Mr. Holland, >> I. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft, >> I. >> Mr. Hawkins, approve your minutes. >> Chairperson Lee, >> I. >> So, now we'll go into consideration with
discussion. Um, for ordinance number 24-06A. Um this is actually a readoption of 2406. Um in the staff report it was noted that there was a omission in the legal description. That is the only
correction that is being done. There is nothing else to consider up for consideration with these ordinances or this request. Um it is the exact same thing. It went to MCR back in um 2024. We are just correcting that and making sure that we have the full meets and
bounds legal description within the ordinance. >> I can go through it's only about two pages. It just gives you >> I just don't >> just reminds you of where >> you might as well just go through the presentation since we have the time.
>> Okay. Um, so we retained our reference for the 2023 plus, that's our internal organization number, but the ordinance up for consideration is a future land use assignment under ordinance number 2406A.
Um, there was an owner change. The original application came under um the Vanderveld as trustee um family as trustee and it is now the current owner is Grand Island Admix LLC.
Um again located at on the west side of Fish Camp Road on the north side of County Route 44. And again just that that's pretty much all that there is with the presentation. >> All right. I included our esteemed attorney's kind
of breakdown of what we're doing with those just for the audience to take a look at. >> All right. Any questions? >> No. >> From the Would anyone in the audience like to speak on ordinance 24-06A? Seeing none, we'll close public input. I'll give it back to you for
consideration. >> Any questions? I just >> Madam Chair, I move for approval of ordinance number 25 or 24-06. >> Second. Second. >> We've got a first and second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Holland. >> I. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft.
>> I. >> Mr. Hawkins. >> I. >> Chairperson Lee. >> I. >> Go to ordinance 2607. >> Good evening. Kyle Wilks, Development Services.
Uh this is a- 20226-004 under ordinance 2607, a future land use assignment for annexing properties for WD WD of America, excuse me. Uh is a property owner. The applicant is Travis
Sawuk. The request is an annexation of 10 acres or approximately 10 acres uh to go from urban low to general commercial and also a subsequent uh design district assignment of suburban corridor.
Now this property may look familiar. It came to you last year as requested is back. Uh it's located at the corner of County Road 44A and County for County Road 44 at the corner. This shows the existing land use of Lake
County urban low uh as well as the surrounding land uses within the city uh which include as you can see the general commercial about 16 acres to the west there um as well as some MCR mixed in as well. It's important to note that this
is also part of an enclave. You can see the dotted red line there. Um there is to the east of the the city limits as well. I'm sorry it's not on this map. Uh but this is part of an enclave. This shows the uh proposed general
commercial land use as well as the suburban corridor design district. Uh this shows the generalized utilities that are available at the site, water and sewer. as well as the flood zone. No flood zone
nor wetlands and high recharge at 8 to 12 inches per year and not limited soil suitability suitability excuse me. So again, we've evaluated this based on chapter 163, our appendix in the future
land use element and 102 of the LDRs. Again, no wetlands present, no hundred-year flood plane. There are facilities to uh water and sewer facilities to uh accommodate the proposed development. Transportation level service as always has not been yet evaluated. Uh and it is
consistent with the future land use and comprehensive plan. And as I showed earlier, also consistent with the commercial corridor to the west there along Kylie Road 44A. So staff recommends approval of the future landers request general
commercial and I'm available for any questions. >> Any questions for staff? Would anyone in the audience like to speak on ordinance 26-07? I >> if you can just please come up to the
podium, state your name and if you're a resident and you have three minutes. >> I'm Sabrina Lewis and I live in Spring Ridge community. Um, want to make sure before I say anything, is that something that's going to connect to our community because we have recently experienced the
100redyear flood and a 500year flood and had to replace roads and all this other kind of stuff. And one of the things that when it was sold to us, that was supposed to be conservation. So now we got a residential area that you're also going to have commercial, which we have
no idea what it is, but we don't want our property values to decrease by whatever this is. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Would anyone else like to speak on this item?
