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

zoning board meeting to order for june 9th 2026 can we all rise please for the pledge pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all

Heavenly Father, we thank and praise you for this day. We thank and praise you, God, for being able to come together to do business for our community. Pray, God, that you would bless each and every one that's represented here. Bless our community. Bless our first responders, our governing officials. God, we ask that you look on us and help us to make the right decisions concerning every incident. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Be seated. All right. Can we get a roll call, please?

Ms. McKellum? Here. Ms. Wilson? Ms. Douglas? Here. Ms. Johnson? Ms. Jones? Mr. Carlucci? Here. Mr. Lydic?

Present.

City Attorney Clay Martin?

Present.

Thank you. Okay, hopefully everybody has had a chance to review the minutes for last month, May 12th meeting. Do we have any changes, revisions, anything, comments? Nope. Okay.

Move to approve.

Second.

Show of hands. Okay, all right. We have no old business tonight, so we'll move straight into new business. We have a PZ LPA CPA 26-06S. Mr. Martin, do you care to read that?

Certainly. Madam Chairman, board members, we have before you resolution PZLPA CPA 2606S, 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 David M. Winsberg, 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 residential medium density or less than or equal to eight dwelling units per acre to residential high density or less than or equal to 20 dwelling units per acre of certain lands within the corporate limits of the City of Lake City, Florida, repealing all resolutions in conflict, providing an effective date.

Thank you. Do we have... Mr. Angelo. Mr. Angelo? Mm-hmm.

All right, before you tonight, you have a comp plan amendment, CPA 2606S. Next slide, please. It is for parcel number 11602-002. It has a future land use designation of residential medium, which allows up to eight dwelling units per acre. Petition CPA 2606S is a request to change the future land use on parcel 11602-002 from residential medium to residential high. Residential high would allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre. And the parcel is surrounded by the following future land use. You have residential medium to the northeast, south, and west.

Next slide, please.

So the parcel to the right, it's highlighted in kind of a light orange or tannish color, that is the parcel that we are doing the future, have a petition for the future land use change. It's about 2.64 acres of land. So the net change in density would be about 32 units more. And if you looked at it from a what's allowable now to what would be allowed. And so it would be about an additional 32 units.

Next slide, please.

So staff review, planning zoning, there are wetlands on the parcel. This will need to be mitigated before a site plan can be approved. It doesn't affect the zoning, but before a site plan would be approved, we would need to mitigate the wetlands. So our water management environmental resource permit will be required. A permit application has not been submitted yet. The district recommends scheduling Pre-application meeting to discuss permitting requirements. No construction can occur until a district ERP has been issued Next slide please staff finds that the petition is in compliance with the city's comprehensive plan and land development regulations There's four SAS recommendation would be for the planning zoning board to approve resolution PZ LPA CPA 26-06 s I'd like to move my application and staff reports into the record. Thank you Okay, so

This is an old drawing I made a while ago. There's actually six pages. If you can just show that one and the next one. That was for the north of the two parcels. and then that one is for the south. That's one possibility. If you go to the next one, this is another possibility. And this is a proposed site plan. Obviously, I'm not asking for a site plan today. I'm asking for a rezoning request. Now, this was based on these three possible site plans are based on... higher density than what I'm asking for. This is based on about 140 units between the two lots. I'm only asking for 90 units. I think it's 50 units that parcel to the right and 42 that parcel to the left. Um, so this is just asking for the, um, I'm asking for two rezoning state. The first one is for the, uh, if, if you go back to the previous page on that, uh, for the parcel to the right, I'm asking to change it to RMF two and then, and that's what the increased density requirement is for. Like I say, um, It's not gonna, this is based on more units than would be allowed under the zoning I'm asking for. And then the other one to the left, I'm asking you to change that from RSF1 to RMF1. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Do we have, we'll get to that in just a second, thank you. Okay. Do we have anybody from the public that wishes to speak either for or against this issue?

I'm against. My name is Al, A-L Nelson.

Okay. Mr. Nelson. Mr. Martin, do you need to? No. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

I didn't get his name. He didn't state his name. It was He didn't state his name before he started.

Your name is, sir? David Winsper. Thank you.

Okay. His presentation, that's what I was here for because it stands adjacent to the lot on Early Street for the New Day Spring Missionary Baptist Church. We have land next to or adjacent to the land that he's trying to get these residential buildings multi-family complex. Also, the young man that spoke earlier, he said we're trying to go from a residential medium. How many units is that compared to the residential high that we're looking at now? Because you said it was going up to 20. So what is considered residential medium compared to a residential high?

Not really answer that. So on the parcel that he's opposed to change the future land use which is just the one parcel that was shaded a different color and the 10 color that's 2.6 for acres. So if you go from 8 to 20. That would be an additional 32 dwellings and that that would be allowed and that that is only on that portion of land, not the whole overall site plan just that one.

