is May 7th, 2026. The time is 5:30. Anna, is there a uh quorum and proper notice been given? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Uh down to uh approval of uh minutes from the last um planning meeting.
>> Move approval. >> I second. >> Any further discussion? >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Asbat, >> I. >> Mr. Hawkins, >> I. >> Mr. Holland, >> hi. Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> I uh consideration of development
agreements with discussion and public hearings. >> I'll go ahead and take that. Um first I just wanted to explain what we've done here. These are uh the development agreements that um we wanted to get before you
ahead of annexation. The reason we were um able to do that is Florida law does allow the city commission when it sits as the LPA, the local planning agency to hold the first required public hearing on a development agreement um before
final annexation occurs. We have two hearings that we're supposed to have. So it lets you in the LPA capacity since you are the city commission as well to um be able to entertain the um annexation um not sorry the development agreements.
That way the public can also see it. The commission has an opportunity to review it, see the proposed uses, the restrictions, the standards that they're um looking to implement. And all of this is done ahead of time. That way everyone understands what's going to take place on the property before annexation is
finalized. Um now it does not guarantee approval or create any kind of promise of development because the agreement itself is only effective if annexation is approved and goes through the completion of that process because at that time we would be in privity with
the developer. So I just wanted to explain why it is that you're getting it at LPA at this juncture. Okay. Um, so Jeff is going to be presenting. Uh, the first one we have is the ordinance number 2026-17,
which is the approval of a development agreement with WD of America, Inc. >> For the record, Jeff Richardson, interim director of development services. Um, as Sasha said, this is the proposed
agreement for WD of America. um under ordinance 202617. Um so this has been reviewed pursuant to or would be adopted pursuant to Florida statutes 1633 33 3220.
Um and 163 3243 properties approximately 10 acres in size. Um it is proposed to be annexed and receive a general commercial future land use classification. Um this development agreement as Sasha
Daltto said is contingent on the annexation and subsequent passing. So uh that was one of the ones I was going to explain really briefly. I know we had discussed before you know why can't we have um these agreements
conditioned on annexation? We cannot but the agreement itself can come to commission and the developer can condition the agreement on annexation but the commission cannot condition annexation on the agreement. So that's
why the order of events is important. I wanted to explain that. >> Yeah. Both of these agreements are voluntary from the applicant too. Um so development agreement overall the agreement um sets forth the permitted uses,
prohibited uses, certain design standards, infrastructure re um responsibilities for the project. Um puts a validity of 30 years on it with a potential for renewal. Um if both parties agree, um no development can
occur without actually city site plan review approval. So the list of prohibited you or permitted uses include neighborhood commercial type uses, local retail ser retail and services, restaurants, food and beverage stores, general retail and
professional offices. Um the agreement requires that they provide open space and passive park. All of this is pursuant also to their submitted and which is part to this agreement uh conceptual plan for development of the site.
um relatively lengthy list of prohibited uses which are the more I'm quote in quotation marks obnoxious type uses that you may find along with um a general commercial which um include
um vehicular repair, adult entertainment, outdoor storage. um the heavier industrial type uses that would be allowed under the general commercial um bars, nightclub, clubs,
etc. Um prohibited uses are enforcable under the Florida statutes that we referenced before 163 3220 and through 163 3243. Um there are also some prohibited ancillary uses to the property which
include any outdoor outdoor loudspeakers um no display areas outside um and uh no parking of commercial vehicles on a long term. Um generally the building facade
standards follow the established suburban design building design standards that are in the code. Um but voluntarily we're also listed within the agreement. So we have enhanced building entrances um massing and relief to the structures
um ground floors and and so on. There are some uh elevations that are provided and are also part of the development agreement. As you can see, you got some roof line relief, some massing,
different massing um on the structures. Um definitely lending that uh downtown type quality or comm or village type quality, commercial village type quality to the
uh to the building structures. Um some additional guidelines that are actually within the agreement. Uh uh the layout um that is proposed under the conceptual plan provides for pedestrian accesses and pathways throughout the um
throughout the potential end product commercial development. um gives for parking from being screened from basically from the homes to the south and more centralized on the property. So providing screening from the properties
to the north as well. Um signs storm water um utilities and so on will follow applicable city design standards pursuing both the land development regulations and the engineering design guidelines. Um and again I'll
development of the site will be contingent on site plan approval um through the city processes. Um there are minimums that are set out for open space, landscape buffers and passive park. All of those meet the
minimum requirements within the land development regulations um meet or exceed and are also tied to the conceptual plan which is part of the developers agreement. Um basically the key elements of this agreement um
include um the limitation to the neighborhood commercial uses, retail uses, basically the lighter slightly less ownorous type general commercial uses. Um also listing prohibited uses
and uh setting a set setting out building design standards, site design standards in compliance with the conceptual plan that was submitted with the develop and as part of exhibit to the developer development agreement.