>> You can come up, Mr. Sacha. So, I'm Travis Sach. Thanks so much for letting me come back to the podium here and talk to you a little bit about it. I know we cleared up some legal issues that were referring to the uh developers agreement and how we can protect each other and the citizens around us by
making sure we have the right things there. In that developers agreement, it was completely agreed to for all the things that the citizens didn't like and what you were concerned about not having there. And it's written right in that agreement that I agreed completely to
put a 30-year moratorum on it. The lady that just spoke talked about uh flooding. We just talked about the fact that this land is high and dry, great perk, and will not cause any worry to their property. So, I'm looking forward
to being a part of the city. I don't know what I can say to change anything. I I had the drawings done by an architectural firm that reiterates that it's going to be like a little village. I'm not building it to the maximum square foot that you could allow me to do. I want it to be open, airy,
park-like, and just a few res a few retail services that creates that atmosphere. And I hope that other people building around there follow my plan. So, I'm looking forward to, you know, having some positive results and thank you for your time. Thank you,
>> Mr. Salt. >> Yes, sir. >> When when you uh when we had the 100redyear, 500 year, thousand-y year flood, did you go out to your property? >> I live right there. >> Okay. How was your property? >> Absolutely dry. No standing water anywhere. And I would tell you the
truth. If there was any water, I'd tell you. My home is 850 ft of frontage on this property. Not my home. Not the Oh, it's not there. a little sliver of property between the 10 acres, the three acres high and dry >> and and it all um falls towards the
intersection and going down over towards 44A and 44 that corner and even that corner that has that large retention pond was not full. It was maybe a quarter full. So that's really good news. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Okay, ma'am. Hello, Trina Marquez. I just have a quick question. This agreement that Mr. Salchuk just talked to, is it public? Because we've never heard anything about it.
>> Okay. Well, we typically up for consideration this evening. >> Um I don't know. We may have u we do have a I think a draft version of it, but it's not being considered this evening. What's being considered this evening is the well at LPA what's being
considered is the future land use specifically and then commission will consider the annexation the future land use and the design district uh but the agreement is not up for consideration the seed >> so there's no agreement right now >> there is not >> okay thank you >> is that I mean
>> Sasha is that your >> that's correct >> y can I speak again >> it's up to the >> it's up to you madam chair Yes, >> it's okay. >> This is a big consideration and like
this lady said, this is the biggest worry is about what we're going to do there. And maybe there wouldn't be so much resistance if they believed what we were doing. I did the architectural drawings and I submitted them. I worked with staff uh and staff recommendations and right in the developers agreement,
it says probably 10 things that are hot buttons that you don't ever want to see there. Well, I happen to agree 100% with you. And we put it in writing in that developers agreement package. We submitted it to staff, submitted it to my attorney. My attorney then submitted
it to the city attorney for review. It is the beginning of a conversation that we will hopefully meld into an agreement that uh will make you feel safe. It'll certainly make me feel great, too. So, and it it specifically says there no gas stations,
>> no laundromats, no uh cannabis of any kind, no elillicit type material stores or otherwise, and no freestanding liquor stores, just to name a few of them. I completely agree and that was a hot button. No gas station. So, it's right in there in the words. I'm prepared to
sign it, but we obviously we have to do some other steps first, but it's there for your review. >> And Mr. Sajic, just to be clear, I have not reviewed the agreement. I think you just worked with staff on it. So, I have not reviewed your agreement. >> I sent it to you on February 4th, and I understand you're really really busy. I
get it. It's no problem. I'm I'm sure you're going to be happy. Um, and and I'm ready to listen and mold it to whatever way works best for everybody. So, thank you. >> So, in essence, it's in re I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, no, >> it's in review is what I'm hearing.
>> Have you received that? So well I Sasha I don't know if you want to speak. We really need to separate the development agreement from the annexation. The annexation cannot be contingent on the development agreement. So you really do need to consider those separate. And to
be clean um it is cleaner to uh address the annexation, the future land use and the design district first and then address the uh development agreement separately after the fact. >> Okay. >> So let's stay on course then. Go ahead. But
but if we if we annex now under GC without an agreement, >> yeah, we talked about this before. We we can't it's not a we cannot condition annexation on the agreement. Um I do believe that >> Moss Development did it, didn't they?
