p.m. >> Uh Christine, uh do we have a quorum and proper notice been given? >> One correction. It is 5:51 p.m. >> Oh, good. I'm glad you saw that. 5:51 p.m. >> And yes, quum and proper notice.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh can I get approval of minutes for the September 4th, 2025 LPA meeting? >> So move. >> Second. >> Okay. It's been moved and properly second. Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> I. >> Mr. Holland. Hi, >> Miss Lee. >> I >> Mr. Ozbody.
>> I >> Chairman Hawkins. >> Hi. >> Okay. Next up, we have consideration and discussion of ordinance number 20-29. >> Sasha, was that Tom? >> Uh, it's Kyle. >> Kyle. >> Kyle. >> Good evening.
>> Good evening, Kyle. >> Good evening. This is ordinance number 25-29 for a future land use map amendment request for proposed annex properties for alternate property for alternate key 1734231.
The applicant has been championed for modern new home construction inc. The total acreage is 045 acres requesting to go from county urban medium to residential office transition as well as a suburban neighborhood design district.
This map shows the location here on main main avenue and Rockport streets as well as Main Street to the east. A little bit further out with Quail Hollow subdivision to the south and
Orange Avenue to the north. The property currently houses a duplex structure shown here and it's contiguous to the uh to the city limits to the west.
Again, a little further out. This is the current future land use county urban medium. You'll notice here that the request is to go to RT with RT being primarily located in this area along Orange Avenue.
This is the proposed RT request. The generalized utilities are shown here with uh utility capacity is available. However, you'll note that the brown line showing wastewater uh right now is currently down in the Quail Hollow
subdivision. Uh there's no impact from flood zone or wetland and uh in a high recharge area, but the soils are suitable for development. This was properly noticed and advertised
um September 8th and 15th. The newspaper ran the ads. Uh property was posted on the 8th. Mailings were also uh mailed on the 8th and I believe the county was notified on the 29th of August. So we evaluated this based on chapter
163 our future land use map our future land use element appendix and of course 102 of the LDRs. You'll notice here the structure again currently uh residential with a duplex. A little bit further out, you'll notice
that the area is p predominantly single family residential with some infill opportunities. And you'll notice here that uh Orange Avenue to the north uh has more of a mixture of uses. And this gives you a little bit of
breakdown. And I won't go through all of them, but a little bit of breakdown of what those uses are. Here are the current zoning, current county zoning. >> And again, here you'll notice the RT designations are only fronting Orange
Avenue with general commercial and MCR also uh fronting orange. And I will note that there is a special provision provision one in the uh comp plan policy related to residential office transition that does limit RT to major thoroughare
to thorough affairs near thorough affairs. So we found no wetlands present no 100ear flood plane transportation and wet water and sewer capacity are available again with the caveat that sewer issue to the south. Um we found
however that it is not consistent with a comprehensive plan. Um that it uh is more of a single family area in nature. Um and that RT because it allows for other uses higher intensity multifamily as well as some professional office uses
that it might uh hinder future infill development of single family residential in that area. So we recommend to not transmit this future land use request to city commission for your consideration. Um
again staff is available for any questions. I believe the applicant is present as well and that's my presentation. >> Did you did you Kyle did you say you recommend to >> to not transmit? >> That's what I thought you said. Okay. >> Did you get any uh response from any of
the neighbors? Not not on this one. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> Why? >> I see transmitting. >> Is the applicant do you want to hear from the applicant and public input as
well? >> Yeah. Yeah. Is the applicant here? Would he like to speak? >> Okay. Uh Tom, do you have any cards on this matter? >> Uh not on this one. >> Okay. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on this matter?
Okay, seeing none closed. Okay. Uh, can I get a motion to transmit? >> Following stats recommendation. >> Okay. Same here. >> Okay. Okay. Seeing none, uh, it fails for transmitt.
>> Okay. All right. Uh, roll call. Okay. Now, >> Kyle, >> just wanted to make sure. Is this going to affect the the entire group of ordinances?
