS. And and at this time, I'd like to move my application and presentation

into the record. Thank you, Mr. Angelo. Mr. Craps for the applicant. We're trying to correct an error. These properties were zoned commercial before when they were in the county and somehow they got changed without our asking or anything. So, we're just trying to get them changed back to what they were zone for in the county. So, and they're perfect location for commercial.

Thanks, Mr. Krabs. Uh again, anyone else uh wishing to speak to this either as public comment or seeking party intervenor status? Uh seeing no one uh at this time uh is there any cross-examination? Mr. Krabs, Mr. Angelo, you are waving cross-examination. All right. Uh Madam Chair, is there any uh are there any questions from the board? Any questions? I have one, Mr. Light. Uh Mr. perhaps uh as far as uh cleaning up the the zoning discrepancies on on the property and and getting it back to what it was before it was changed. I understand that.

Uh are we going to see this again in another couple of months for a site plan review? Is there something that's already eyeing this that need to get back in order here? That's what you're going to see hopefully shortly. We have some happy kids in Columbia 20. All right, that's it, Madam Chair. Okay. Anyone else?

Okay. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh are there any uh final comments from uh Mr. Angelo or Mr. Kra? Uh seeing none, uh the decision of the board shall be based only on evidence presented by sworn witnesses. In addition, the board may recommend to the city council the adoption of this change to the comp plan if it preserves the internal consistency of the city's plan, complies with applicable state laws, and does not confer special privileges or rights on any person. At this time, the board may discuss the application and testimony and any findings of fact upon which the board wishes to base a decision and vote on a recommendation to city council concerning the proposed application CPA 2604s uh as memorialized in resolution number PZLPA CPA 2604s uh following an appropriate motion and second.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Uh do we have any discussion amongst the board members? Seems like basic housekeeping, right? Okay. Any motions to adopt or deny? So moved. Second. Okay. Mr. Angelo, roll call. Miss McCullum? Yes. Miss Wilson? Yes. Miss Douglas? Yes. Miss Johnson? Yes. Miss Jones? Yes. Mr. Lighting? Yes. And Mr. Luchi? Yes. Mr. Martin?

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Now we have the companion reszoning for that uh plan amendment. Uh application Z2602S is memorialized in resolution of PZLPA Z2602S. A resolution of the planning and zoning board of the city of Lake City, Florida serving also as the local planning agency of the city of Lake City, Florida, relating to the reszoning or less of less than 10 contiguous acres of land pursuant to an application Z2602s by Daniel Craps, trustee of the CNW Land Trust. Uh, property owner of lots, two, and three of the CNW business park subdivision and as agent for East Park LLC, a Florida limited liability company. property owner of lot 7 of the CNW uh business park subdivision. Uh Premier Investments LLC, a Florida limited liability company property owner of lot six of the CNW business park subdivision and Chad R straight property owner of lots four and five of the CNW business park subdivision. the property owners of said acreage recommending to the city council of city of Lake City, Florida approval of an application to amend the official zoning atlas of the city of Lake City land development regulations by changing the zoning district from county commercial intensive and county residential multif family one to city commercial intensive of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City Florida repealing all resolutions in conflict and providing an effective date. Mr. Angelo.

So before you tonight, you have a reasonzoning which is Z2602S. Um it's for the same parcel 0 uh 2712-101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 or commonly known as the CNW business park subdivision. It is currently zoned residential multifamily 1 county and commercial intensive county. This out petition Z2602S is a request to change the zoning from residential multif family one county and commercial intensive county to commercial intensive city. Um when we were looking at the plat on this um we realized that the plat for this whole subdivision said commercial intensive on the plat um commercial intensive uh county. But then when we started looking at some of the zoning, the northern part of this uh subdivision was residential multif family and and then the southern portion was commercial intensive. So Mr. Krabs and us work together to try to clean up the uh zoning in this whole subdivision. Um the parcel is surrounded by the following land uh future land uses. On the north you have a residential multif family one county. On the east you have commercial intensive county. On the south you have commercial intensive county. On the west you have commercial intensive county and residential multif family one county and it same um areas before right here at the intersection of real terrace and Brford highway and same comment from Swany River water management and staff does find that this application also is consistent with the comprehensive plan land development regulation. Therefore, our recommendation is to approve resolution a resolution PZLPA Z2602S and I'd like to move my application and presentation in the record.

Thank you, Mr. Angelo. Mr. Craps, did you have anything on behalf of the applicant? The same comments as before. All right. Thank you. Uh any party interveners or members of the public wish to comment? Uh seeing no one. Uh I'm assuming the parties are waving cross-examination. Uh given that madam chair any questions from the board? Anyone have questions? Mr. Martin.

