Call to order. Uh call to order the local planning agency meeting. Uh the date is uh December 9th, 2025. The time is 5:30 p.m. Uh mayor, is there a quorum and proper notice been given? >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Next up, we'll have approval of minutes. Uh September 18th, 2025, local planning agency meeting. Move for approval. Second. Is that what you >> Thank you. >> Sorry. Sorry. >> Okay. It's been moved and properly second.
>> I 20% apologize for that. >> Okay. A roll call, please. >> Miss Lee, >> I. >> Mr. Asat. >> I. >> Vice Chair Ashcraft. >> I. >> Chairman Hawkins.
>> I. >> Okay. Next up. Yeah, if I may. Um the Sorry, I was going to call you mayor, but I think you're Mr. Chair for this meeting. Um u as staff, we would like to uh recommend
swapping items 2.1 and 2.2 uh because uh item 2.1 is somewhat dependent on item 2.2. Uh so if that's okay, uh we'll swap the order and we will hear ordinance number 25-38 first.
if that's okay with the uh >> with the LPA. >> Yes. Any problems? >> No. >> Okay. All right. Swap in 2.2 and we'll do that first and then do 2.1. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Okay. Mike. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh for the record, Mike Lane, development services director. Um as as I mentioned at the last meeting uh we were uh working with our planning consultant design west group and the the primary principal is
Ray Greer. Um he is uh he has been working on this project since uh June and uh you know again uh you have before you uh the latest and greatest of that document. And uh at this point uh I'm
going to call Ry up and let him take the u the presentation and walk you through uh the the changes that we uh we're proposing to make tonight. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Evening Ray.
>> I'm Ray Greer with Design West and my address is 2910 Kerry Forest Parkway, Florida. and in doing the comp plan update, you know, and I think Mike had done a presentation maybe a meeting or two before on kind of why
we're here with the year and what the year is. Of course, it's due every seven years. It is a statutory process to keep your comprehensive plan up to date. And why it's seven years is they want you to start seven years. Uh begin the evaluation appraisal report process,
evaluate your comp plan and then work into the amendments where we are today and by that time it's at the 10 year mark and the census data is out. So as you aware of we have the 2020 census data that is used for this year and so
there's been changes and of course legislators change chapter 163 which is the governor statute that oversees the comprehensive planning. So chapter 163 Florida statutes sets up the requirements for the comprehensive plan. So every local government, every city,
every county in the state of Florida has to have a comprehensive plan. And that comprehensive plan has to be consistent with chapter 163. And as you see on the PowerPoint, we have 10 elements that's in the city of Houston's comprehensive plan. And nine
of those elements are in 163 with requirements and they have specified in the chapter what they have to have contained in each element. We'll go through there each element one at a time and kind of talk about the changes. And if you got any questions as we're doing it, you know, please feel free to ask
and I'll be, you know, glad to to answer any questions you may have. And then the 10th item, which is the economic development item. That item is an optional element. Of course, most local governments have them. It is up to you how you um foresee that structure of
that element. And of course, we have added in stuff, you know, based on changes from the last comprehensive plan. You know, looking forward to the city doing economic development. The city provided that information for us on the edits to the economic development element. But with that, I would like to
start with the future land use element. So the future land use element itself is a is a large element because it has it has all your future land use categories in it and it sets all the the stages for your land uses. And inside of that, you know, what we do is basically we we
update a comp plan. What we do, we take a a spreadsheet that is a spreadsheet of chapter 163 broken down by the elements and we go through them. So we go through the element one part of the spreadsheet what the policies you have and then anything you're missing or on the other
side of the spreadsheet is anything that's changed so we can check them off to make sure we've got everything. So when you see strike through underline in these documents, that's the changes of course that or we're changing and it's it's updating you dates. It's taking
stuff out of the elements that are no longer required by statute. As I mentioned, the statute changes pretty much every year on uh chapter 163. Legislators are always got little changes going on and we have made those adjustments, you know, to bring it up to
date. One of the things that did change recently in the last year was that um you went from a 10-year planning horizon to a 20-year. That's why now you'll see your the planning horizon of the comp plan being 2046. So now we have to go out 20 years. So
basically what we've done, we prepared the data analysis for each element that's at the back of the document to plan out 20 years. And so that plan horizon is set inside the future land use element and It sets the structure from there. Now, your comp plan was a
little different than a lot of other comp plans. It had um it had a lot of stuff in it that actually belongs in the data analysis. And so, we've kind of restructured the future language element was one of them. So, we've kind of streamlined it to make it a little bit more readable, easy to find stuff and