Okay, so in total he's trying to have, is that three separate parcels or different apartment complexes, is that correct? That's what he's asking for?

We haven't seen a site plan, so right now I don't know what he would be proposing for a site plan. We've seen what he's got here, but right now at this stage would be a conceptual, and he would need to provide an actual site plan showing exactly how many buildings, how many dwellings, and all that. Right now it's just changing the allowable density for the property.

Okay. Well, on behalf of the New Day Spring Church, we are not in favor of this, and there will be some more meetings as more information is provided towards this before the actual vote comes. Okay. I just wanted to come because this was the initial meeting, so I just wanted to make sure it's on record.

Yes, sir. This is just a proposal to rezone the property. Yes, ma'am. Not necessarily for the actual approval of the buildings, et cetera.

Okay, that's fine, but we're not in favor of the rezoning. Yes, sir. All right, thank you.

Sylvester Warren, Madam Chair and board members, attorney and staff. If my memory serves me correctly, and it's almost like an elephant, we've had this same individual come up with the same piece of property in the wetlands and flood zones. And we didn't come to any resolve other than the best thing to do was not to rezone it, take it off. You had neighbors complaining. The traffic study, the amount of weight they would put on services in that particular area. And I think it was a host of other things that Some that's sitting here voted against it at that particular time. I'm hoping that that's the same sentiment. I'm a developer, right? And I don't mind people developing and we need development, but I don't think we should develop things in spots, in places where we know there's gonna be a potential issue. That would be wrong for the person that's making the investment. And it will definitely be wrong for the people that live in there with all of the complaints that's going to be coming. And then once it's built, there's nothing that we can do about it. But we can curve it and cut it off before it gets to that point. And so I would ask that even though you may not live in the area, you may not rent one of those, but just think about those folks that would have to endure something to that extent. And I digress.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, if I may just clarify procedurally where we are tonight. The two matters before you tonight are a comprehensive plan map amendment, which is what we're hearing right now. Following this, this board will consider the companion rezoning for this same property. Both of these matters tonight are before the Planning and Zoning Board and are before you just to make recommendations to the City Council. For Mr. Nelson, tonight they will be voted on, but it will just be the recommendations to the Council tonight. Regardless of tonight's outcome, the next step would be for these to go to the Council for a vote. And at that point, they will either get voted up or down by the council. But tonight, they will go forward, and your next step to be able to comment on them would be at the city council level at a future date.

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening. My name is Barbara Mizell-Perry, and I'm against the rezoning. I think that when you work hard and you buy a home and you buy it in the type of setting that you want it to be in, and then later, for profit, someone else sees an opportunity for profit, they say, oh, yeah, let's put multiple apartments and things here because this works totally for me. What about the people who are already paying their taxes and living in the area who don't want, as Mr. Warren said, the high traffic, don't want increased flooding, don't want the noise, who would like to have some privacy. I'd like for you to think about that as if it was going right next door to your home because I would ask you to please not consider the rezoning. We're not in such a crisis for housing in Lake City. As people have said, there's a need for people to pay their rent. Otherwise, they keep going from house to house to house to house. But we're not in that much of a crisis. The police department, the fire department, they're not increasing by volumes. So all of these homes that have been put here, multiple homes and things in little tight, cramped areas, You don't even have the resources to do something if there was an emergency. And I'd just like to appeal to you on that because in the case of a disaster, that will be on your hearts. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

Is there anybody else that wishes to speak either for or against? Okay. Okay, we're going to close public comment and open up for the board if we have any questions.

Madam Chair, I have a question for Mr. Angelo.

Yes, Mr. Leiting.

Mr. Angelo, we saw this, what, back in 2024-ish, give or take?

Yes, sir.

What was the final disposition of how that ended up happening? Was that... vote from this board to recommend to council to disapprove was that a vote to table it was it pulled back by the by the applicant what was the final disposition of when we heard this two years ago

So I don't remember what the planning zoning board's recommendation was, but I do remember that it made it to the city council. And as far as your decision, I think it died at the council and didn't go any further. And I don't remember if it was the applicant pulled it or if it was actually voted on.

Okay. And then I have one more for Mr. Martin.

Go ahead.

attorney martin uh mr angelo had mentioned that necessary permitting through the water management district for remediation of the wetlands that at least according to the the map in the staff analysis here looks to cover approximately 50 of the of the property based on the symbology here that would be the sort of thing that would have to be done prior to us rezoning this correct

It would be something that would have to be done prior to a site plan or as part of a site plan process would be their permitting. There is also a state law that says that, and I think this applies to the site plan process more so than the rezoning, but that approval cannot be denied because of a failure to get required permits from another governmental agency. In other words, each set of permits stands on its own The reason is if it didn't, then an applicant could find themselves in a circle of never getting approval for anything because everybody was saying we were waiting on the other agency to give their approval. So the legislature specifically passed a statute that addressed that. Notwithstanding all of that, suitability of land in general for the type of use being considered certainly is something that the board can consider. At this stage, for a comprehensive plan amendment, it's something that you can do based on the general evidence and information presented. It doesn't have to be done in a quasi-judicial nature. When you get to the rezoning stage of this, that'll be quasi-judicial and it would have to be done based on evidence presented if it were to be denied on that basis.