All right. Uh parties waving final comments. Uh yes. Uh the decision of the board should be based only on evidence presented by sworn witnesses. In addition, the board may make its recommendation to the city council after taking into consideration those matters listed in section 15.2.2 of the city's land development regulations. At this time, the planning and zoning board may discuss the application and testimony and any findings of fact on which it wishes to base a decision and vote on your recommendation to the council concerning application Z2602s as memorialized in resolution number PZLPA CPA uh 262s. Uh following an appropriate motion second, Madam Chair,

do we have any discussion amongst the board members? No. Any motions to adopt or deny? Move to approve resolution number PZLPAZ26-02s. Second. Mr. Angelo. Roll call. Miss McCullum? Yes. Miss Wilson? Yes. Miss Douglas? Yes. Miss Johnson? Yes. Miss Jones? Yes. Mr. Galuchcci? Yes. And Mr. Leic? Yes.

Congratulations, Mr. Martin. Madam Chair, moving on. Uh you have before you proposed uh application CPA 2605S is memorialized in resolution number PZLPA CPA 2605S a resolution of the planning and zoning board of the city of Lake City Florida serving also as the local planning agency of the city of Lake City Florida recommending to the city council of the city of Lake City Florida approval of an amendment of 50 or less acres of land to the future land use plan map of the city of Lake City comprehensive plan pursuant to an application by Brian Pitman PE as agent unit for East Park LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the property owner of said acreage under the amendment procedures established in sections 163.3161 through 163.3248 Florida statutes as amended providing for changing the land use classification from county residential medium high density or less than or equal to 14 dwelling units per acre to city commercial of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida, repealing all resolutions in conflict and providing an effective date. Mr. as well.

All right. So before you you have comp plan amendment CPA 2605S. This is for parcel number 02712-00009. It has a currently has a future land use designation of residential medium high county. This petition CPA 2605S is a request to change that future land use on parcel number 02712-009 from residential medium high county to commercial city. Um the parcel is surrounded by the following land use um designations. On the north you have residential medium high county. East you have residential medium high county. On the south you have residential medium high county and commercial county. And on the west you have commercial county. This is the location of the um parcel 02712-009. Um right here in orange this is real terrace. These parcels that you see here to the bottom here are um CNW business park. This is a parcel that is contiguous to lot 7. Um comments from Swany River Water Management project um is within a map permit uh boundary of ERP uh 02320704 um 0401. Um application will be need to be submitted to SW management to ver comp to verify compliance with the master system prior to development of the lot. At this time the city uh staff finds that the uh this is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development regulation. Therefore, our recommendation is to approve resolution PZL LPA CPA uh 2605s. And I'd like to move my application and presentation in the record.

Thank you, Mr. Angelo. Uh Mr. Pitman, were you going to offer testimony on this? Do you swear to take tell the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth? All right. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Brian Pitman with Pitman Engineering. Um, I'm just here to answer questions should anybody have any about the application. Thank you. We'll get to questions from the board in just a moment. Okay, got it. Thank you. Um, are there any other members of the public that wish to comment on this particular application? Uh, seeing none, uh, parties are waving cross-examination, I assume. Uh, now are there any comments from the board or questions? Any board members have questions? Mr. Carlage? Um, one of the thing people that responded was water distribution saying there's a water and sewer man going through the property and nothing can be built on them. Is that going to be an issue for you?

So, I' I've talked to Mr. Scott um who I believe is the appropriate person who made that comment and what you'll see is as part of the original master plan for this. there was a 12-inch main that went on that side of the road and I believe his comments and talking to him just simply referred to that water man saying hey we need to locate this either relocate it or make sure we're not building anything on top of it I'm actively working with him to make sure we locate that and relocate it if necessary but that will be the primary order that serves the building whenever it's time any other questions and I can pass this around if need be for anybody who wants to see it say actually if you want us to hold it for for the record. If you could give it to Mr. Angelo keep it for the record as evidence.

Madam Chair, I'd like to sign this as exhibit A. Of course, no other comments or questions from the board. Uh, seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Pman. Yes, sir. Uh, and I'm assuming the parties are waving final comment. Uh, yes.