Uh legal framework again we've mentioned a few times is set out under Florida statutes. Um public hearings first reading is here at LPA. The second reading will be on May 21st at the city commission meeting. Um,
essentially this agreement again does not take effect unless the annexation takes effect. In other words, we can't set a development agreement for something that is not within our jurisdiction. It has to come into our jurisdiction first.
Um, public notice has been provided for the WD property in accordance with Florida statutes as well as our code. Um, this is the proof of the notice of publication that was out. It um covered both ordinances and both development
agreements as a joint consolidated public notice. And again, here's the conceptual plan that was um submitted by the applicant. This actually includes both sites. Um the commercial being the larger 10acre
parcel and the 2.8 being covered under the agreement that we will cover next. >> Jeff, did you get any responses? >> Um I did not receive any phone calls over the last week or two. Um
there were the previous ones obviously on on our previous goarounds on um on this particular set. >> Okay. >> None recent. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um city staff in conjunction with the city attorney has reviewed the
development agreement um and presents it to you for your consideration and moving to city commission for its second reading. Any questions? we are available. >> What's the um what's the legal mechanism
that we are using to enforce this on successors? >> This is going to be recorded in public records. So it binds all future property owners and it's it will bind them for 30 years. The development agreement itself would be recorded. the city records it
and once it's approved and executed of course and um the developer reimbures the city for the recording costs. So any other questions from the LPA/CC? Okay,
>> I know the applicant >> is present and we have cards for public comment. >> Yes, I have two cards. Um for the members of the public, you can just come up. You'll have three minutes. Uh please state your name and if you're a resident of the city and um address the
commission, the the local planning agency directly. >> Um the first court is Trina Marquez. Hello everyone. You all know from last time and the previous time that I'm not a public speaker and this makes me very nervous, but I feel in compelled to
speak. So, as usual, it'll be short and to the point. Good evening everyone. This was a colossal amount of information to digest in a short period of time. From the first city hall meeting last year, I voiced concerns and
continued to object to a filling station and other commercial uses if annexation approved. As you recall, Mr. Saltchuk on several occasions stated he would not build a gas station. I failed to locate this proclamation in the developers
agreement prohibited list and the prohibit in the permitted list, excuse me. To my dismay, discovered, for example, restaurants with and without drive-throughs, food and beverage stores, including alcohol. This development agreement is unacceptable
in its present form and needs to be revised. Why not consult the communities for their input? I ask the representatives for the people of Eustace, all of you to deny this proposal, this proposed developers agreement which is not in the best
interest of the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Donald Doyle. >> Good evening. My name is Donald Doyle. I do not live in the city of Eustace, but I live just across the street from the subject property. I appreciate the
efforts to limit the impact of this development on the surrounding neighborhoods. However, I believe some of the permitted uses would attract significantly more traffic and noise to the area. These roads are already quite busy and any use that attracts considerable traffic should not be allowed. Before you approve the
development agreement, it is very important that you make the following changes. In ordinance 2026-17 in section 3.2 permitted uses a food and beverage store including alcohol should not be allowed. This use would greatly
increase the traffic and noise produced by the development. Restaurant with or without drive-thrus should not be allowed. This use would also greatly increase the traffic and noise produced by the development. Remember the response from the residents of Parkplace
on Lake Joanna when they found out a restaurant with drive-thru was going in across the street from their neighborhood. The only things that should be allowed are commercial neighborhood, retail sales and service, and professional service and general office uses. In
exhibit D1, prohibited principal uses. In the in the interest of limiting the extra traffic and noise generated by the development, the following should be added to the prohibited uses. Convenience store with or without gas station, food and beverage store, including alcohol, drive-thru sales or
service, dry cleaning, laundry, shooting range, indoor or outdoor, and restaurant with or without drive-thru. I believe these changes will limit the increase in traffic and noise which this development will generate which will help maintain the character and quality of life in the
surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Do we have any other cards? >> Um I have one from the applicant for the the commission meeting. Um but you're