And any recommendation that would come out of this board and go along to council would have to be contingent upon successful permitting?

everything is always done contingent upon successful permitting. If they can't get the permits from water management to address the regulatory issues of that agency, then they can't go forward based on those regulations, not based on ours.

All right. That's all I had, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Mr. Lydic, to answer your question, this was a rezoning request back in 2024, and it did pass this board, and evidently did die at city council level because clearly nothing's been changed. So do we know, either the applicant or Robert, do you know exactly how much of the property is wetlands?

I do not know the overall percentage, but it is, from looking at the Swan River Water Management map, it was a considerable amount of the portion, which in our LDR restricts building in a wetland. You can't build within 35 feet of a wetland. Right. So if we can't mitigate it and push, you know, and then get the wetland line changed, then you wouldn't be able to build within 35 feet of that wetland.

Yes, sir.

Regarding the wetland, I've been on the property and I'm well aware of the fact that the wetland lines are not correct. Very little of any of the property is wetland. The wetland maps aren't accurate. Usually they have to have a biologist go out there and redraw that and I'm very well aware of the fact that that will need to be done in a site plan. I'll need to demonstrate that there actually are no wetlands on the property with a biologist and get a report done and I'm aware that The city is going to require that prior to site plan approval. simply because the city has its own wetland regulations and i can't build within i think it's 35 feet of a wetland anyways so um and and then if i if i could speak to the other issues that were mentioned if that's okay um what i'm asking for this time is much less increase in density than i was asking for in 2024 people complained about um traffic issues and um that was one of the main issues and the increase in I'M ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN 30 UNITS ACROSS THE TWO LOTS, WHEREAS 2024 IS ASKING FOR AN INCREASE OF 90 UNITS, SO IT'S ONE THIRD OF THE INCREASE OF WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR BEFORE. SO THAT SHOULD REALLY ADDRESS CONCERNS OF IMPACTS FOR INCREASING THE DENSITY ON THIS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. actually in looking at the minutes from 2024 the request was to change the zoning from rsf3 or residential single family three and residential multi-family one to residential multi-family two can robert can you tell the difference between those

Yeah, so RMF1 versus RMF2 is, RMF1 is eight dwelling units per acre. It has to line up with residential medium. Same thing with RSF3. And RSF2 lines up with, I mean, RMF2 lines up with residential high, which is 20 dwelling units per acre. And so that would be the difference.

Okay.

Can I say something to that? Yes, sir. Okay, so yeah, previously I'd asked for both parcels to be rezoned as RMF2. Now I'm only asking for the east one to be, the smaller one to be RMF2. I do want the other one to be RMF1, but that would have the same density as RSF3 currently.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else have questions from the board? No? Discussion amongst the board members?

I mean... I think there is a, maybe not a housing shortage, but there is an affordable housing shortage in this town. I've seen Mr. Warren post videos himself talking about the affordable housing shortage that we have. So I think apartments are a great idea. It's not the big one he asked for before, so it's a big decrease in what he's asking for. And we don't have a site plan, so we can't, we don't know what's going there yet. All we're doing is changing the zoning, so.

Anybody else? No? Okay. Call for a motion. Does anybody want to make a motion? Either for or against?

I move to approve PZLPA CPA 26-06S.

That would be a motion to recommend approval.

Correct.

Okay.

Second.

Okay. Can we get a roll call, please?

Ms. McKellum?

Yes.

Ms. Wilson? Ms. Douglas?

No.