The decision of the board should be based only on evidence presented by sworn witnesses. In addition, board may recommend that the city council adoption of this change to the comp plan that confers the internal consistency of the city's comprehensive plan complies with applicable state laws and does not confer special privileges or rights on any person. At this time, the board may discuss the application and testimony and any findings of fact upon which it wishes to base the decision and vote on the recommendation to the city council concerning the proposed application. CPA 2605s is memorialized and resolution number PZLPA CPA 2605S. Thank you. Any discussion amongst the board or comments? No. Uh, do we have a motion to either adopt or deny?

Move to approve resolution number PZLPAC CPA26-05S. Seconded. Mr. Angelo, roll call. Miss McCullum, yes. Miss Wilson, yes. Miss Douglas, yes. Miss Johnson, yes. Miss Jones, yes. Mr. Leid, yes. And Mr. Kuchcci, yes. All right, Mr. Martin.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh the next item before you uh is proposed application Z2603S as memorialized in resolution number PZLPAZ2603S. A resolution of the planning and zoning board of the city of Lake City, Florida, serving also as the local planning agency of the city of Lake City, Florida, relating to the reszoning of less than two contiguous acres of land pursuant to an application Z2603S by Brian Pitman as agent for East Park LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the property owner of set acreage, recommending to the city council of the city of Lake City, Florida, approval of an application to amend the official zoning atlas of the city of Lake City Land Development Code uh or regulations by changing the zoning district from county residential multif family one to uh city commercial intensive of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida, repealing all resolutions in conflict and providing an effective date. Mr. Angelo.

Yes.

All right. This is a resoning which is um application number Z2603S. It's for the same parcel 02712-09 which has a currently has a is zoned residential multif family one county petition Z2603S is a request to change the zoning on partial number 02712-009 from residential multif family uh one county to commercial intensive city. Um the parcel is surrounded by the following zoning designation not future land use that's a type over there. Um on the north you have residential multif family one county on the east you have residential multif family uh one county on the south you have residential multif family one county and commercial intensive county and on the west you have commercial intensive county um same location as before here in the um colored in orange which is contiguous to lot 7 of the CNW business park and same comment from Swany River water management and this time the staff finds that this is um consistent with the city comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Therefore, staff recommended action would be for the city planning zoning board to approve resolution number PZLPA Z 2603S. At this time, I'd like to move my application and presentation in the record.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Angelo. Mr. Pitman.

So, same as a four. No presentation, just here to answer questions when that time comes if there are any. All right. Thank you, sir. Uh, any members of the public or party interveners? Uh, seeing none, I assume the parties are waving cross-examination. Uh, Madam Chair, are there any questions from the board? Any questions? No.

Okay. No questions. I assume everybody's waving final comments. Uh seeing that that is the case at this time, madame chair, uh the board uh may uh discuss the matter and base it decision on evidence provided by swarm witnesses. In addition, the board may make its recommendation to the city council after taking into consideration those matters listed in section 15.2.2 of the city's land development regulations. Uh the board may discuss the application testimony and any findings of fact upon which is to base the decision and vote on your recommendation to the council concerning application Z2603S as memorialized in uh resolution uh let's see PZ LPAZ 2603S. Madam Chair,

thank you. Any discussion amongst the board members? More housekeeping. Okay. Do we have a motion to either deny or adopt? Motion to adopt. Second. Mr. Angelo. Roll call. Miss McCullum? Yes. Miss Wilson? Yes. Miss Douglas? Yes. Miss Johnson? Yes. Miss Jones? Yes. Mr. Kuchi? Yes. And Mr. Light? Yes. Right. Mr. Martin.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. The next two items on the agenda are not quasa judicial in nature. So uh the uh the board following a presentation from Mr. Angelo on the particular matters uh may just adopt them uh by uh resolution number uh without uh reading the uh title into the record. Okay. I I can do it if you want me to, but I think probably everybody's tired of hearing me read resolution titles. So thank you.

Okay, Mr. All right, Madam Chair. U being this is a text amendment, I did not prepare a presentation. Um so this text amendment which is CPA 26-02T. Um this is a text amendment to go along with the uh joint planning agreement and ISBA that we created back in December with the county. This is amending our COP plan to be consistent with that agreement. Part of the state statute is within six months of that agreement, the city and county must adopt a comprehensive plan amendment putting the joint planning um area into the comp plan and that's what we're doing with this.

Any questions? Just barely made it, huh, Mr. Light? Um what exactly is an interlocal service boundary agreement? You said this was decided back in December.