welcome to speak if you have anything to speak. Jeff, do you have anything to add on that from what the public stated? >> I can say I think I think what they're kind of getting at is it doesn't
specifically say gas stations because gas stations are allowed in GC. And I'm assuming the food and beverage they're talking about is probably a liquor store. >> We we did agree to not have a gas station there. Um, and we also agreed not to sell alcohol in a retail
environment, only to sell alcohol in a restaurant sitting, right, format that we we did have that discussion. >> Yeah, there is a catchall paragraph that is in there in the development agreement that is any use that is not expressly listed as permitted
is prohibited. >> Okay. And that that that's all I came up here for was to explain that I'm in full agreement with uh not having that alcohol retail sale. And and I disagree with the uh some of the concerns about
traffic. I'm not adding traffic. I'm actually deferring traffic. I think we kind of all understand that prospect. I just wanted to address the same things. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Anybody else like to uh speak on this ordinance? Where's that catch all
paragraph you're talking about, Jeff? >> In >> in the development agreement itself. >> Yeah, that's how I'm using. >> It's followed through. I think it's under the prohibited uses as it lists down through at the very end of the prohibited uses. There should be a clause in there that basically says that
if it's not expressly >> okay >> listed, >> then it would require agreement or consensus that it would be in allowable use. >> That makes sense. Could I be shown exactly where it says no gas stations? Because I read all of that and did not see that.
>> If he could show it to me, I would appreciate it. >> Again, it's listed in a catch all. >> Mr. Sachuk, um, since you've already stated, if you don't mind coming up really quick. >> Thank you. Um we have this is the first
hearing and we have you know the public here and we're taking in their comments. uh this is something you've already agreed to and it is covered by the catchall but if it would give the public you know peace of mind and um would you be willing to make that revision and I
will bring when it comes back for uh final consideration which would be at the next meeting we will include specifically the prohibited uses >> to and it will state gas stations and um the other one was >> no retail alcohol
>> retail alcohol Right. And you know, of the the different developers agreements that you and I have gone through in the one uh section, it was there specifically said no no filling stations and no retail alcohol. But uh that that
might be an oversight on my part that we didn't see it, but I will stipulate to that. I'm doing it publicly right now and I'll sign. >> And again, this is just the first first of of two readings. So we we have time to make that adjustment. Um that way it can appease some of the concerns of the public as well.
>> Got that Jeff? Okay, we'll we'll need to make that revision >> even though the catch all does cover it. That way it just gives everybody >> that's satisfaction. Okay. Any anything further from the public?
All right. Seeing that, I'll give it back to you. >> Thank you. Uh commissioners, uh we have before us ordinance number 202617. Have a motion. Motion for approval. >> Yes. I uh >> motion for approval. >> Yeah. With the stipulated uh
stipulations >> um to be incorporated for the second consideration hearing. >> Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? I uh I would be a a no on this um based
on what where I've stood all along, but with the provision of the gas station and the retail alcohol, I think we put ourselves in a situation where if it goes to the county, and it is going, and I have talked to them, it's not going to
be pretty for us at all. And I feel like we're at the picking of the worst of two evils, per se. Nothing personal, sir, but um I think we said it all along. Uh Commissioner Holland has said it. We uh
on different scenario probably we need to probably consider the power of taking control over this. Um and with that with that in mind, at this point I would be a no because of that. But with the gas station stipulation in
retail, I would be a second. So I'm not sure how that works. >> So we're voting with the stipulation. >> Yes, it's already in the agreement. >> Then I would be I would be a second. >> It's just to be clear, the agreement does have that provision that states if it's not expressly listed as a permitted use.
>> It's considered prohibited. They would have to essentially get permission for it. But he did stipulate just that we go we can go ahead and expressly include it just to satisfy the concerns of the public >> if since the catch all um
>> I just want to be transparent if it's not in there it's a note >> the motion that was made was actually >> to move forward with the with the stipulation that we're going to make >> those um edits for the second hearing
>> as prohibited uses. So that's a motion and a second. >> You second. >> Do you think we need a straw poll? >> Okay. >> Um well you >> Okay. No, I think I'm good. Okay. We
have a first and a second. Any further discussion? No. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Hasbbody. >> Yes. With the stipulations of no gas station, just to be clear. Yes. >> Mr. Hawkins. >> Hi.