>> Well, I I would assume so because if you uh deny this future land use request, then at least ordinance 29 and 30 would not be able to be heard. Correct. I believe >> uh well the applicant not being here we there's really no other land use to be discussed so I just wanted to make sure
for agenda updates that we get that on the record >> and the applicant knew that that this was going tonight correct >> yes sir >> and the denial recommendations >> and the denial recommendations >> okay >> so then the first uh we'll just the set
of ordinances uh which is 28 25 28 29 and 30 would be removed moved from the commission's agenda. >> Thank you. >> 28, 29, and 30. Got it. >> Okay. Is there anything else? >> If we uh just a quick question. If if we
uh followed with another motion to deny it, uh would that put it in a different time requirement to come back before us? >> If if it's not transmitted to the commission, um it doesn't at LPA level, it wouldn't affect it. At commission
level, there's that practice of nine months. Okay. Denial. >> No, no other no other questions. >> Okay. >> We have one more. >> Okay. One more. >> All right. Thank you again. Uh this is ordinance 2532
related to a proposed annexation via ordinance 2531 for two properties located uh located here along County Road 44 east of Sparrow Lane and bounded to the north
by County Road 452. Property owner is John E and Betty E Dowy. The applicant is Brett Jones, PA and MAS Development LLC. The request is for 20 is for 20 plus one acres plus or minus acres uh to go from
county urban low to suburban residential and again to assign a suburban neighborhood design district. Again, here's the location of the property. This property currently houses a residence as well as a uh a former Orange Grove. This is no longer, I
believe, a currently operating Orange Grove. And again, along its uh for uh Sparrow Lane to the west with Grand Island Reserve to the south across County Road 44. Here's the existing future land use. The
proposed suburban residential land use, which would allow up to five units an acre. Generalized utilities are located here with water and waste water water to the north, waste water to the south. There is no impact to the general flood
zone areas or generalized wetlands and it is in a low to moderate recharge area. The soils are mostly suitable for development and this was advertised on September 8th and will be published for a second reading and is not scheduled I believe
till October 23rd for second reading. So it will be it will be published again in either October 10th or 13th for second reading notice. Mailings were uh sent out also on the 8th and the county was notified on August 29th.
Once again, we reviewed based on chapter 163, the future land use element and chapter 102 of the LDRs. We found that there is existing service to serve and uh utilities to serve and capacity to serve this proposed
development or proposed land use. Um, we found it consistent with the city future landings and comprehensive plan, consistent with the strate future landings designations and established patterns and we recommend transmitt of this to city commission for your recommendation
and approval. >> Its current density is urban which is >> urban low which is four units an acre >> and going to >> five >> five units an acre. Any questions? >> No questions. >> No.
>> Tom, you have any cards? >> Uh, I do have a couple cards and then I believe the applicant is also present. >> Uh, let's let's do the cards first and then the applicant. >> Okay. Uh, Brenda Kane. Hi, good evening. Thank you for taking
my questions and I have a lot of them. So, probably most of them you'll tell me that it's not at this time and feel free to say that and I'll come back and I'll ask them again. >> Uh, I'll tell you now. We won't respond to you. So, >> okay. >> But you can ask your questions because
the applicant is here and he can address them. >> Okay. So my first question is why five ac or why five homes on one acre or five acres? That's a lot of homes in that particular area and there is a lot of
traffic on that road and from what I understand they want to have development going where there's traffic coming and going on both sides between 44 and 452. And on 452, 452 takes a lot of overflow
traffic from 44. We get constant traffic out in this area where cars are going in excess of 75 to 90 miles an hour all day long every day. So, might want to think about a traffic study in this area to
put that many homes in this area. Um my second question to the homeowner or whoever is going to answer these questions if they are what actually they are considering putting is it single family multi homes
