is the local planning agency meeting. It is now 5:32 on January 22nd, 2026. We will officially call this meeting to order. Christine, is there a quorum present and proper notice given? >> Yes.
>> First on our agenda tonight is approval of minutes for December 9th, local the 2025 local planning agency meeting. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay, we have a first and a second. Any further discussion
hearing? None. Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft, >> I. >> Mr. Hawkins, >> I. >> Mr. Holland, >> not here. Mr. Ozbody, >> I. >> Chairperson Lee, >> I. >> Now we'll go to consideration with
discussion. Sasha, will you help us with that? >> Yes. Uh, we'll be starting with ordinance number 26-01. And this will be the first reading for uh development agreement and LPA. You'll hear it again in the city commission meeting. So that's ordinance number
26-01, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Eustace, Florida, approving and authorizing the execution of of a development agreement between the city of Eustace and Grand Island Crossings Crossings LLC, a Florida limited liability company for the development of
approximately 19.96 acres of real property into a single family residential subdivision, providing for implementation, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Mr. Lane. >> Hey, good evening. For the record, Mike Lane, development services director. Uh
just a couple of additional items about uh the project here. Uh the the project is actually a single family subdivision with 40, 50, and 60 foot wide lots. It's 19.96 acres as was pointed out. Uh the
developer Grand Island crossings. The current use is agricultural civiculture and that'll probably stay that way until the actual approval and uh I guess the uh the issuance of a uh a site development permit for the the property.
So uh again this is actually a u a development agreement issue tonight and so uh I thought what we would do is at least kind of share what the development agreement does and what it doesn't do. So uh at this point the the development agreement establishes the the rights uh
for development and obligates um the uh the developer to certain things. It sets some subdivision design uh open space requirements and lot standards uh for the developer. uh it incorporates some voluntary design standards uh from ordinance 25-09
which was approved last year as well as the 2025 uh design standards and guidelines that were adopted last year. Uh it also confirms uh the consistency with the comp plan and it doesn't vest lot yield or uh the any future land use
changes. And so what it doesn't do, it doesn't approve a subdivision plat nor guarantee any kind of specific lot count. Uh it it doesn't wave the land development regulations
uh unless it's explicitly stated in that agreement. Uh it doesn't obligate city funds, nor does it create any precedent for any future projects. So um as far as the uh the project itself, we were submitted uh a a graphic
a plan a concept plan which is basically illustrative. Uh it really didn't have much narrative tied to that actual plan. But uh basically the the final design is going to be determined at the platting stage. So right now what you're seeing is or what what I will show you here
shortly and what is part of the packet is actually the concept plan itself. Um the um administrative approval uh should be allowed for the minor modifications to that that plan during the DRC stage. Um there is is probably going to be a
lot mix adjustment that's made right now. Uh the lot count if you'll count the count the number of rectangles if you will somewhere around the 95 range on that plan. Uh and we anticipate it probably being a lot less than that. So
again, the typical standards that are going to be tied to it, maximum height 35 ft, maximum lot area is 4,000 square feet, maximum lot width 40 ft wide. Uh the the setbacks are basically going to be defined for front loaded, rear
loaded, and zero lot lines. Uh the uh the minimum building separations 10 ft. And uh the impervious service target as per the land development regulations is going to be equal to or less than that 40% subdivisionwide. Here we go. So here's the the actual
plan itself as noted. Um you know we anticipate that being um modified significantly during the the development review stage and by the time when you guys see it at the uh the preliminary plat stage it it will probably look much different than this.
>> So so why not just why not just now give us what they're trying to do. Why do this one? Well, see a lot of early on their engineer hasn't been engaged to actually get out and and really measure things. So, by the time when they measure, they throw in the dimensions
and they actually throw in like storm water uh review with the St. John's water management, it's going to look a lot different than this. >> Hey, Mike, this is the the very preliminary stages of this, >> correct? So,
uh, so we don't know if they'll put a back entrance for like emergency >> at this stage. We've not had those discussions, but it's certainly, uh, something that could be considered because there is a road on the north side and the west side of of the project. Now, we did, uh, early on, I
think this is maybe concept number two. Concept number one actually showed uh, the the use of that street that's that's just to the west. I'm trying to remember. Terra Lane maybe is what it's called.