No, that was actually they they intended on submitting it because they wanted to use our new um design standards that are not legally in effect absent them entering into an agreement, but they qualified on their
own for the annexation and um just land use designation and um all of that process. And if they didn't enter into a developers agreement, they would have still been able to build it under our code because it was a residential project.
So they did that subsequent to the annexation so that we would work with um the new facades and the new design district, the new design standards um in different lot sizes.
>> So we're we're making a designation because this is commercial, not residential. We can't do it. No, it's not that we can't do it. What I'm saying is that we cannot condition annexation on a developers agreement. I do believe that that's the intention that Mr. Sachuk has. I do know that he's been
working with staff. Um but that would not be something that is coming to you today. Um it would be after the process is completed and then that would be considered separately. It's a voluntary agreement.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I understand that. But if we annex now under GC and he says, "Well, you know what? I've decided I'm not going to do the agreement." Then he can do whatever he wants. >> Correct. >> And is it >> this pro this process is so backwards.
If he's willing if he's willing to enter an agreement just like Moss did, just because it's not residential, why should there be such a designation? >> Well, he wouldn't be in the city until we complete that initial process. >> All right. So, >> thank you for
>> just to be I mean the statute is clear on what the requirements are for annexation and we can't add anything extra to that. >> And I I believe the MOS development agreement came after the annexation as well. >> It only did because we were under the comp plan review.
>> Um >> we're still actually under the comp plan review. I don't think that that those were related, but he would they would have qualified anyway is what I'm saying. >> Um >> okay. So, let's just stay with what we're supposed to be doing tonight. >> And um
>> where are we? >> We've got all the >> audience. I don't know if you have any more questions. >> Any other one? Uh any other one in the audience wanting to speak? >> Okay, seeing that I'm going to close the public input, give it back to you for consideration.
>> Commissioners, any questions or discussion? >> No. >> Okay. Roll call, please. >> Well, we need a motion. >> Second. >> I'm sorry. >> We need a motion. Yeah, it's okay. >> It's a first. >> I'll second. >> Second. Mo, please. >> Is that a first? >> Yes. >> Okay. That wasn't a first for me.
>> Okay. >> Oh, >> I didn't make a motion. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you say first. >> I a motion. >> Okay. >> What was a motion >> to approve this? >> To approve. Well, for transmission to the city commission. >> Transmission. >> Just for transmission. Okay.
>> Is it my vote? >> Did someone make it first? >> I did. >> Okay. This is a saw. >> Is there a second? >> We need a second. >> Well, for purpose of discussion, do a
second. I can do that, right? >> And we got a first and a second. >> Do we have a first and second? >> Yes. Okay. Second. >> You were the second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Holland. >> Nay.
>> Mr. Obott. >> Nay. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> Nay. >> Mr. Hawkins. >> I. >> Chairperson Lee. >> Nay. >> Does that affect the second component of this?
>> So that would be ordinance 26-10. Um, so you would not be >> presenting on this one. >> Well, it's a se separate ownership, so I don't know if if uh they need to be heard separately. >> Did you want to confirm with the applicant? I believe they're
>> Okay. Got the uh next item for your consideration is a-226-00005 ordinance 2610. a future land use assignment for annexing properties for TS T and SL partners Inc.
This request uh is an in conjunction with the annexation request of 2.8 8 acres and is a smallcale comprehensive plan map amendment to go from urban low uh in the county to city mix commercial industrial
and a subsequent design district of suburban corridor. This shows the location of the 2.8 acres again adjacent to the property east of the property we just just discussed along county road 44A.
This shows the aerial of the property with the existing structure. And it is important to note that the applicant is requesting this MCI in part because the annexing property or the proposed annexing property does have metal structures on site. So if you were to
annex into the city now, uh anything else would be non-conforming. This is the current land use and the proposed MCI as well as the proposed suburban corridor design district.