Yes. By the city Yeah. with the city council and so you have a joint plan and have an ISBA which is interlocal service boundary agreement. So the interlocal service boundary agreement is an area of land where the city and the county enter enter into an agreement where we look at all the services that the county or the city provide. um law enforcement, firefighting, uh garbage collection, um you know, sewer or water, all that, all the different services that a you know, jurisdiction would provide. And we worked through that and we um coordinated who is going to be responsible for what. So, this area is not located, you know, contiguous to the city, but we do provide provide city services out there such as water, sewer, and that out there. And so we went through that took about a few months of work between back and forth with the city council and we went through the state statute and followed the guidelines in the state statute to adopt the ISBA. And um with that that allows us to all the commercial properties that you uh see at the highway 47 I75 interchange, all that area is within that joint planning area. And part of that agreement is that we can annex those in and reszone those even though they're not contiguous and to the city, but they will still be within the city and um even though they're not contiguous. So, it's just another way for a city or county to be able to annex property that is not otherwise annexable and to better serve the community and for economic opportunities.

All right. And obviously with the city providing u physical utilities, we're we're not building a police sub stationation out there. We're not building a fire station out there. That's still all going to remain county. Um I believe that was Mr. Martin probably.

So, uh Robert very eloquently touched on the the planning elements of of this and the service delivery elements. Uh the uh the other element of this is that uh and it's a creature of statute. Statute allows us to to do this. Uh but once the county and city identify this area and ISB and uh we we identify the area the ISBA or the interlocal service boundary agreement is the mechanism by which we implement it. And what it says is that in that defined area the city can annex property even though those that area is not contiguous to the rest of the city. when we annex it uh through the mechanisms Robert was talking about we have to agree to deliver services out there

all services

well e either by interlocal agreement with the county or on our own as a city so uh depending on the nature of the service some of them will be uh performed by the county through interlocal agreement some of them will be performed by us uh in the case of emergency services it it may be uh through uh the county combined dispatch based on who the closest uh possible responding unit is. Uh so it it depends on the services how it's delivered as it relates to utilities. The city will be providing the the the water, sewer, gas utilities. Uh I can't remember if it's part of power or clay electrics providing the electric utilities out there. Uh and when I say out there, we're we're looking at that area that was the subject of our first couple of amendments tonight. That's kind of the overlay of the State Road 47 I75 interchange. So,

are we expecting to see several more of these pop up till the till we have pretty much the holy whole county under annexation?

Well, I I don't know. I mean, we're kind of waiting to see how this one works out, but I think everybody really likes the the way it's working right now, county and city as governmental entities. And so if uh that continues, I wouldn't surprise me if we do see other areas, you know, where where there are pockets of development that are right for growth where it makes more sense for uh a city with a an urban focus to be uh overseeing the development and land use elements of that uh versus the county where their focus is not necessarily the delivery of urban services. All right.

So, excuse me. So, which entity benefits from say the property taxes that would paid in that area or you know what I'm saying like I understand the city is sorry the city is providing the utilities the county is providing emergency services

roughly. So, who who's the beneficiary of all of this? So uh if the land if so we've defined the area if a land within that area if a property is annexed then for taxation purposes it is treated like any other city property. If if there are parcels in that area that are not annexed even though they may be eligible to be until they are annexed they only pay county property taxes. Uh I think if I recall uh through the interlocal agreement as it relates to fire services, the county was going to be the primary responding entity and so the county was going to collect the fire services fee. Uh but as it relates to to actual advalum taxes if if they annex in, we're collecting city taxes on them just like we do anybody else. Uh you know that's annexed into the city. So

So what's the benefit to the county? Uh the benefit to the county is that the property values rise is as the property out there is developed because of our ability to provide urban services there. So as property values rise the because of development the city sees its advalarum tax revenues from that area increase. So that's the benefit financially to the county. And then just generally as additional services there are offered, the residents of the the county that take advantage of things in that geographic area have the ability to take advantage of, you know, perhaps retail services, restaurants, those kinds of things that are developed there rather than having to come all the way into Lake City proper

to to get those services. Thank you. Yes. One addition, um, we're characterizing this as being a, uh, an urban area within the the cornerstone boundaries. What is the approximate residential population? Uh, none. There's zero residents in this urban area. The actually, it was very intentionally drawn so that there are no residences in that area. It's all non-residential property. Yeah. All right. Anybody else have a question? Will it become residential eventually?

Uh, I think the idea was that everything that we identified probably will wind up being all non-residential just by virtue of its proximity to the interstate interchange. So, thank you, Mr. Any other questions? All right. Okay. Thank you. And I would like to move my application into the record.