Ms. Johnson? Ms. Jones? Mr. Carlucci? Yes. Mr. Lydic?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes. Okay. Resolution passes. Next, we have before us a matter that must be considered and voted on by Planning and Zoning Board in a quasi-judicial manner. Mr. Martin. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The matter before you is resolution, let's see, PZ LPAZ 2604S being an application submitted by David Winsberg to amend the official zoning atlas of the land development regulations by changing the zoning district from residential single family three, or RSF3, residential multifamily one or RMF one to residential multifamily one RMF one and residential multifamily two RMF two of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City Florida property located and identified as parcel one one six oh two dash zero zero two and The procedures we will follow tonight are as follows. First, we'll hear presentations from city staff, then the applicant, and then any party interveners, followed by public comments from individuals and group representatives. Then if an applicant wishes to do so, they can cross-examine the other parties and interveners. The chair can then allow additional response if necessary to ensure fairness. At that point, we'll move to questions from the board and then any final arguments from the parties and interveners. I'll advise the board as to law and findings that you must make and then the board can deliberate and vote. While the Planning and Zoning Board welcomes comments from all persons with an interest in the proceeding, Florida law requires the Board's decision and quasi-judicial actions be supported by competent substantial evidence presented to the Board during the hearing on the application. Competent substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable amount would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. There must be a factual basis in the record to support opinion testimony from both expert and non-expert witnesses. People presenting testimony may support their testimony by relying on factual information provided by city staff and or the applicant or on other factual information included in the city staff report. At this time, I need to inquire of each member of the board individually if they've received any ex parte communications involving this matter, and if so, to please disclose them. Starting at the end of the dais, Mr. Carlucci, have you received any ex parte communications? No. And Ms. McCallum? No. And Vice Chair Lydic? None. And Chair Douglas? No. Okay, thank you. At this time, if each person is going to offer testimony or speak to this application, you can stand and raise your right hand to take an oath. Mr. Wentzberger, are you going to speak on this matter? Okay, if you could stand and take an oath. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment that wants to offer their testimony under oath so it can be considered as evidence? Seeing no one, do each of you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. All right, thank you.

Okay.

Board members, the matter before you is proposed application Z2604S, which states 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 rezoning of less than 10 contiguous acres of land pursuant to an application Z2604S by David M. Winsberg, the property owner of said 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 regulations by changing the zoning district from residential single family three and residential multi-family one to residential multi-family one and residential multi-family two of certain lands within the corporate limits of the City of Lake City, Florida, repealing all resolutions in conflict and providing an effective date. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Angelo.

All right, so before you tonight, you have rezoning application Z2604-S, which is the companion application for the previous one that we just heard. Parcel number 11602-002 is currently zone residential multifamily 1, and parcel number 11642-000 is currently zone residential single family 3. Petition Z2604S is a request to change the zoning on parcel number 11602-002 from residential multifamily 1 to residential multifamily 2 and change the zoning on parcel 11642-002 from residential single family 3 to residential multifamily 1. the parcel is surrounded um by the following uh zoning uh basically i got future land uses better but it's uh zoning destinations to the north you do have a single family and a three to the east you do have residential multi-family one to the south you have a mix of residential family one and single family three and to the west you have um single family next slide please So this is the map of the two parcels. The parcel there to the right, which is shaded in kind of a light tan, that is the parcel that they are looking to change from RMF1 to RMF2. And so it's an RE zone for multifamily, but they're wanting a higher density of two on that one. The other parcel, the darker colored one there, the darker orange in it, that one is currently zoned residential single family. And if you can see, there is single family pretty much predominantly around that parcel. But they want to change that to a residential multifamily one. Next slide, please. And as on the previous one, there is some wetlands on the parcel, as we talked about in the last application, which covered a good portion of the site, which would need to be mitigated before a site plan could be approved. Water management, same thing as before. Then our environmental resource permit will need to be required. And a permit application has not yet been submitted. Next slide, please. Therefore, staff finds the petition is in compliance with the city comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Therefore, staff recommendation would be for the Planning and Zoning Board to approve resolution PZLPA Z2604S. And I would like to move my application and all staff reports into the record. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

There's a. difference here this says 26-04S but in the packet it says 26-04A so which is it?

Yes it does. Mr. Angelo?

It should be S and because of the S means for a small scale amendment and the other one would be an L for large scale so I don't know where the A came from

So it's essentially a typo? Yes. OK, gotcha. Right, yes.

Yes, OK. My information, I guess, or my presentation, it's pretty much the same as what you heard before.

OK.

So I can answer any more questions you have.

OK, thank you. Do we have anyone from any party interveners? no no okay so do we have public comment anyone from the public that wishes to comment either for or against yes mr warren thank you madam chair um

I know this is preliminary and I see that the votes are here to give the rezoning and I'm fine with that. Mr. Carlucci, you mentioned that in my videos I talk about affordable housing. When I talk about affordable housing, I'm talking about affordable housing in which most people have the credit, have the income, but don't have the money for the down payment. on a single family house. I am a huge proponent of single family houses, just like there are some folks in this room that sit on the dices. They're real big on the historical district, making sure that that characteristic looks the same. When you have lived your whole life in a community of single-family homes, right, and you start putting apartments in it, I think that becomes the issue where there's no more conformity. It loses its conformity. It loses its identity as a neighborhood and as a community. And that's kind of more or less as to what I was aiming for. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any representatives from groups of people?

Again, Mr. Nelson, as I said, stated earlier for item number two and stated for item number three, we're not in agreeance with this. And also, Mr. Warren and Mr. Kadushi, pardon me if I mispronounce your name, there is already some residential area or homes there, the Lake City Villas is already there. And I was wondering why would we want to build some more homes or multifamily facilities homes in that area when we already have some, um, homes there or low funding housing there already. Why? Why now that we need to put some more housing there and why is the developer trying to put more houses there when we already have the lake city villas in that area on early street? Thank you.