Again, the generalized utilities are available at the site, water and sewer, no flood zone and no wetlands. And again, the recharge 8 to 12 inches a year with suitable soils for
development. We again evaluated the proposed amendment and found that facilities were available for water and sewer again transportation not addressed. Um it is consistent with the future land use and
comprehensive plan uh and surrounding areas designations in that area as well as the existing use on the site. Uh staff recommends transmitt city commission for your consideration for their consideration and I'm available for any questions. Any
questions? Would anyone in the audience like to speak on this ordinance? >> Mr. Satcha, >> this property is it's sorry, it's contiguous to the 10 acres
but separate. Um, my residence is the 850 ft along side of this. um talked to staff. We tried to bring it in at the same time. It's not a part of the 10 acres. It's a separate use. Um staff might be able to speak to its use, but
it was low uh commercial uh real estate um office like retail. Um very low-key, low traffic, no big impact. Um and it was just something to develop with and be able to own and be a part of the city of Eustace. uh while we did the 10
acres. Um just would like to speak again just a little bit about the um developers agreement. I'll sign it whenever we can do it. Whatever the process is, I've tried to have it ready uh prior to this meeting, but uh meeting of the minds. It didn't happen. We
couldn't get people together. But staff has that framework and has that commitment from us and I'm sorry that you felt nervous about it. I really >> Well, because I'm I'm just having a case the case of a deja vu. We've been down this road before, >> right? >> And and we and we and we did we didn't
really get um >> can't we annex in without assigning a design district or No, >> we can't can we? >> You can separate the annexation, but we can >> Why didn't we That's >> I that was what this meeting was was annexation only. That's what I thought
this was tonight. >> And that we would have time to work together. >> I thought so too. >> Yeah. I thought and then I thought we could talk about uh a developers agreement that everybody would like and you have the framework that so far I'm thinking everybody that's looked at >> you understand our position. Oh,
>> I sure do. Absolutely. >> Because we're not protected if we bring it in under GC and you say, "Well, you know what? Hey, you know what? You know, Gary's a nice guy, but I can do what I want now." So, >> yeah. I was only hoping that the mitigating factors were in the fact that I live right right next to it
>> and I I want what everybody else wants, you know, and I'm the one to do it and and I pledge the promise to do it. >> Um >> the piece we're discussing now is where your home is located. >> No, no, I'm right. It's next door like it's 805 ft deep and my whole property
sides on that. Um, and and that was my big point to you is that you are worried uh about commitment, but it's I'm protecting my values, too. And that developers agree >> back up with the dividers. >> I'm sorry.
>> I didn't hear what you said. So, I'm sorry. >> I asked her to put that picture back up. >> And I did provide architectural renderings of both development so that they look the same. have a good feel. That's my property to the right.
>> Would any of this property be included in the project? >> My personal residence, >> the uh the two acres >> of the 10 acres. No, >> no, they're separate. >> It would stay separate between you and there.
>> Yeah. >> How would we how do we know that's really going to happen? How are we protected in that? >> It's two separate ownerships. Uh, I represent WD of America, but this is me, TNS Florida Partners. They're two two separate entities that are moving forward. This is my personal
property that I own now and I'm looking to, you know, make business with there with it. >> And that business would be >> when talking to staff, it would be like a plumbing shop could come there and have their office there, but also have their inventory there and come and go
like a commerce park. Very low-key. I don't plan on moving any more trees that are there except for the placement of the uh very lowprofile building. >> Any currently it's in the county. >> Pardon me. >> And currently it's in the county. Yes. >> And in the county,
>> what is he allowed to do there? >> It's urban low. Is that right? >> It has an overlay, but I don't know what the proper legal term is. >> It would be good for me to know what can he do there without annexation and what's he going to do after. If it's the same, it's much easier than if it's a
dramatic change. Sure. Uh I'm not prepared at this time to to say whether or not that is part of the uh allowable use in urban low. Um but there do have they it does have a range of uses including non-residential.