Do we have any discussion amongst the board members? Do we have a motion either to deny or adopt? Move to approve resolution number PZLPA CPA 26-02T. Second, Mr. Angelo, roll call. Miss McCullum, yes. Miss Wilson, yes. Miss Douglas, yes. Miss Johnson, yes. Miss Jones, yes. Mr. Kuchi, yes. And Mr. Lidik, yes.

And we have another another resolution. Mr. Angelo.

All right, madam chair and board. This is CPA 2603T. Um, which is another text amendment to our comp plan. And this one we were modifying the text within the mixeduse category. And that so we just adopted the uh land development regulation text for the mixed use. So now what we're doing is lining up and fixing a few um issues that are in our comp plan to make this match um what is in our LDR along with you know I did some research as far as the percentages and everything as far as your non-residentidential and your residential and that the way we originally had this written or a comp plan it would not allow for any kind of real development because like 50% would have to be dedicated to non-residential with the remainder going to uh residential and um non open space. So this expandment what we did was we lowered the percentages of non-commercial or non-residential down to 15% max being 85%. And then on the residential we did down to 5% and up to 85% and then the 10% for the open space unless it's under two acres then that 10% can go into the residential that open space um can go into the residential area. And um we also adjusted the um maximum density in this area. So the maximum density in the comp plan was 10 dwelling units per acre. We move that to uh 40 dwelling units per acre which it will match what is in the land development regulations. Any questions?

So this is for the same area as the previous resolution. No, this is for this is just a comp plan amendment in general for the whole um city limits and anywhere of a property that is uh reszone to mixed use then would fall under this guideline. This would be just like you have the commercial element of the comp plan. This is the mixeduse element of the comp plan which then would line up with the u mixeduse component of the LDR. Thank you. Anybody have questions for Mr. Angela? I have one, Mr. Light. Um, we just adopted mixed use into the into the LDRs not long ago. Yes.

Um, now we're already seeing an amendment to it. Where did the original numbers come from?

The original numbers, I'm not sure where all these came from. They were, this was done back in like 2018. the original comp plan amendment where it added the mixeduse element into the comp plan and then the city never adopted a land development regulations amendment to add that into the uh um LDR. So this is when I started doing my research and if you did 50% of it commercial and that which was what was in the comp plan. If you had a sevenstory building or let's say a six-story building the first three stories would have to be all commercial and then you would get to the residential. So under this which the maximum height is seven stories at 15% commercial that could be the bottom floor and then your next uh six stories could be residential. and and that is why we kind of line up this the way we did and and it's consistent with communities like Gainesville, St. Augustine. I looked at a lot of other jurisdictions, Orlando, um Ocala, you know, some other areas that have a mixeduse component and I looked at their percentages to non-use um or non-residential uh component.

Okay. Okay. And then one follow-up question, uh, just so I can conceptualize it a bit better, uh, as far as the amendments from 10 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per acre. Yes. Let's say we're talking about standard two-bedroom, one and a half bath, you know, apartments. Um, how how tall would a structure have to be if it occupied a 1acre lot to fit 40 dwelling units?

Well, you saw the follow the floor area ratio and everything. That's where an engineer would come in. And at the maximum height that they would be able to go, it would be 85 ft or seven stories. And um no matter what the size of the lot is, if if it could be engineered to be there, then that's what could go there. And but we don't have like a set standard as far as like the size of the lot, how big it could be. Unless they're in a area where they're contiguous to a residential uh component, that's the only type um time that there would be a height of restriction.

Okay. But just just in general, shooting from the hip, 40 dwelling units on a 1acre property with a necessary parking lot. Are we talking are we pushing the the sevenstory limit at 40 or is there still room to go? I honestly I don't know. and uh you know without looking at engineering to see exactly how those dwelling units were laid out with parking and storm water and everything you know because there's a lot that you know would go into that as far as how many actual dwellings you would actually get on the site. All right.

You mentioned height restrictions next to residential areas. What are those restrictions? So, in a residential area, you'd be restricted down to the uh like two stories, which I think is right around um 25 ft or so or 30 or 35 ft, I think, is what it is. Same as is in the residential districts. Thank you. You're welcome. Anybody else? Thank you, Mr. Angel. You're welcome. Any discussion amongst the board members? I have one, Madam Chair. U Mr. Carluchi in the in the construction world. Uh on a 1acre lot taking into account a parking lot. Same question as I had for Mr. Andrew. In my head it was

70 feet or we talking this can be done in three stories. Not in my head it was it was four per floor, four apartments a square, seven high, that's 28. If you could fit two of those on a lot might be able to squeeze in even 50 maybe. But you know that's all I was looking for. Just the conceptualization. Yeah. Anybody else comments or discussion? Do we have a motion to either approve or deny? Move to approve resolution PZLPA CPA 26-03 Tango. Second. Mr. Angelo. Roll call.