Thank you. Um, Mr. Williamsburg, do you care to address that?

I'm sorry, madam here.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he's referring to. As far as multifamily, there's not really any apartment buildings in the neighborhood, so I'm not sure what the complaint is.

Thank you.

Yeah, respond to him.

He's trying to put two-story family homes, and the ones that I'm talking about is only one tier. Because when we were at the city council, they said it was going to be two-tier. And the ones I'm talking about is only one tier, which is Lake City Villas.

Thank you. Do we have? Go ahead.

Yeah, and as I want to repeat what I said before the the plan that I showed you preliminary Sam They showed before was based on the old density.

I'm asking for less than that Thank you All right, we're gonna close public comment do we have Does either party wish to cross-examine the other? Okay Okay, so the board members have any questions

All of mine have already been addressed, Madam Chair.

Okay. Do we have final arguments from either party?

No.

No? No? Okay. And seeing as we have no party interveners, I'm thinking they have no closing arguments. Okay. Mr. Martin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. 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 upon which it wishes to base a decision and vote on your recommendation to the city council concerning application Z2604S following an appropriate motion and second.

Thank you. Do we have any discussion amongst the board members? No? Okay. Any motions either to approve or disapprove?

Move to approve PZOPA Z26-04S. Okay.

I'll second that.

Okay, roll call.

Ms. McCallum?

Yes.

Ms. Wilson? Ms. Douglas? No. Ms. Johnson? Ms. Jones? Mr. Carlucci? Yes. Mr. Lydic?

Yes.

Okay, all right. And that one passes as well. Okay. So that will go to the city. And next we have a very long resolution. Mr. Angelo or Mr. Martin who's who's up.

So, Madam Chair, I can certainly read the resolution by title if you would like, but I am not advocating that. It would be up to the Chair. If you wish to waive the reading of the resolution by title, then it would probably be appropriate for Mr. Angelo to give a staff report and summary.

Let's do that. Mr. Angelo?

It's only a page and a quarter.

Yeah, I know.

All right, so before you tonight, you have a text amendment, which is to allow accessory dwelling units in the city. That's for LDR 2602. Next slide, please. So on the agenda tonight, we have what is an accessory dwelling unit, and then benefits for our community, and then the policy part of it. So what is a Necessary Dwelling Unit, or ADU, as you'll commonly hear them referred to? Florida actually defines an ADU as an ancillary or secondary living unit that has a separate kitchen, a bathroom, and a sleeping area existing either within the same structure or the same lot as the primary dwelling unit per section 163.31771 of the Florida Statue. Next slide. Some of the financial benefits, so rental income, you'll have renting your ADU out on a long-term basis or as vacation stay creates steady cash flow. This can help offset your mortgage, property taxes, and rising homeowners insurance costs. Increased property value, adding a legal permitted ADU can increase your home's total resale value, significantly making your property highly attractive to buyers looking for flexible housing and income potential. And a cost-effective alternative, building an ADU is often much cheaper than purchasing a second home or paying for an expensive independent or assisted senior living facility. Housing benefits, independent family housing, ADUs provide a comfortable and private space for aging parents or adult children returning from college, allows families to stay connected but still maintain their independency. Caregiving space, ADUs enable elderly relatives to age in place securely while staying independent. Family can be nearby to easily assist with daily living and health needs. And comfortable guest quarters easily host visitors or extended stays while giving them their own private kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area. affordable housing benefit because of the ongoing housing shortages and rising rent costs, ADUs offer a practical way to create affordable, affordably priced housing options for family and the community. And the policy, this is one of the key points in the policy is, you know, an ADU must have a separate 911 address from the primary structure. This is very important for emergency services, so if they're responding to a call, they know exactly where to go. ADUs must have a similar architectural style as the primary structure, and ideally we want them to look and blend in with the primary structure on the property. ADUs have a minimum size of 400 square feet and a maximum size of 1,100 square feet or 50% of the primary structure. And so they cannot exceed 50% of the primary structure or 1,100 square feet, whichever is larger. or whichever the smaller of the two is, sorry. And ADUs must be built to the side or to the rear of the primary structure and not located in the front yard. And any questions?

I have one question. It may be an oversight on my part. Looking at the language in here, up in section 2.1, On properties located in the A, RSF, RSFMH, or residential multifamily zoning districts that an accessory dwelling unit is built on, the property shall be homesteaded.

Yes.

So the intent of that is... Homestead a multifamily...

So you would homestead the primary structure. That portion would be homesteaded. You could still rent out the ADU, but the person would still be able to live there and then homestead it in order to be able to put the ADU on there. Essentially, without having that, you're essentially allowing duplexes without, you know, and just having rentals all over the place. And that's kind of what we want to protect against is keep the ownership, but still allowing some flexibility for somebody to make discretionary income or allow affordable housing, you know, through the ADU. Okay.