>> And uh I think the county uh pretty much had conversations with them and I I think they had to back off of that. I think the county did not want that to happen. >> Okay. >> But I it's pro you said Sparrow Lane County Road, but it's important to note
that North and South are also county roads. >> Oh yes. >> And so access is largely going to be uh a county review. Mhm. >> Um I mean we have certain subdivision requirements for access >> but in the end driveway cuts and access
in and out will be county review. >> Correct. Oh, and what's interesting is and I I think most of of the projects that you guys have seen before, they we've not shared the the elevations, but but with
this one, we thought it would be important to note that uh especially since we're dealing with the the 2025 development standards and guidelines, it would kind of show you what they're proposing. Now, what's interesting about th this graphic here is the columns on
the left and the middle. Okay, those are and again this is what they've submitted. Uh but those those two columns there, those six little blocks there, those are typically what we're used to seeing here. Those are typically, you know, it's rare that we
have the two stories, but the Grafton Ridge subdivision did have the two stories and they kind of look very similar to those on the the bottom left in the middle there. But the the area that that last column that's on the right, you can see that's going to be their rear loaded product because they
have no garages. I mean, and that's that's certainly something that uh you know, our code requires. So, those garages are going to have to be behind that facade that's there. And though the the the top two very well could be, you know, a 40 foot wide product. My
suspicion is is the one on the bottom might be more of a 50 foot product on that very bottom right corner. um on this particular group you know the the actual left column it is also that's
also a rear loaded product there with those three struct those three blocks there the ones uh the six blocks that are in the middle and on the right column uh my suspicion is is those are going to be the 60 foot wide lots because what you see here are double car garages right there and those double car
garages are are somewhere in the neighborhood of of 18 ft wide So, those are most more than likely going to be the 60 foot product right there for those guys. So, uh again, um as far as
the developer enhancements, uh the developer basically is going to adopt the the the key elements in ordinance 259. Uh 25% of the 4050 uh or or 40 and 50 foot lots. Uh they're going to include two-story homes. 25% of all
the lots are going to include a an 8 foot porch and a p or a patio. Um and they're encouraging or the I guess the development itself is going to encourage varied setbacks as we initially discussed. They're not not all
going to to basically be the same, you know, setback or the same uh distance from the roadway in the front. So, um, and they're they're really right now keeping the options open for the alleys. And as I said, it looks like they may
wind up having to have alleys if they're going to have the uh the rear loaded type plans there. They they will have a 15oot buffer around most of the subdivision, although that area that is um to the south, uh, I think it's maybe
Service Trucks, Inc. has a business there on 44. uh we're going to require a 20 foot setback from that industrial use that's there for for those lots that are adjacent there. As is typical, we're going to require 25 foot open space or 25% open space. Uh
the storm water areas are going to have to be permitted by St. John's. Um and the subdivision because it is over or or between the the the 55 to to 99 lot range. Our code's going to require them to have at least an acre. That's where
the one acre comes into to play. >> Isn't most of that Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. >> But is the most of that going to be the storm water pond? >> Well, that's what they're proposing now. But as >> So so we got a subdivision that doesn't really have any any amenities, park space, >> right?
>> Well, they they must they must no playground, no tot we we we review this under DRC. So trust me, this is all part of what we'll be we'll be hammering them over, okay? >> Uh and discussing with them at at that point. Now, when we talk about storm
water, the storm water ponds, as per our our approval last year, they've got to prove that that storm water is going to definitely be an an amenity uh that that is that that is viable as a a park. you know, whether they they put benches and and a a park around that, you know,
those are things that we're going to make sure that that they do before we actually will allow that to be counted as open space. >> Okay. >> Okay. And again, in typical fashion, when we review these things, we're going to make sure the internal streets are built to city standards and that that
they're dedicated uh as public rightways. We anticipate that uh the culde-sacs are going to be discouraged. When you look at the graphic, you see one. Uh it may be that we we we come to terms with the one that they're proposing, but again, our regulations do
try to discourage those culde-sacs. Um we're going to require pedestrian and um and bicycle connectivity and the the final access is going to be subject to fire and and engineering and the DRC review there. What about the Sorry, Mike.
>> Um I know our our new LERs had like a landscaping regulations for some of the trees. Were they planning on doing that too or >> Well, see again DR the development review committee we're going to be required to submit that landscape plan and we're going to encourage them to to wrap that storm water pond with with
trees as as per the adjustments that were made last year. >> Mike Mike, I'm sorry if I could interrupt you for a moment. Um, Madame Mayor, I just wanted to address the storm water 1acre discussion um that we just had. That was actually one of
the items that was discussed with the developer council and city administration and what the um the compromise was. And this related to the fact that we didn't just want it to be 1 acre of storm water, but in order for them to have configurations, they
couldn't have the nonfragmented component to it to get to one acre. So the actual agreement before you um which is uh that would be page seven sorry page five going on to page six uh
discusses the 1 acre component and basically what we've included there is that uh the park park and recreation area shall be configured to provide recreational utility pedestrian access and safety. So it shall it shall not
consist of residual fragmented or inaccessible areas that do not function as recreational amenities. So we're talking trails, we're talking giving them um a tot lot. We're you know it may not be like one whole acre but it will
be comprised of usability for recreation for the um for the residents and it is of course uh determined through our development review process. And then the storm waters facilities, they may be incorporated into a park or recreational area only where such facilities are
designed and permitted to function as an amenity. Again, consistent with safety requirements, applicable storm water and environmental. So that's what came to us as far as a discussion. Um because of the one minimum of the one
acre, it's going to be peace meal in a way. It has to be because of the the way the community is, but we wanted to focus on usability, not just um meeting the open space without providing any of that. And that was one of the compromises that they offered and that's what's in the contract today.