um that's pretty much pretty much my question for that one is the design features of it and my third question that I have is that there is existing wetlands that are across the street from
this property on 452. Um, what is the concern for that property? Do you plan on filling it in and building on that property? And then my next question is is do you have any intention of
increasing the highway? Is it going from two lanes to three lanes to four lanes? Because traffic is really pretty bad. Next question that I have is also on your power lines. Do you plan on annexing the rest of Grand Island on 452
into Eustace or if you're leaving that as it is? >> Those are my questions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh and then I also have a card. I'm sorry. I'm having
last name Kain. Um I'm having trouble reading the first name. Or is this is that Brenda again? >> Yeah, she's I think she told me that I had to fill it out for both >> for both meetings. Okay. So, I'll I'll
put uh one I'll hold one in reserve for the city commission. Okay. >> Um I some of those questions I think need to be answered by the applicant, but some of those questions can be answered by the city. Uh would you like me to answer some of those questions? Yeah, go ahead and answer the ones that
you can answer first. >> Sure. So, um the um as far as the five units per acre. That is our um that is what single family residential or SR allows up to five units an acre. So, it
doesn't mean that the developer is planning five units an acre. It means that they can build up to five units an acre. Um but when you build in all of the the infrastructure and the open space uh they won't get to five units an acre. Uh but that's the category. Uh we
have another category called mixed commercial residential that allows up to 12 units an acre. Uh again that five is just the category. Uh but the actual development will be something lower than that five. Um the uh as far as um you
had talked about uh roads, uh both County Road 452 and County Road 44 are county roads. Uh the county will require the developer to potentially do some improvements to those roads. Uh but the
actual widening of those roads will not be the developer's responsibility. Uh that'll be something the county does. And so that's not a city responsibility in that those are not city roads. Uh there were some questions about wetlands. Um the developer has to uh
handle all storm water uh and make sure that there is no more storm water than currently comes off the property. Uh so the the post construction condition uh they can't release any more storm water than they're releasing right now. Um but
and they'll have to do it in such a way where they're not negatively impacting the surrounding properties. Uh that said, they won't have to do improvements to the property across the street because that's not their property. Um I'm not sure if there were any other
questions uh that I might be able to answer. >> I think those were the ones. Okay. Uh is there anyone else that would like to speak on this matter before the applicant uh comes up?
>> Okay, seeing none, uh the applicant here. >> Good evening, Brett Jones, 700 Alma Street. here for moss development and clerk is gonna allow a slideshow. >> Can you pull that up a little bit? >> Yes, mayor.
>> Thank you. >> Is this better? >> I can speak from the diaphragm if needed. Um I have a fear of speaking too loud into microphones. It's interesting. I don't know what happened to me, but I got damaged at some point that way. Anyhow, we're we're here making this
request. Uh thank you for staff support and this uh we appreciate the recommendation. We worked hard with staff. Wanted to submit some things and I'd like to show you on the on the slideshow, but I want to just do some administrative groundwork here. You know, we all know that you've done quite
a bit of work with a consultant in a new code that got pulled away by Senate Bill 180 is the cleanest way to say it. So, I'm going to refer to that as the aspirational code and what we would have called the old old code is the new code. So, I think the report by staff, I know the report
by staff is under the old code, but what I'd like to show in the slideshow, which is short, is that this neighborhood has been designed and the intention is to move it forward under the aspirational code. And depending on what happens in the next legislative session, which will
finish before anything could ever finish with this neighborhood, um we intend to, if there's a fix for that legislation, be in compliance with your new aspirational code that you worked on. So you'll notice that the design centers are to that level. Thank you.