I got a question, Madam Chair. Carlucci. Where did you come up with the 400 square feet minimum? I know some people build those tiny homes that are like 200 square feet, 300. So where does the 400 come from?

So that's pretty consistent with most of the, if you go through all the jurisdictions that I researched and everything, everywhere I've seen was about 400 or 500 square feet was the minimum size of an ADU that I found. And I think anything below that, and Scott could probably answer it better than I could as far as from a building code perspective, and anything below 400 square feet would then be considered a tiny home and is a different, it doesn't have a separate kitchen and all that. and like an ADU or a small home would.

Okay.

Ms. McCallum?

Yes. If you own a mobile home, would you be allowed to put an ADU

Currently if as long as this zone single-family Yes, you would be able to do a site built One on there. We have not this one does not allow for like what they call the tiny home on wheels and or stuff like that, but as long as it matches the Existing structure and architectural style and all that then yes I

Madam Chair, if you'd allow me, I have a question.

Yes.

And this is to Mr. Lydick's point regarding homesteading, but the criteria to build an ADU would be that the property be homesteaded.

Correct.

Is that something that's going to be enforced as to a subsequent owner of the property who may choose not to homestead it?

And I haven't thought about that part of it as far as being sold later on and how that would be. But our intent was that the primary be homesteaded.

Madam Chair, I would suggest that's something that we tweak prior to getting the document in front of council. Yes. Clarifying that that's an initial permitting issue for construction, but not a requirement for ongoing or subsequent ownership.

Yes.

Because I just don't know how you would enforce that in the market.

Right, yeah, without having a deed restricted or something. Right.

I also have a question, but before I do that, can we change or amend the record to reflect that Ms. Wilson is now present? Thank you. Okay, so question, will these same requirements also apply within the historic district?

Yes.

The whole city, correct?

Yes, this would be for the whole city. So just like any other structure being built in the historic district currently would have to go through the historic district. And that's why it's important about the architectural style. The architectural style would have to be consistent with the primary structure. So that way it would keep consistent with the neighborhood and the area too.

And theoretically any construction of a Adu within the limits of the historic district would count as a major project and come before The board not be considered a minor project that's approved by city staff alone.

Yes, I

Anybody else have questions for Mr. Angelo? Thank you. Do we have anyone in the public in the audience that would like to comment?

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I may tend to be a little long-winded with this one because this one means a lot. I've talked to Mr. Angelo and I told him that I was going to vehemently oppose the aspect of homestead. And so in the spirit of Senate Bill 48 and in the spirit of House Bill 313, both ended up dying in the chamber. That's not the part that I'm concerned about. It was the spirit of the whole two bills, right? Those bills were meant not to have municipality encumbrance on developers when it comes to either building affordable houses. Most importantly, BTRs, I'm sorry, bill to rent. When you say that I have to have a property homesteaded in order to put an ADU, you're limiting the amount of affordable housing that can go in. Also, you're only saying that this can supplement someone's income if they decide to build it. So who are we doing this for, right? Are we doing it to fix the problem or are we doing it to line some people's pocket or to help pay their mortgage? We have a serious issue when it comes to affordable housing. And so if you have developers out there that can build a spec house and put a ADU on that same lot, Now you have a different ball game. And if they decide to rent it out or sell it, then one can rent the house for an affordable price and rent an ADU for an affordable price because they're able to get two pieces of property, two dwellings on one piece of property. And I just don't understand why that wasn't taken in consideration, whether it was taken in consideration. I know we talked about it. I'm going to fight it tooth and nail. I don't think that you should have to have a homestead in order to do an ADU. I think that's ridiculous. And I don't think that that is something that is prevalent across the United States of America, to your knowledge. not to my knowledge exactly in a lot of other districts where they do but across our nation is that prevalent i don't know i haven't researched okay so i would ask that we table this if we would and get more information work out the language um and not hinder developers in certain communities from being able to put affordable housing uh in those communities and other communities It's a good idea. I support ADUs. But the rollout of this presentation of this style of ADUs is encompassing and, in my opinion, bad for business. And I stand on that all the way to the Supreme Court. Thank you.

Thank you. OK. Anyone else from the public have comments? Okay, we're gonna close public comment on that. Do we have discussion amongst the board?

I've got a question for Mr. Angelo, Madam Chair. Yes, go ahead. I know originally when we were discussing ADUs, we were doing it simultaneously with tiny houses in one single text amendment. I think it was at Mr. Martin's recommendation that we split those into two different issues given the nature of them. We're now seeing this come before us as the first phase of that. How long until we can expect to see the companion to this as originally configured, the tiny house text amendment?