>> Okay. >> My just wanted to reiterate that. >> Okay. >> Is that your recollection? I know the applicants here as well. though. >> Well, I was just going to point out that again, this is consistent with our our comp plan at this point with the suburban residential future land use.
Uh, you know, at at this point, the density will remain capped at five units an acre and uh basically it doesn't grant any vested rights uh beyond what is stated in the agreement. So at at this point, you know, staff is recommending that the local planning
agency transmit to the city commission for second public hearing and action. >> Is is this transferable, Mike? >> Yes. This actually is tied to the land. Development agreements are basically
when they're recorded, they are based on, you know, the uh they're tied to the land. >> Okay. Does commission have any additional questions or the LPA have any questions for Mike on this item?
Okay. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this item? Okay. I'm seeing none. Would the applicant like to speak on this item? I don't see them here. >> No, not here yet.
>> If I could just say I'm just the engineer. I'm not the attorney that worked on the project. So, I don't know if I can speak on it. >> Gotcha. Well, you can if you'd like. You're as part of the public. Do you have any questions uh or anything you
would like to point out to the LPA? >> Okay. >> All right. Well, We have it here for first reading and then it'll come for second reading just uh at our next meeting um city commission because the development
agreements are treated differently under uh Florida statute 163. So if there are no comments from the public and no further questions uh then I will close the public input portion of this hearing and I will give it back to you madame mayor for discussion with the
>> further discussion on the part of the commissioners. Do I have a motion? >> Well, >> do we do that? >> Since we have a missing commissioner, I will >> as presiding officer, you're welcome to do a straw poll of um if they're in
favor or against and then um we can go from there or I can do the straw poll if you'd like. >> Okay. Shall we do a straw poll? >> A straw p. >> Okay. Commissioner, >> I would really like to see a lot more to bite on. I guess we could talk about that in the regular meeting and I don't
um Yeah, we can transmit. Yes, I will transmit. It's not transmitt. It would be approval on first reading and then second reading would be the final adoption. >> Okay. >> Commission Hopkins. >> Approval.
>> Commissioner. >> I mean, I've I've got some concerns about the park and the um amenities and where they're going to be. Um but I'm okay for approval as well.
>> I concur. I do have some thinking about how this is going to happen even talking about the um retention pond and how you're going to make that into an active. So there's some still some questions on my part too but okay.
>> So for first reading it looks like we have consensus of four. So you're welcome now to ask for a motion uh for approval of ordinance 2601. >> I'll make a motion first reading. I second it. >> Okay, we have a first and a second. Any
more discussion? >> Um there's so there's no really option for us to um try to put more of it through looking at better overview. I mean, I feel like we're stepping into into it and there's
there's no way back out >> and and you know what and honestly, uh commissioner, I I agree with you. I mean, why not just give us the site plan now or what they're planning on doing? Why are we going looking at one site plan and then we have another one? >> I mean, I'm also I I I like the question
I think uh one of the other commissioners was asking, is there a point where these agreements we approve and I go online and I just see them all for sale for years and years and years. Is there any I mean, we've already annexed it, right?
>> Already has been annexed. >> Yeah. is >> well pending some additional materials. >> So you have some pendings on the actual annexation. >> We did um discussion was closed and the applicant just did walk in. Um do you want to you're welcome to dive into this
more um at commission meeting for second reading. That way you can get more answers to your questions because you still have the second reading that it has to go through. >> Okay. So for purposes of uh just first reading given what you have right now it looks like we had consensus so I don't
want to uh disrupt the process. Um >> so this is first reading and then when we get to the commission meeting we'll be discuss yes and >> and we can ask more questions and >> absolutely the applicants council's here and and you can go through all you know all of that and Mike has heard some of
the comments and he may be able to address some of the questions procedurally as well. >> Okay. Well we have a first we have a first and a second. Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft, >> I. >> Mr. Hawkins, >> I. >> Mr. Osbott, >> I. >> Chair Personley, >> I.