>> The whole idea was to come into the city and be a part of the city. >> Did you say residential or non-residential? >> Both. It has both. The range of both. >> Commercial and residential. >> Correct. He was talking about professional office. Are you prepared to comment
whether >> professional office would be permitted there? Would industrial be permitted there? >> Uh don't believe industrial, but I'm not sure on the professional office. >> So what the >> I don't think you're a credible witness though. You're all right. What is a
county telling you you could do there? >> Um I talked to a couple of people at county, but I don't have an official response in fairness to this conversation. I think that I can go there and do the the office warehouse. I have had that discussion, but more so my direction was to come and be a part of
the city. >> Kyle, if well if this was if this was transmitted >> because we can still rule. >> Uh does that give you enough time to to >> I believe we have the urban low uh information. >> So if it was transmitted with staff
could could verify that information for you. And there is staff that we talked about the zoning of what it would be used for and did it fit the overlay zoning. Um I'm not sure Mike's here. Mike be might be able to speak to it. I don't know. But we came up with the
zoning and the use of it that would not be industrial. So that was what we came up with office inventory distribution. But uh not storage, not any of those other hot buttons. Very low-key. I I guess I would Sasha, does does this is
this property included in the the PU the county's PUB overlay? And if so, didn't you have a conversation with Melanie Marsh as to the permitted uses? >> If it is, yes, we already had the email. It was shared with um all of commission
before. Um >> I have a copy of that letter if you want it. But >> so so we're so we're coming in at MCI, >> correct? >> Is and that's different than the prior >> the the initial request or the request previous was to general commercial.
>> Okay. >> So there's a change there. >> You just don't have enough information. >> Well, and we can't make it condition anyway. Just like we did with the other property, we can't make a condition. >> I think we need to table it. We t we've already tabled it. We're back
at the same spot we were whenever he came here the first time >> last year. >> Somebody's going to do something there. This guy's going to do something in the county or in the city. That's the bad part for the residents that don't want
it. >> Something's going to happen. We got to find >> And I agree. and he's willing to work with us, but we are not getting the right procedure on how to do that. >> We can't because we can't we can't make
anything condition on an annexation, which is what this is. And we're just spinning our wheels right here right now because no one I mean I'm I'm not going to if I'm not going to vote on this property, I'm certainly not going to agree to vote on the second the second property the same way.
Commission, >> is there a step that that I'm missing >> that I should have done? >> Nope. >> Commissioner Holling, >> you know, on this and it's going to put Mr. Sawchuk in a bad light because he's not going to be able to move forward unless
he gets >> those of us that vote against it to change our minds on it. And it's going to be a year before he can bring it back in front of us. >> Or I can go directly to the county. >> Or he can go to the county. But I don't I didn't want to go to the county. You know, I I I've been here since 2003 and
and I've watched your development and I want to be a part of it. That's why I bought this property. That's why I want to be a part of the city of Eustace. >> And uh I know that you have had, you know, Gary, you've had a lot of concerns and issues with past people, but I shouldn't be held guilty of that.
>> I think that you've seen my architectural drawings. You've seen my commitment. >> The drawings are absolutely beautiful, Mr. Saluk. It's not the it it truthfully for me it it's not the project itself. >> Right. >> What scares me to death is what happened
in that neighborhood during this last storm. >> And even the little bit of rain that we had over the last week, we had some areas that we fixed that were still giving us problems here in the city. >> Sure. Um, >> but if you looked at the elevation and you looked at what this gentleman here
said about the percolation, it is the best you have in Lake County by by depth, by dirt, by buildable. Has no standing water. It doesn't even have engineered retention ponds yet on the property. And there's no standing water. >> Is is your property draining into these other properties?
>> Absolutely not. >> There is there is there is a lot of there's a lot of work that needs to be done on this piece on this corner. truthfully on any more development in this area. >> And if you've watched my voting over my
16 years sitting here, sure, >> I do not turn down development. >> I try to work to make development better. >> Can I add a little piece to that? When you say you're worried about the drainage, >> if you were to look and and uh scan out the development where the folks are
speaking from the corner that is of the open field and I have a pointer, but everything that subdivision on this end that's going between 44 and 44A drains towards Lake
Sutor. Their capture retention pond backs up to my property. Has never gotten over even during that massive storm. It never overfilled and drained into Lake Fura. But this end of their development will never flood because it
goes to Lake Fura which then drains underneath 44A and then heads out the other side. There's no way that this property, my property, uh Mike and Barbs up at the front, the 10 or the 13 acres or anybody in this side of this subdivision will ever flood. And if you
go out and look at the elevation, listen to the soil tests that are already done, you don't have that problem. And if we have a development agreement or something we could put together, we could put language in there to >> do it. >> Make him responsible for that. >> Can't do it.