So currently, tiny homes are permitted in the city. The Scott Thompson build official, whenever he did the adoption of the new building code, and he adopted the section for tiny homes. So if somebody wanted to come in right now, as long as it's his own single family, they could build a tiny home, as long as it's built to the Florida building code. The only ones that aren't permitted right now in the city and I'm still doing research on that is Because of the kind of code that they're built to is tiny homes on wheels Those are built to the same code that an RV is built to And that so I'm doing a little bit more research and seeing how other communities have handled those but as far as a site built As long as it's built to the Florida building code.

That is an allowable use right now and You know to mr. Warren's point regulations adopted uh as far as it relates to tiny homes there are no encumbrances related to homesteading as it as it applies to those structures correct uh repeat the beginning of the question for me

I'll just repeat the question if you would.

For what Mr. Thomas was able to get through in adopting the new version of Florida Building Code, there's no encumbrances on tiny homes similar to what we have in this text amendment in front of us right now that limits an owner's ability to do anything based on homestead status.

Yeah, so with tiny homes, they could do those non-homesteaded, same thing as any other site-built home, as long as they're built to the Florida building code.

Yes, sir.

Scott Thomas, the growth management director. To be clear, what we adopted was an appendix of the Florida building code. So it really kind of covers the building code. It doesn't really cover our land development regulations. So it's a little bit different. And also just so we're on the same page, the house bill and what we've tried to do with the homestead is Part of the House bill, one of the requirements that we were supposed to follow, like Mr. Warren said it died, says that one of the requirements was that the owner of a parcel in which an accessory dwelling unit is constructed reside in the primary unit. So that's why we were looking at homestead properties.

Thank you. Does anyone else have questions or discussion amongst the board, rather?

Could you reiterate why the homestead thing is in there? I know you touched on it briefly, said something about duplexes. Why exactly is the homestead thing in there?

Yeah, so the homestead essentially, you know, right now it protects the single-family zoning district. So if you allow a rental in the primary and a rental in the ADU, you essentially just allowed a multifamily complex on that property, a duplex. Kind of what we were talking about in some of the previous applications, you've got an area that's predominantly single-family homes, and by allowing both properties to be rentals, you've essentially allowed a duplex, a multifamily to go in there.

Mr. Martin.

Yes, Madam Chair. Should the board recommend this to the council, I would suggest that maybe it be recommended to the council, provided council works with staff and the city attorney to provide clarity on this. this homestead issue. The more I'm hearing it, I don't know that it's necessarily going at exactly the heart of what the concern is. For example, and it just may be a matter of wording, but There is the scenario where someone has a beach house, has a house here in Lake City that is their primary dwelling, and for tax purposes they choose to homestead their beach house because that's where you have the greatest acceleration of value. So you want to take advantage of the Save Our Homes amendments and all of those kinds of things on your secondary house at the beach. not your primary dwelling here in Lake City that you're not gonna homestead. Under that scenario, this would allow someone who may be a 40-year resident of Lake City living in a home here in Lake City as their primary residence, but just happens to not have declared their homestead on that primary dwelling, it would preclude them from developing an ADU on that property, even though it's their primary dwelling. because they chose to homestead their beach property instead, their second house or their vacation house for property tax purposes. So I don't know that the homestead approach is the way to go about creating the limitation that staff is looking to do. I'm not advocating that there be or not be a limitation. Just using the homestead criteria to do it may not be the the most effective way to go about doing it.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Warren, I saw your hand up. I did close public comment. If you have a short comment or a short question, I'll allow it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I know that you feel reversed with a lot of stuff that goes on as far as Florida Building Code, and I was surprised that when the building inspector was up here, he did not mention that in the Florida Building Code that a duplex is considered a single-family home. You can actually put it in a residential family three. The problem is we just have not amended it into our land use development. And so when Mr. Angelo says that you're creating duplexes, no, you're not. You're creating what single family allow you to do once we amend our text to match what the Florida Building Code already says. And that's the problem. We're so far behind in time that we hadn't caught up with the amendments that we need to have. So that's not the case.

Thank you. Do we have any further discussion amongst the board?

I think we should probably, in my opinion, recommend approval on the condition that it's rewritten with Mr. Angelo and Mr. Martin to make sure it's on the up and up and we can possibly avoid the homestead thing or do it a different way, like you said.

Right, yeah, so we'll need a... Anybody want to make a motion to table the resolution or what do we want to do here? How do you guys want to do it?

Madam Chair, your motion currently on the floor is to approve.

Okay, I understand.

With the recommendation to the city council.

The request that Mr. Martin, Mr. Angelo, and the parties get involved and amend the text before it hits council.

My bad, I misunderstood. No, you're good. Okay, so does anybody want to second that? Second. Okay. Okay. Show of hands or roll call? Roll call. Will you have a roll call vote, please?

Ms. McKellen?

Yes.