Miss McCullum. Yes. Miss Wilson? Yes. Miss Douglas? Yes. Miss Johnson? Yes. Miss Jones? Yes. Mr. Galuchcci? Yes. And Mr. Light. Yes. Hey, do we have any workshop items?

Yes, Madam Chair. I do have something that I would like to pass out to the board and as wasn't on the agenda for our workshop, but this came up after we posted the um agenda, but this is a planning officials training workshop that is u being held in Ocala on April 9th from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and that we would like to invite all the planning only board members that would like to go. Um this is something you know the city would sponsor the event um and we would you know out with that and but it's $20 admission and that the city would help out with. All right. Thank you. I'll hand out the flyers to everybody. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Will the city provide transportation? Mr. Angel,

that is something I need to discuss with procurement and finance and see how that would work if we would provide the transportation or if you would have them drive separately down there. So, there's a few details like that that I'm still working out. We just got this this recently and so I haven't really had a chance to work out all the details as far as that goes, but I will follow up with each board member. Okay, Mr. Light. Mr. Martin, if some of us were to ride together in cars, would that be considered uh expartate? Uh, you can talk about the weather, you can talk about your kids, you can talk about your hobbies, you just can't talk about things coming before the board, but we are allowed to be in a vehicle together for long periods of time. Absolutely. Okay.

Just just can't talk about board business. Understood. I know if it starts at 8 a.m., somebody's going to have to spring for a hotel, too. So, I'm not leaving here. It's 5 in the morning. Say that again. I'm sorry. I said it starts at 8 in the morning in Ocala. I don't want to have to leave here at 5 in the morning. So, we're going to need like hotel rooms, you know, gas money. Are we getting any of that? I think Mr. Angelo here. You got to work on it. Those are all details that I have to work out with the city manager and that and see you know what what city would be responsible for, what you know, an individual would be responsible for.

It's just an opportunity that you know we've seen that would be very good. I have been through this training uh through the APA. It is a very good highlevel um training. You learn a little bit about land use law. They you know they get into some court cases. They you know they have a lot of um information that they pack into this meeting and if it's similar to the one that I took with the APA for the planning officials. It's really really good high level training. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other business before the board? Motion to adjurnn. Move to adjourn.

By hand. Okay. Madam chair, may we take Oh, yeah. It is. Madam chairman, may we take a brief break before we come? Yes, let's take a recess. Thank you.

All right, we'll call the board of adjustment meeting to order. Um, do we have roll call? No, roll call. Roll call is the same. Um, we do have minutes again from January. I assume everybody has had a chance to review. Do we have any additions or um revisions? No. Okay. Motion to approve the minutes. Move approval of meeting minutes uh 13th January 2026. Second.

Okay. Show hands. Okay. All right. So we have tonight a resolution number BA SE26-01 uh resolution of the board of adjustment in a quasi judicial manner. Um that item is SE26-01 being a petition submitted by Jonathan J. D. Francesco of Allstar Manufactured Housing LLC, a Florida limited liability company as agent for Manod Group Corporation. Hopefully that's the right way to say that. A Florida corporation for a special exception for parcel 1156-0000 in the residential single family 3 zoning district which is regulated by the land development regulation section 4.5. And Mr. Martin if you run through the procedures fused.

All right. Thank you madam chair. Uh same procedures as we followed earlier. Uh the the process we will follow uh to ensure fairness and due process to all involved uh will be uh first that we will hear from uh the city uh followed by the applicant followed by uh any uh cross-examination then or I'm sorry public comment then cross-examination then board questions then uh final comments and closing arguments from the parties and then I'll advise as to the law and the board will vote Uh again same as always uh the act the board decision needs to be supported by confident substantial evidence presented to the board during the hearing on the application. Uh at this time again I need to uh inquire as to uh with each board member as to whether there are any exparte communications starting with Mr. Carichi on this matter. Have you had any exparte communications?

No. And Miss Jones? No. And Miss Johnson? No. And Miss McCllum? No. Uh, Miss Wilson, no. Uh, Vice Chair Ladic, none. And Chair Douglas, no.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, board members, you have before you propose resolution 2026 B1 pursuant to application number SE 2601. Uh the title of uh which resolution reads, "A resolution of the board of adjustment of the city of Lake City, Florida, granting with appropriate conditions and safeguard to special exception is authorized by the city of Lake City land development regulations providing for a special exception to the permitted uses within a residential single family 3 zoning district as provided within section 5 4.5 of the land development regulations to permit a standard design manufactured home as defined by said land development regulations on certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida, providing for revocation of the special exception, repealing all resolutions in conflict, and providing an effective date. Uh, Mr. Angelo, at this time, uh, could you take an oath on, uh, since we're in a different hearing, do you swear to tell the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth, help God?