>> Mr. Holland. I'm an I. As long as those stipulations are in there, if it comes back without them, I'm a no. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft >> I for the same provisions. >> Okay. Ordinance number 20 2618.
Okay. Ordinance 20 2618 is an agreement between city of Eustace and PNS FL Partners, Inc. Uh this is for the 2.8 acre parcel that is proposed to be annexed and assigned a mixed commercial
industrial future land use. Um again the stipulations within the agreement are the same. Obviously it is a different future land use it'll be going into. So the pro prohibited and permitted uses are different.
Um, permitted uses include professional services and general office type uses which may include offices, medical, legal, financial type uses. Um, research lab as long as there is no manufacturing,
artisal manufacturing and assembly. Um, I would equate that to, you know, let's say a furniture maker, cabinetry per type person. um light assembly operations and accessory warehousing.
Um there are some employee constraints because obviously it's a small site. So there won't be there will be the minimum amount of parking but not enough for you know like you know let's say a 100 employees being um in one of these buildings.
U prohibited uses, car washes, all schools, convenience stores, drive-thru facilities, um kind of an all follow through. Um and again, there is a clause in the
prohibited uses that any use that is not expressly permitted would not be allowed without amendment. Again, we have the building facade and design standards that would apply to the suburban design district. This is um the
design district is requested to be a suburban corridor design district. So, the suburban building would would apply. Um facades that are part of the developers agreement um are shown here.
Uh again, signs, storm water, utilities, um all will be designed in accordance with current city regulations. Again, city site plan approval is required before any development of the property.
Um again, minimum open space, landscape buffers will all adhere to current land development regulation and comprehensive plan. And the overall on the entire 12.8 acres
and then more specifically just for the 2.8 acre parcel. Um again the concept plan is part of the developers agreement and that kind of dictates um some of the terms and conditions on the site design. >> Can you go back to the previous picture?
>> Uh is the plan to put a fence there >> between the two? >> Um separation of nonresidential and residential uses in suburban would require fencing, masonry wall, landscaping. There'd have to be a physical buffer there, not just the
landscape buffer. Okay. But that's not residential boundaries. So >> residential to the south >> to the south >> and there would be residential with Mr. >> Commissioner was talking about to the east >> right to the east between the >> east or
>> that is east >> the black line. >> The black line you're talking about. Oh, in between the commercial and >> between saw chucks both properties. >> The there isn't a requirement under the code to separate those per se.
>> So there's that's a note. >> Yeah, there there there isn't anything under the code that says a commercial property has to be separated from an MCI future land use property. It's not in the code, but >> it is in our design
>> event something. >> We'll give him a chance to address it and during public comment just proceed. >> Um, yeah, just to finish out again has been advertised and noticed appropriately. Um, actually,
yes, it has been. Sorry, there's too many of these piled on top of each um proper notice. Uh again, this was the joint combined notice that was sent out for the um developers agreements.
Um city staff and the city attorney have reviewed the developers agreement and present it to you for your consideration um for moving to second reading at the city commission on May 21st. That is all.
>> Any other questions from us? >> Any cards on this one? >> Yes, I have two. Um, first one. Trina Marquez. >> I just had a a couple questions. You keep talking about the neighborhood to the south. What about the neighborhood to the north? Is there going to be a
wall there so that we don't have to see it? Because we live north of the property. Directly north. Is there >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were Okay. Who do I ask? >> The developer can answer when he comes
up. So, you can just state your question. >> Well, that's one of my questions about the property to the north. Okay. Is there going to be a wall? And I read on several places in this huge amount of material that there's supposed to be like a sidewalk, a pedestrian, and a
bikeway where there there's no sidewalk anywhere in that area. County Road 44A. I wish we had sidewalks. I would love to have a sidewalk go down to Houston. We could ride our bikes. So, where is all that supposed to be? I'd appreciate it if you could answer
that. >> Okay. Thank you. The second card is Donald Doyle. >> I'm Donald Doyle again. Um, this is for ordinance 2026-18 in section 3.3 prohibited uses. Now, of
course, adding a development on this property will increase the traffic. In the interest of limiting the extra traffic and noise, I recommend the following be added to the prohibited uses. general vehicle service, self-service storage, and outdoor shooting range. I believe these will
limit the increases in traffic and noise. Thank you. >> But those are all once again covered under the all clause and we don't allow we don't allow shooting ranges in in mix commercial anyway, do we? >> Outdoor shooting ranges are not allowed
under the MCI, only internal. >> Right. Um uh and the vehicle repair I think was actually covered but it would also be covered under the catch. >> Okay. Thanks J.