It's just this right here. So we're calling it Grand Crossings. It's not necessarily a permanent name. Um you'll see this is just a reflection of the standards, the maximum density under your code. Um you'll see the suburban
neighborhood that is in the current code. you'll see the DA standards, which I'll mention in a second, uh, based on a conversation that I had with your city attorney as to how we can memorialize this elevated design standard that we're that we're going to agree to if you would like us to, we're we're going to
build to that standard. Anyways, this is a snapshot of what we think the neighborhood will look like. As the city manager said, the geometry of these things change when you start engineering, as all of you know very well. Uh, but it is intended to be a single family home neighborhood in compliance with your aspirational code
because honestly when we met with staff many months ago, we thought that was still going to be the code. So you'll notice that it's different than the stuff that has come before you in years past. Um, part of compliance with the with the well with both codes, but with the new code is the playground or some
people call them tots kids. So I call them playgrounds and the storm water pond. We're going to amenitize that and have a walking trail around that as well. other elements of the community. Um, we wanted to include some elevations. When we spoke to members of the community, what we realized is that
um, one of the struggles in in Eustace as well as every other jurisdiction in Lake County is for builders that come in and build the same house over and over and over and over again. So, I've included some different elevations to show you different types um, not only in
elevations, but typologies. And what your new code calls for is differentiz lots. You want variations not only in elevations and design styles from coastal to I would call it Florida craftsman and then Florida traditional or any other architectural style that's
allowed under your new design code. I think Kimley Horn prepared it for you. But also the the the the variation in the setbacks of the facades of the houses. You'll see the difference. Some of the garages in front, some of the garages behind. You have front porch on
some scenarios um and not in others. You have a J entry garage on the one on the left. So, we want to show you that these are some of the styles for the different elevations to let you know that we read through the new aspirational code. We understand that. Your staff helped us understand that. What's my next slide
say? Uh this is important. We analyzed the site and we realized that Sparrow Lane is on what I would call the western edge of it, if you will. And we didn't want to upset the folks who lived around there which it looks you know may have lived there for a very long time their way of life. So we designed the neighborhood such that it would not
affect Sparrow Lane. It is distant the entrance to the neighborhood is distant from Sparrow Lane. And also when we designed the prop the the project we made sure that there was a significant buffer on that western edge of the property and the minimum distance from the edge of the property to the backyard
of the first house that would be on the western side is 60 feet or larger. So, it's given that big buffer to Sparrow Lane, which looks like um the Lake County that we all kind of grew up in. And you know, we're going to do enhanced buffers honestly because that's what the
market calls for. Um al as well as the fact that it's referred to in the aspirational. >> Can you go back to that last one, Brett? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh, do you plan to have any any fence or anything?
>> There's there's not a plan to have a fence. I don't know that it's that level of of detail. I don't know if you like some people like I think it's an aesthetics choice. Some people like fences, some people don't like fences. What we do plan to have is landscape the perimeter unless unless you have a problem with it, but I don't think most
people have a problem with the landscape perimeter. >> Okay. And I and I know our our new new code um stated a committee meeting. Our old code doesn't, but we would highly recommend it. Yeah, Mike, if it goes to that level to have a committee meeting, >> we received what I would call very good
advice from your city attorney. So, between >> well, next will be first hearing this next meeting. This is fun, by the way, doing LPA then than then city council. But, uh between that and whatever comes next, we plan to and uh we'll make it at a convenient time and a good location.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'm happy for the top lot. >> Me, too. >> Uh, please only speak at the microphone, please. >> I I know that area logically out there
is residential, but I I mean, it would be nice to have more commercial um out that way uh in some form or shape or um there's a lot of homes out there, but there's not a lot of there's not a lot of services. So, um, you know, one of my
one of my aspirations is trying to get more commercial into the city. I think we have enough houses, but I I think there needs to be a little bit more commercial out that way. >> Yeah. Well, thing that concerns me is 92. That's a lot.
>> That's That's a lot. >> Okay. >> So, it's five versus four minutes. Yeah. And that and that's uh difference. >> Sorry, Mr. Jones. Is that >> that density is that was that net or gross? Um
>> that we haven't calculated the so that's the overall if you take the in uh excuse me if you use only the developable land. So if we apply it over gross which some people will tell you which will get you a lower number if you know how the math works. I haven't calculated that way >> and and also it's not been sight
planned. It's not been engineered and to the extent that you're familiar with development. Um, and as your manager mentioned, you know, those numbers are legal maximums. You always come less than them and the geometry of the way that roads work and drainage and storm water. And then you get in there, you do geotechnical soil analysis.