>> The retention ponds that I put in were excessive for two reasons. One to protect and two to create to create a greater buffer. You saw that in the architectural drawings. These ponds are way more than what we need. But we don't know what 500 years is in 100 years. We
don't know what we're going to get hit with. But if we do it my way, it protects my property, their property, which has a massive retention pond that that overflows to Lake Futura. There's no way that this can flood. But even so, the ponds create an air buffer for them
for noise, for light, everything. So, you've let me talk. Thanks so much. We really appreciate it. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> If if we if we allow to go into the county, we have absolutely nothing we can do. And to the left of that, as we
were looking at it on our screen, am I right that that's MCI? >> Pull it back up. >> So to the left across uh County Road 44, that corner there between Gacha and and uh and the subject property is MCI,
right? M. Okay. It's general commercial and then under it is MCR. >> Y >> you guys are in a tough situation. You're surrounded by commercial. three corners and across the street they're about to do some crazy things that's already zoned they don't even
need annexation >> quickly >> we need to have regulation I think what commissioner Holland is saying is very important we need to have documentation that whoever is going to develop any of this stuff forget about to this one for a second retention
water movement has to be managed and you know some somebody knows somebody knows how we can do that >> I promise to be very quickly. Just wanted to reiterate there is no agreement and anything he says is non-binding. I went Monday and asked to
look at his drawings which this nice young man here showed me. And this 2.8 acres which was on the screen supposedly was going to be metal warehouses. Thank you. >> There's one there already now, right? >> Yeah.
>> I understand your question. What I could if I may suggest um just procedurally for for staff to consider as well as um Mr. saw truck. Since this is LPA, um we did consider the developers agreement
for MOSS development at LPA and then um for second reading um it was then a city commission >> at a subsequent. So perhaps um having that developers agreement fully ironed out
>> and brought up with annexation and the developers agreement in between and then come back with a land use designation and a design district um at a different time. That way everyone has all the information in front of them uh the
public as well as um staff. We can't have an indefinite amount of time without assigning a land use. Uh but again, LPA is just transmission to the city commission. So it kind of gives an opportunity for all of this information to be out there before
a decision is made as far as um annexation >> and u Miss Garcia just for my own edification I can't remember what for the MOS development we had first reading for the annexation and then the development agreement. Correct. >> Yes. MOS was different because it was
residential and they qualified under our current code for what they were looking for. >> Their exception had to do with >> our changes to um the the facades and and basically the the new elements that we wanted to see in in these
neighborhoods. Um but in this instance it's it's much different because we're going to a different category entirely and there are some concerns from the public and the questions from commission and >> so LPA is consideration
>> or or and which is a great idea or could we have just annexed with no land use designation and then somehow you guys work something out and then you bring it to us for approval. >> Well that's that's I know it's essentially the same thing I suggested. I just >> So why why why why aren't we doing it
now? >> That wasn't on the agenda for today. That's why I'm trying to give some guidance to staff. >> Okay. So, how do we undo what we've done and where do we go from here? >> Well, nothing has happened. I mean, this is LPA, so it was just to transmit. Um, Mr. Shatrick isn't he's not restricted
uh by uh time frame or anything because there was no >> transmission or vote at commission, which is where we have our ninemonth, >> right? um pretty much the rule that we have there. So, just trying to figure out a way to kind of get
>> some of these questions answered and actually viewable to everyone um in the public. And because LPA is a transmitt, it's not a, you know, commitment, then I feel that would be a good avenue to to start that if you know staff can work with him on that.
>> Suggestion. Commissioner. >> Um, Commissioner Hawkins brought up a great point and I and I support that. Commissioner Holland, another great point. I understand Gary's frustration. I have the same thing. I think we're all
on the same page. In the words of Dr. Levy, we're all closer than we think. We just can't get this into getting us comfortable in in writing or from Sasha. Maybe we need a second opinion from another attorney if there's a way. We don't know. Someone has done something
super whatever. But I don't want our destiny controlled by the county. But I want absolute protection for the things we want protected. But I do not want worse than anything I think is I don't want flooding and I don't want the county controlling that. I want us
controlling it. It's an enclave. It's an enclave. Right, Mike? >> Correct. >> We got to take enclaves out. So, we're if Sasha's not happy with convincing you guys, then we we gotta table it and get get find someone who does.