>> Rick. >> Any other cards? >> No sir. >> Anyone else from the public like to speak on this one? >> No. Mr. Sek would like to answer the question. wanted to answer the question and then I wanted to restipulate the prohibited
uses were kind of skipped over uh for this warehousing light warehousing area. There'll be no gun ranges. There'll be no uh heavy industrial repair. There'll be no oil changes, no automotive repair work and it's all stipulated in the prohibited uses and also that paragraph.
I don't want it either. um the sidewalks that are of concern. What I can do and what we wanted in the uh 10acre piece, if you wanted to bring that picture back up, we wanted to make sure that there was walking paths uh for anybody that wanted to use them within the development. Yes. Uh per the development
codes, we would have a sidewalk across the front and the side uh that the city could tie into and keep it going. Uh but uh we're going to have extra sidewalks, extra sitting areas in park-like setting with internal sidewalks. We did offer uh and we will we can still have a meeting
and talk to them about sidewalks through the the buffer into Pineriidge to allow a gate system in their public access. If they wanted to come through and not have to go out on the public roads, we would provide that and that would all be in the design development phase. >> And we also be at the site plan site
plan stage. >> And if you look at the buffer on on this side that goes to the Pine Ridge, our buffer is three times bigger than what is necessary. and we put our retention there deliberately. Um, so we're doing everything we can to accommodate and
that is my property the entire length on the right hand side of that picture between the warehouse and the uh retail and we do have a fence BMS and heavy trees >> and the and the um the architectural style is going to pretty much match with the two properties is best. >> Yeah, absolutely. It's not going to look
like metal buildings. It's not going to I don't want that. >> Thank you. Anyone else >> that address? >> Could you go back to the drawing, please? >> Where is the entrance from County Road 44A to this development going to be? Is
there going to be an entrance to it or not? >> There's going to be on 44. >> Mr. Sachuk, we need you um >> sorry >> on the microphone for the record. >> By concurrency, we have to do the And there will be two entrances on 44A.
Um, no, sorry, one. It'll be on the most far right hand side. You can sort of see it delineated by a white part that goes up 44. >> The arrows going up and down, in and out. >> I'm sorry. >> You No, I was talking to her. The arrows going in and out are showing where it is. >> Yeah. >> Right by building the warehousing. It
probably is going to be a right turn. >> Okay. And how is that in relation to the entrance to Clear Lake Estates? How is that? Clear Lake is going to be to the left of it considerably. Like it's going to be where you see that the letter A is on the road where it says county road 44A. That's about where
the entrance is to the left of that >> to clear like and if we make that turn lane only that should meet the concurrency issues in the life. >> Well, I can't help. >> That's all part of the evaluation. Okay.
>> Ma'am, >> I do. >> Ma'am, >> we just think this is going to provide >> I I disagree comfortably. I say that if we have the deferral >> diesel l Mr. Sack, we're >> we're good. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Okay. This will be the last. Go ahead. But this will be the last. I think Trina asked on the north side if there would be a wall or some type of barrier protecting our neighborhood which is Clear Lake Place. I don't think that was answered. I just want to Is there going to be some type of barrier
or a wall on the north side of this development? >> Miss, that question is for Mr. Suk. Um, >> come back up. >> Come back up. >> Come back up, Mr. Saluk. Sorry. On the warehouse property, yes, on the
retail, we need the exposure. Uh, but we would have considerable trees, landscaping, BMS, but it wouldn't be smart to have a wall. I mean, no retail location does that, but we are generous with the BMS. Um, we think it'll defer
lighting and the issues that Clear Lake might have. >> Thank you. You can close the public hearing. Okay. Um, commissioners, we have before us ordinance 202618. Looking for a motion.
>> Move approval. >> I have a first. >> A second. >> And I have a second. Any further discussion? Uh, roll call, please. >> Mr. Asbat. >> I. >> Mr. Hawkins. >> I. >> Mr. Holland. >> I.
>> Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> Hi. >> Okay. Ordinance number 202607 before you is the proposed future land use assignment for the WD of America
property. Um applicant is Travis Sachuk. Property is approximately 10 acres in size located at the intersection of County Route 44A and County Route 44. Uh current county future land use is urban
low. Um the proposed future land use coming into the city would be assigned as general commercial with a suburban corridor design district. Um general location of the property again Lake County urban low proposed to go to general commercial.
There is general commercial that is off to the west as well as mixed commercial residential. Um future land use request is consistent with the city's um future land use and comprehensive plan. Um general
commercial is again the requested designation. Um, the average adjusted daily traffic counts for County Route 44 and County Route 44A were actually both pulled recently from
current Lake County data as well as double checked with FDOT data with two-way traffic being 4,400 trips per day on both. Uh all statutory indicators have been evaluated for this. Um there are no
negatives um as they come out. Um it would be a logical extension of the city's urban boundary. Utilities are available to the property um both offer 44A and 44.
I just stated that. Sorry. Uh generalized flood zone for the area. The site is not impacted by either flood plane or wetland. Um generalized recharge is in the medium to high range at 8 to 12 in per year. Um
the property is currently used as silver culture. They are do have planted pines on the property. Um generalized soil suitability. There do not appear to be any limitations to the soil suitability for development of the property.
Again, just a summary of what I have said. Um, future land use request is consistent with chapter 163 31779 of Florida statutes as well as the city of Eustus comprehensive plan um and land development regulations.
Recommendation proposed amendment is a legislative action. Um therefore it has been evaluated for consistency with the comprehensive plan and other applicable criteria. Development services presents the um proposed future land use
assignment to you as general commercial for your consideration and forwarding to the city commission for first reading. >> Any questions from the LPA? >> Do we have any cards on this item? do not.
>> No. >> Would anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will close public input. >> Thank you. Uh commissioners, we have uh ordinance uh 2607 to be transmitted to the city
commission. Looking for approval. >> So move. >> Second. >> I have a first and a second. Any further discussion? No. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Asbat. >> I. Mr. Hawkins. >> I >> Mr. Holland. >> Hi,
>> Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> Hi. >> Okay. Ordinance 26 2610. 202610. Okay. Ordinance 2610 is um annexing properties
currently owned by TNS FL Partners Incorporated represented by Travis Sachuk. The property is approximately 2.8 8 acres in size. It is currently urban low in Lake County with um a request for a mixed commercial res
industri commercial industrial assignment as annexing into the city and a suburban corridor design district. Um again property is located just to the east of the intersection of counter 44A
and counter 44. There's currently one building on the property. Um some aerials for that. Um current future land use again is urban or urban load. Uh requested is
mixed commercial industrial within the city of Eustace. Um future land use is consistent with um the surrounding areas consistent with the comprehensive plan land development regulations. Um again average adjusted daily trips
that is what ADT sounds stands for is approximately 4,400 on both county route 44A and county route 44. Um again all statutory indicators have been for
Sprawl have been evaluated. Um, no indicators of sprawl apply to the amendment. Logical extension of it is a logical extension of the current Eustace urban boundary. Um, utilities are available.
Um, no flood zone impact, no wetland impact. Again, generalized recharge would be in the medium to high range at 8 to 12 um inches per year. Uh soil
suitability, there are no limitations. Uh the request is consistent with chapter 163 3177 and Florida statutes, city of uses comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Um again this is a legislative action
and has been evaluated for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and other applicable statutory criteria. Um development services um presents ordinance 202610
for your consideration for forwarding to the city commission for first reading. >> Any questions from the LPA? >> Any cards? No cards. >> Anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item? >> Seeing none, we will close public input
portion. Back to you. >> Thank you. >> Uh commissioners, we have uh ordinance number 202610 for transmiss middle to the city commissions. What's the will of this commission? >> Move for transmitt to the commission. >> Have a first and I'll second.
>> And I have a second. Any further discussion? >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Asbat. Hi, >> Mr. Hawkins. >> I >> Mr. Holland. >> Hi, >> Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> I thank you.
Um, five minute break. We move on. >> Let's do Let's do this one and then take a break. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So that adjourns the local planning agency. Like to call to order the