move some of the stuff that was no longer required to the data analysis part of the comp plan. And so that's why you'll see, you know, towards the end a lot of strike through some of that was moved around and kind of restructured through the element. >> Any questions on
>> N? And then with the tra the transportation element, it was kind of the same thing. It was just really some smaller policies that we saw that um could be moved around and that needed to be fixed, but nothing really substantial. The city did add a couple of things. Uh, one of the
things that we do is go back and look at, you know, the the planning organization and what their structure is in their long range plan for your area. And then we include that in the transportation element, any changes based on it to meet the long range transportation plan and also in the data
analysis to address that also. Anybody have any questions regarding the transportation element? >> Nope. >> Then the housing element of course required by statute to evaluate and this is where census data really comes in. We can evaluate from the last comprehensive
plan where you're at and this has occurred. If you look in the data analysis, this data is in there where you have been from the last comp plan update to where you are now. So we can evaluate based on census data, you know, the housing and the projected housing numbers based on population growth and
kind of where you're at and then make sure that the policies are up to date in that element. So that has been done and that element has been updated along with the data analysis. Then the infrastructure element, this element we did um move some stuff
around, restructured some stuff, but really just to clean stuff up to streamline stuff. Nothing substantial. We added in, you know, a few policies and adjusted a few policies based on changes in the statute that has changed in the last five to six years that wasn't reflected in the conference the
current comprehensive plan. And then the next item is the conservation element. Conservation element very similar. We went through it, cleaned it up, you know, changed some dates. We then added, you know, one policy um we replaced and cleaned up and
it you know basically it meets the statute and we've left a lot of that alone. The recreation and open space element. So this element there has been some changes. The level of service is no longer required by statute to be in the comprehensive plan. So we've removed
that the element is required. So basically what we've done is went through there and made it where it meets the statute as it is today. And then there government coordination element we went through it tried to make sure we've got all the policies in place
between the city any joint planning agreements that you have with other cities adjacent cities and the county and brought that element up to date too. The capital improvements element, we've went through updated it. Uh there's been some changes since the last comp plan was updated. The capital improvement
schedule that was in your comprehensive plan no longer is required to be in the comp plan. It actually is a standalone document now. So, it can be adopted without being a a comp plan amendment. It can be transmitted a separate way. So, that was removed from the comp plan to meet the statute requirements. You're
still required to have a five-year capital improvements schedule. it just does not have to be in the comp plan. Then as I mentioned the economic development element uh we coordinated with the city staff and updated that element based on uh changes and
recommendations from your staff to meet the uh the element the property rights element that is an element that was required uh 2019 is a very short element. If you look it's only half a page long and no changes was done to that. There has been no changes since 19
when it was adopted. Any questions regarding any? And so the process, this is the air process. So the air process is a large scale land use amendment, but it it has a little bit different structure than a large scale comp plan like a land use
map amendment. So with the ear, it goes to the plan commission. The plan commission makes a recommendation sent to the city commission and the city commission will make a recommendation for transmitt. And this transmitt will go to the state agencies. And so this
plan goes as it is here tonight. If you vote as the planning commission and then next as a city commission to transmit, we'll transmit transmit this element as it is. It will go to the department of commerce. It will go to all reviewing agencies which
is St. John's River Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of State and the Department of Education and Florida Department of Transportation and the Lake County. So, we will transmit these to all those entities. They will review, provide comments, and then the
state will coordinate the comment part of it from the other state agencies and they will provide at the end of 60 days a recommendation comments report. And so within 60 days of transmitting this, we'll get back a report and they will list anything that they see in here that
needs to be changed or updated. >> Now, one of >> now based on what they see, if they see anything that needs to be changed, that means that we need to change it. >> Yes. Then I will I will make those changes and we'll bring it back to you. >> And so we'll evaluate, you know, any
public comments, any comments submitted in writing along with the state comments. After that 60 days, we'll review those. We'll prepare another amendment to this. We'll bring it back. Right now, this is still just a draft. It's still transmitt. It won't become
final until we bring it back for adoption. >> I missed something. Map 19, is that gone forever? >> Map 19, the um is that the planning? >> Yeah, that was the the planning.