>> We literally did the same thing with moss. We literally did the same thing with moss. The only difference was that was residential. This is commercial. >> So, can you help us do that? Let's do that. >> Okay. So, how do we do it? >> Moss was different. >> Okay, we understand >> because they would have qualified if
they didn't bring a development agreement. they could have still developed under our current code. >> So that's what I'm saying. I mean, so what I'm suggesting here is for LPA, um, essentially the annexation component gets brought for consideration alongside
with the development agreement that is fully fleshed out because it's just for transmitt to the city commission and then that would act as the first opportunity to see and and discuss that developers agreement. no land use designation, no design district because
that would that component would be transmitted for the first time to city commission at that meeting. And then at a subsequent meeting, we'd have to deal with the remainder of it. But at least it'll give you an opportunity to discuss the developers agreement. Not contingent on the annexation, but it's a it'll be a
separate process. >> How much time do you think we need to do this? >> Um have to get it staff. probably a month or so I would say depending on what has been heard today but there is a procedure to this and I
mean we're can only deal with what's in the agenda before us tonight >> waste the time >> I can tell you that any developer with any common sense with an architect and an engineer which is guy has
and gets keeps getting to some point here I would say go sell the property cut my losses and move on. Somebody else comes and picks it up and goes to battle with us and we're in deep and the guys to the left, the guys across the street, the eyes in the corner and the other big
800 acres coming across street will pick it up and uh >> Okay. So, the consensus is that we do this at a later date, bring all this back along with the agreement and it should take within next month to do
this. If that's doable for staff, if that's also the will of >> and and as well as the guys agreeing >> commissioners, you agree to do this? >> Yeah, I think if if I think he said he's already sent at
least a framework to Sasha, so we're halfway there. It sounds like >> he's been working with staff. Yes, I have. I'll I'll review it, but again, I don't know that all the terms would be acceptable >> or not. Madam Chair, it's up to you.
>> Let's go with staff. Can you do this? We can work with both the applicant and the council on getting this squared away and getting the uh agreement uh you know ready to bring to you all so that you have some assurance or the
board has some assurance uh that when the annexation comes through similar but different than moss that it will uh have some sort of assurance and uh uses that both LPA and the commission find
reasonable >> and you feel that there's enough time by next month to do this put it back on the LPA and agenda. >> Well, I mean I don't want to speak like that. I think so. >> Okay. >> I think so. >> Consideration for both pieces.
>> That's what my next question was. Are we talking about both pieces or >> they both can come back? I mean there's this was just for transmission to the city commission. There was no vote on the property. >> Okay. So, we're talking about both pieces,
>> right? >> Yes. And Oh, I'm sorry, Mayor or Chairwoman. Uh, we I I think because, and Sasha, correct me if I'm wrong, because it was not sent to commission, uh, it won't be heard at commission tonight, the first piece. Uh, but he can
bring it back. We can work with him on both the 10 acres and the 12 the 2.8 uh, acres as part of that whole package, uh, as the agreement because I think that's it. Correct me if I'm wrong, uh, Mr. Sajek, but I believe that's what the agreement addresses are both properties.
So, it would address both. >> Okay. >> So, it would just make sense to have it at the same time. >> Yeah. Okay. Do we need a vote? I just >> You would need um >> Okay. >> Yeah, you would have to make a motion in order to bring this back. >> So, I need a motion for approval.
>> I make a motion to bring this back next month for consideration after staff and uh the attorney have time to look at things. >> I second. Okay, have a first and second roll call. >> Mr. Holland, >> I. >> Mr. Ozbody, >> I.
>> Vice Chair Ashcraft, >> I. >> Mr. Hawkins, >> I. >> Chairperson Lee, >> I. >> Okay, that concludes our LPA meeting. And we'll call for a joinment at this time at 6:10 p.m.