Ms. Wilson? Yes. Ms. Douglas?

Yes, with the provision that it goes to.

Mr. Carr?

Yes.

Mr. Lydic?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. We seem to have a workshop item here.

Yes.

Okay. Mr. Angelo? All right.

All right. So for tonight, as far as the workshops, it's going to be more of me just kind of discussing what we're intending to do and to pre-lead to a bigger workshop at the next P&Z meeting where I'll do a little more presentation, kind of supporting what we're looking to do. But I want to introduce it to the board. That way you'll have some time to kind of think about the next workshop and can have a good, solid discussion. So that was the intent of this workshop tonight. So what we're looking to do is essentially eliminate the parking regulations for the city and at the minimum parking requirements. So right now, if a developer comes in, they say, you know, I want to build, you know, X store, whatever it is, and I want to build this many square feet. We figure up the parking based off of what our code is. And like a Lowe's or Home Depot may be required to have 500 parking spaces. Or sometimes you may have a small office space that is required to have 25 parking spaces, but they may have three people working in the office space. And we want to put language in there that would mirror the ITE standards and that we would recommend, you know, that go through the ITE standards. Anything below what the ITE standards and anybody that doesn't know what the ITE is, it's International Transportation Engineering. So that's what the engineers are using to design the parking lots and everything, and decide what kind of parking is needed. A lot of times these businesses know more what they need parking-wise than what we do. And essentially when we require 25 parking spaces on a small office space, and let's say that maybe they only need 15 parking spaces, You're looking at parking spaces about $5,000 to $7,000 per parking space. So if they eliminate 10 parking spaces, they're essentially eliminating about $50,000 to $70,000 worth of their construction cost. And we don't want to eliminate to where anybody can just put three parking spaces and call it a business. But at the same time, we want to... let the development public kind of decide what is right for their parking. And at the end of the day, that's who's going to suffer. If they don't provide enough parking for the business, patrons aren't going to be able to come visit their business adequately. And so we want to kind of turn that over a little bit more to the engineer. If an engineer, some of the things that we're thinking about discussing at the next workshop would be if it's about 25% below what the engineer's recommendation is or the IT recommendation is, that would have to be supported by a traffic study and show, or a parking study showing why they need less than what the international standards are. And so kind of what we're thinking about doing, we're going to have a bigger presentation at the next workshop, but I wanted to be able to introduce it, kind of get some feedback over here. But I know it's kind of very new. And but one of the big reasons why we wanted to do this is as an economic boom and that most communities that have done this have really seen a big economic increase. Also, with the amount of stormwater that we have in the area, If we're overly burdensome on parking, then they have to put in a bigger stormwater pond, which is very expensive. So sometimes by eliminating some of the parking, they may not have to put that stormwater pond in or could put a smaller stormwater pond in and have more green space or a safer parking lot because they can actually afford to actually design a parking lot that's safe for the community. Okay.

Thank you.

Any thoughts or questions or anything?

Anybody have questions? Anybody in the audience have a question? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Angelo.

Madam Chair, I just want to say about that I think it's a good idea because I've had business owners like the owner of Retro City Arcade talk to me previously. He wanted to expand to the spot next door but couldn't because it required like an extra 20 parking spots and he couldn't afford that. So I think it's a good idea.

okay thank you so we will look forward to the next presentation okay i there are no other business before the board move to adjourn second all right oh sorry hand vote okay now all right this meeting is adjourned so we will go to yep thank you So we will call the Board of Adjustment meeting to order. Same roll call. Everybody had a chance to read the minutes from last month, hopefully. Do we have any additions, comments, anything?

No, Madam Chair, and I move for their approval. Second.

OK. Show of hands. OK. And we have no old business, no new business, no workshop items. So.

Move to adjourn.

second all right meetings adjourned so we will call the historic preservation agency meeting to order same roll call everybody had a chance to look at the minutes any revisions comments anything move to approve second show of hands Okay, we have no old business and we have no new business before the board, but we do have an item that was administratively approved, Mr. Angelo.

All right, so this is COA 2605. It is for 281 North Marion, which is Marion Street Deli right down the road here. And they were looking to replace the existing roof, which is a TPO roof right now, with a new TPO roof. And so we just had them do the administrative approval. And this is one of those buildings where you do not see the roof.

Okay. Anybody have questions for Mr. Angelo? No? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one. Yeah. Oh, sorry.

Mr. Carlucci.

I saw the product specification sheet didn't have a product approval number listed on there. Is there a reason for that? Is that just because they put in the whole package?

It just probably didn't get in the historic package. I think it's in the permit package that they submitted, because our permit techs are pretty good about making sure they have those.

Okay, that's it. Anything else? No. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay, we have nothing else before the board. We have no workshop items.

Move to approve, or adjourn, sorry.

So he's to approve.

Okay, meeting's adjourned.