>> Thank you. >> Next, we have ordinance number 26-03. And this is a comprehensive plan amendment for annexing properties at alternate key number 117309.
Mr. Wilks. >> Good afternoon. Kyle Wils, Development Services. This is for transmitt to the city commission. >> Good afternoon. Uh, as Miss Garcia pointed out, this is a proposed future land use assignment for annexing
property uh at 77 West Seinal Avenue or alternate key 1197309. The property owner and applicants are Robert and Jamati Weaver. uh request is for to annex 31 total acres and assign a small scale comprehensive land use plan
amendment uh to go from urban low to residential office transition and a design district of urban neighborhood. This uh map here shows you uh the general location of the property uh as it relates to the enclave. It is in an
enclave as you can see here surrounded by the city and the blue dash lines. The uh I will point out that the applicant did originally come uh for an annexation agreement for water and sewer. However, because they are contiguous with the city, we did prompt them that they did
let them know that it was time for them to annex into the city. This shows the existing single family residents on the property. The existing future land use of Urban Low adjacent to commercial along Bay Street there to the east. uh urban low
surrounding it, but also some residential office transition or RT to the north and south as it as it transitions over from commercial into a more residential neighborhood. This shows the uh proposed future land use RT
the shows a closeup of the the proposed urban neighborhood design district. But as we plot here, we'll see that north of Tickham, there is there are neighborhood urban neighborhood uh design district assignments to properties in residential.
This shows the general location of uh uh the utilities. As I mentioned, they are looking to hook up this water and sewer and they're located here. It is in a medium recharge area 4 to 8 inches per year but uh the s soils are
found uh not limited in development. So we requ again as based on chapter 163 and the LDRs as well as the future land use amendment appendix excuse me we found that facilities are adequate
and available for the res for the applicants. No wetlands or 100year flood planes are present. uh properties are not within the Makiva study area and the soils are suitable. There are transport transportation level service has not been evaluated but it is existing single
family residence. Again, water and sewer capacity is available. It is consistent with the future land use and comprehensive plan and consistent with the surrounding land use designations and established patterns in that area. Uh it was noticed twice on January 12th and 19th in the newspaper posted on the
12th and mailings were sent out on January 9th. So development services recommends approve of transmill of ordinance 2603 to city commission for approval. I'm available for any questions and that concludes my presentation.
>> Uh any responses from the mail app? >> No, no responses. >> Okay. the uh they're going to RT yet next door is general commercial. Matter of fact, that
piece I know is in havoc with code enforcement, I guess, over all the growth and stuff going on there. Is that going to is this in any way linked to that? >> No. No. This was simply because the uh owners wanted to they need to replace
their septic tank. They came in for a water and sewer agreement. We we notified them that they were adjacent to the city and per our policy they had to annex into the city to receive water and sewer. >> You you just answered my question. The property just to the north of that
county, the one the next street over, >> that's still on septic as well. >> The one with Charlotte is that >> the one that has an annex and you may not know. >> I'm not sure. No, I'm not sure. But if it's not in the city limits, it would
still be on septic, I would think. Right. >> Perhaps. Yes. >> Do we give city water to people that are in the county? >> Well, I mean, if they've been on for a long time, predating any requirement to annex, then they may be on. >> Okay.
>> So, it it depends on on when they connect it. >> Okay. >> This are this resident that's a residential house currently, >> correct? Y. >> So, its uses are this is a residential. >> Yes, sir. Right. >> So, are the ones around it really don't
know whether they're a septic or not? >> I don't know. >> We we do not at this time know. I mean, it's something we can look at, but um >> doesn't matter, but it'd be nice to know what we have coming later. >> Yeah. I mean, I I don't know how accurate it is, but if you see the
little Y's, uh that I think the the Y's would mean they're connected. That's not definite, but um it might be a good indication. >> Okay. All right. Okay. >> I mean, why kind of spreads out but
doesn't quite touch the other one. So, I guess why does it matter? But >> any other questions for staff? >> No. Would anyone in the audience like to speak on this um this item ordinance
26-03? >> Okay, I'm seeing none and I will close the public input portion. Madame Mayor, I'll give it back to you for further discussion. >> Any further discussion on this? >> Then looking for a motion to transfer to the regular city commission.
>> So moved. Second. >> First and second. Um roll call, please. Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> Hi, >> Mr. Hawkins. >> Hi, >> Mr. Ozbody. >> Hi, >> Chairperson Lee. >> Hi. >> So, at this time, we will adjoin this
meeting and we will return for the regular city commission meeting at 6:00. >> 6 o'clock or 6:05 because it is 6 o'clock.