Yes. All right. If you could proceed then with presentation of the application.

All right. So before I uh proceed with my presentation, this is an application that was in front of would have been in front February and that because of a lack of quorum, the we were not able to hear this at that meeting. And at that after that meeting, the applicant let me know that they would not be able to be here because they had prior all obligations at by at this time and so they cannot be here tonight. And so they want to still have the application heard. their application is their testimony and they also provided an email today that they would like for me to pass out to the board that adds some um information into the project and at this time I'd like to pass it out to the board and introduce it as exhibit A.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

And in this email, this is just some some supporting information as far as, you know, why, you know, they feel that this should be approved. And uh and with that, I'll go ahead and move into my you my presentation. So before you tonight, you have SE2601 U which is a special exception. This is for parcel number 11156-0000 and is located in a RSF3 zoning district. The applicant is seeking to um get an approval for the from the board of adjustments for a special exception to allow a standard design manufactured home in an RSF3 zoning district. And as you can see on the north, east, south, and west, the property is surrounded by RSF3 zoning. This is the um proposed site here um in orange. And it is surrounded by um all RSF3. And over here to the east um which is not shown on the map would be knee black elementary. So, this is a a picture of a single wide home that is in the area um supporting um why they want to do it. They're already in the area. You've got two homes that are there. Um staff review um customer service um locates must be attained to ensure that the existing utility infrastructure is not damaged or obstructed. And at Sword Management said, "Single family properties are outside the regulatory floodway and are not within the Swan River water management jurisdiction. If zoning changes, please contact us." And so, as long as it doesn't change to a commercial or industrial, anything like that, and they're good. And it um like I said, this um area does have some single wide mobile homes in it. Um so therefore staff does recommend to approve um this resolution BAC SE 2601. And if you uh seen the structure, it was demoed. This was part of a code case that they demoed the building and now they're looking to

put a brand new uh manufactured home on the property and um which would be definitely an upgrade and it will be similar to kind of what was there. It was a little narrow um um uh raised um home that was there. So, it had a crawl space up underneath it and it was about the width of a single wide home. Any questions? Anybody have questions? I have one, Madam Chair. Yes, Mr. Larry. Uh Mr. Angelo, this is uh for a a single wide standard design mobile. Correct. Currently LDRs require a residential model. Do those come in single wide varieties?

No. The residential design based on our regulations is a um one of the requirements it has to be 20 foot wide which then automatically puts single wise out of that category. This would meet the same criteria as far as the roof pitch, everything. All that would still be the same as what you would get on the newer residential design manufactured homes. The only difference is this is a single wide versus a double wide. And as far as uh safety and uh storm considerations, it'll meet all requirements. Yeah. Meet all the state codes, all the HUD standards, everything that a residential design would have to meet. This would meet the same standards. Okay. And I would like to move my presentation and application into the record.

Madam Chair, uh and Mr. Mr. Angelo, did the applicant desire that her information here also be placed in the record? Yes. Evidence as well. Yeah. Along with the application into the record along with this email, which I would like to assign it at exhibit A and move it into the record. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Anybody have questions for Mr. Angelo? Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak on this particular matter? Uh Mr. Angela, unless you want to give us the entertainment of cross-examining yourself. Uh I think we're going to go past all that. Yeah, I don't plan on arguing

and uh and and move straight to uh the closing. Uh the decision of the board should be based only on evidence presented. In addition, the board may make its recommendation to the council uh after and actually I think on this one it's final decision that Mr. Angelo, this doesn't go to council. So, uh, taking into, uh, consideration those matters in section 11. Let's see. I don't think that's the right side either. At this time, the board of adjustment may discuss the application and testimony and any findings of fact upon which it wishes to base a decision and vote on the proposed resolution following an appropriate motion and second. Thank you. I do have one quick question. So, the this is a special exception because it's a single one. Correct.

I just want to understand correctly. Yeah. In the RSF3 zoning district under special exceptions, you have a provision in there for standard design manufactured homes which is essentially a single wide. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any any other questions? No. Any discussion amongst the board members? Do we have a motion to either approve or deny? Motion to approve. Second. Mr. Angelo. Roll call. Miss McCullum. Yes. Miss Wilson, yes. Miss Douglas, yes. Miss Johnson, yes. Miss Jones, yes. Mr. Galuchcci, yes. And Mr. Light, yes.