>> I know, I will bet you lunch that that is going to change. I don't know what the number is and that's something that we'll actually know at site planning when we spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars on civil engineering, >> right? >> But it will be less than the maximum. We will not be requesting any kind of I will not represent this client and
request any kind of um waiver variance anything like that. I mean we're going to be within the boundaries that the city has set. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. >> Maybe you want to speak a little bit more about the developers agreement. So that >> I don't know if you want to do that now or the next one, but might as well do it now. >> May as well.
>> Might as well. So I spoke earlier about the code that we were forced to revert back to because of what happened in state uh at state in state law but the aspirational code and actually the city attorney and I spoke about this at length and so the question is how do we
agree to it and that's the right word and and it's not to oversimplify but we reached an agreement. So it's what we proposed I think jointly is to enter into a development agreement and she and I and our and our teams will work on a development agreement that voluntarily
the property owner will agree with the city to adhere to the higher standards which we know are not law. Um but we will voluntarily agree to those make sure that they're binding on successors in the signs just in case we all die and it's somebody else they're still up to the same standard and if they want to change it they have to come and be
permission to change that standard so that you have something that you can hold out and say, "Well, this this property owner developer came and they agreed to our new standard." So, maybe the legislature yanked it back from us, but it worked for them. Can, you know, can you make it work for you? So, I have a high degree of comfort that I know how
to write that and and I think the city attorney does, and you can ask her if she does as well, but we'll work in good faith to get that done before the second reading so that it can be agenda on the same night. So, you know, you're not giving a thing. And then I say, "Haha, tricked you." you know, make that
business on the same night. And if we're not done, we'll continue voluntarily or we'll agree to continue that second reading until we're done with that DA so that it can be heard on the same night so there is no trickery. >> Well, you know, that's um I mean we we appreciate that, but didn't we have this
conversation um about the other annexation? >> I need to clarify >> about it being a a condition of annexation. >> It's not a condition of annexation. Um, this is something that is being done as far as the developers agreement voluntarily. And here's why. The uh lot
sizes that they're asking for are varied in size. So, under our current code, which as it applies now, the the sizes uh are like 55 um by something else. And basically, it would reduce the amount of homes that they would be able to have
just based on the size of the lot. Now, in order to get smaller lots and have that variety, that's what we incorporated into the new code, the aspirational code, you could ask for those through a waiver process and essentially incorporate those design
guidelines. So the interest of providing those varied facades and and varied options of homes, single um you know first floor homes just you know versus duplex not duplexes two stories depending on the the families they would
have to do an agreement with us in order for that to happen under the aspirational code. So they came voluntarily and had these meetings ahead of time. Now, even if they didn't do that, right, and we talked about this as well, their worst case scenario would be
the SR, which is still the the lot sizes. So, they would be losing approximately somewhere between four to six homes after they do the math by complying with the sizes of the lots, but they would still be able to um have the construction. So, that's the difference there. It's not they're not
So, as it stands today, they could still annex with everything. The only reason they're doing the development agreement is because they need varied lots and incorporating the new facads. >> Does does that make we're not we're not restricting anything from them? They can
still build. >> I I know and once again I I I appreciate the explanation, but wasn't Mr. Sawchuk willing to enter into a like a development agreement to limit what would go on that property that we
considered two weeks ago? And it was kind of like we can't do that because that's a condition of annexation. >> We cannot condition annexation on that. Yeah. >> Um this was also >> or is it different because that was GC and this is residential. >> Well, it was GC but um we cannot do
those types of agreements at a meeting. >> Oh, >> there are due process concerns. Uh there had to be notice provided and it was a restriction of use and also um >> just the entire process itself. So that makes sense. >> Mr. Jones. Yeah. He met with >> Yes.
>> development services. He also had a meeting with myself and the city um administration >> and this was their proposal. They came to us voluntarily with what they wanted. >> So that's the difference. >> Okay. Okay. All right. >> Mr. Chair, I move ordinance number 2532
be sent to the city commission for >> consideration. >> Okay. It's been first and properly second. Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> I. >> Mr. Mr. Holland. >> Hi, >> Miss Lee. >> I >> Mr. As >> I, >> Chairman Hawkins,
>> I >> Okay, that's it for the LPA. Uh, we are going to adjourn back at 6:25.