All right. Congratulations to the applicant. All right. It looks like we have no other business. Do we have any workshop items? No. All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. All right. Okay. Which one of these is it? Bring us in.

All right. We'll call to order the Historic Preservation Agency for the City of Lake City meeting. Same attendance. Um, we also have minutes from July or January. I assume everybody's had a chance to review. Do we have any revisions or additions, deletions, anything? Nope. Okay. Motion to approve. Move approval. Meeting minutes 13 January 2026. Second.

Show of hands. Okay. We have no old business and no new business, but apparently we have some administratively approved items, Mr. Angelo. All right. As far as the administratively approved, these are items that have already um been approved and either work has already commenced or it will be commencing very shortly. And if they have not and so the first one before you, you have COA25-22 for 302 Southeast St. John's uh street. They are replacing the damaged wood on the ramp and stain the ramp and railing to in a deep charcoal uh stain and so just doing some repairs and just restaining the ramp. Um they are going to a different color but still kind of a historic color mean it's a charcoal color. On the next one, you have COA um 26-01. This is for 532 North Marian A. This is a singlestory commercial building, and they are looking to remove the rotten roof and return um back to a historic original roof. And that they also want to remove the awning um that is sticking out um where people can drive up under. They want to move that and put up new awnings um which would be consistent with an um neighboring area um with some of the other structures that you see in the area um on the surrounding buildings on that street. So bringing it back to a little bit more historic look. Next one you have COA 26-02. This is a singlestory building um residential structure and it is on 257 Southeast Hernando A and they are repairing the roof and replacing the shingles with a similar color and they are going to add a deck to the rear of the building but it would be in the rear

of the building which um would fall under the minor also and that's it. One question, Madam Chair. Hi. Uh, on the application for COA26-02, uh, the cover sheet has it listed as a minor maintenance only item, uh, which is why it appears in the administratively approved section. Uh, in the actual application though, uh, it's listed as major work.

Yeah. So when the applicant filled it out, they they clicked the major and that when we looked at the application, we determined that it would be a minor because they, you know, there what the repairs that they were doing to the roof and the being that the deck was in the rear, um we determined that it would be a minor. Um although the deck is in the rear given that it is immediately adjacent to that public park, this being the Lake City Women's Club, um I see the only thing they submitted for the deck was a picture of one of the boards. Do we know what the ballastrades are going to look like? The lighting features. I do not on that. Going to be historic and character. They are going to work with us on that when they, you know, submit the further permits. We'll work with them closely on that side of it.

Okay. So, it will not be a wholly modern looking dock attach attached to the historic structure immediately next to a city-owned park. No, they want the people that are taking ownership of that building, they want to keep it um historic and that's why they like the building, you know, the way it is. and that so they want to try to keep it within the character of the district. Okay. And in the application, it was a a little confusing for me. Are they completely removing the roof to retrust it or are they just interiorly supporting it and then doing the the reshingling? Um that I'm not sure. And um compadre has an answer. Yeah. I noticed too it says rebuild trusses. That's like major work.

Yeah, it's definitely major. Yeah. the um yeah, they're just doing repairs. So, they are rebuilding the trusses, but they're not like taking the whole roof off and redoing it. They're not giving the whole building a crew cut and they're going to they're going to brace it up from the inside and do some repairs. So, okay. I had a question too on one of the other ones, the 2601 uh 532 North Marian. It says they're returning it back to the historic original roof. What is that roof consist of? the original. Robert, you want to answer that? You

Yeah. So, up underneath that roof, um I'm not 100% sure what was under there. So, there that structure that comes out, the awning and and some of that um the building itself, it actually has two roofs and that to it. So, when they um re-roof that, they just put a roof over top of what's there. So, they want to remove that top roof. Oh, yeah. That's the gas station. Yeah. And then repair what is up underneath there. So, it is a flat roof that's underneath there. That was the original. And they did a they just kind of roofed over it just asphalt or like what kind of flat roof? Typically back then it was probably mineral rolls or tar paper. Um so the angled roof is coming off and the flat is remaining. Yes. Yes. Nice. Yeah. Yeah.

It it will improve the look improve the the historic integrity of the property. Very nice. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do we have any workshop items? Anybody? No. Nothing. Motion to adjurnn. Move to adjurnn. Second. Show hands.