>> Yeah. So that isn't required to be in the comp plan. So that you have the city has interlook agreement with the county to provide that. So that map was outdated and I didn't have the the layers to update that map. So we removed it because it's not require it's not required to be part of the future land
use map. So we removed it. But I mean the interlocal agreement is still there. It's just not required to be in the compliment. >> Now will we get any push back for taking it out? >> Not not from the state. No. Because it it is not a required map. Okay. >> Um, as I mentioned, 163 does list all
the required maps that's required to be in the comp plan, but that and that's an interlook agreement that you have between the county and the city. So, it's not required to be in your plan. We do have it. You know, there is a policy that talks about it that it's in there. >> Were there were there any other maps that aren't required that were removed
as part of this? >> There were several maps. Yeah, we removed about four or five maps and some of the maps and I don't know why it was the structure of the comp plan. Some of the maps repeated theirelves inside the f in not only part of the future I use zone but there was an appendix and it was the same map. So we removed about
five maps from there and there were some transit maps that did not require that were not required to be in there. So we removed thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Ray. You have any comments?
>> I do. >> Okay. Cindy. >> Cindy Newton. >> Good evening. Cindy Don, >> an incorporated Eustace. And I sent an email about the uh Wakiva area and I
provided the clerk a hard copy for the record. Uh, I have a couple questions about uh some of the tables that are in
the uh extra part of this that aren't actually in the comp plan, but in the data part, the header and table 4.1. Uh, to me that appears to be incorrect. If I'm looking at that incorrectly,
please let me know. It looks like that should be the projected water demand. And then in table 4.3, I'm not sure exactly what isn't correct in that, but it indicates
that the projected sewer sewage flow in 2030 and beyond exceeds the projected water demand. I'm not sure if you've got some areas that are using sewer that aren't on water or why that data isn't
in sync, but it does make me wonder if the right side of columns from table 4.1 and 4.3 were mistakenly reversed, especially since the middle column of table 4.4
is the same as the right column of 4.1. So, I just thought you might want to review that before you send it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Cindy. >> And I um Cindy, I have um we did get a copy of your letter and the city
commission in their booklet. Uh they have uh a document with a red tab on it. >> Um that is um some uh responses and answers to those questions. Thank you, Tom. Is there anyone else that would like to
speak on this matter? >> Okay. Hearing none. Next up, do we do 2.1 now? >> Well, I guess we need >> we need >> transmitt for this. >> Well, commission will need to uh take a vote on this item. >> This one. Okay. on whether to forward
this to commission for consideration. >> Okay. Um have a motion to forward this for consideration to the city commission meeting. >> Okay. Would we like to >> second?
>> Have a second. >> Oh, sorry. >> Okay. stepping forward the sake of discussion. >> Okay, Gary, >> I'm good with it.
>> Okay, >> the only thing I would say is that I would like for it to have come to us earlier um for us for to really go through it and to spend time understanding because basically we're proving something
that we don't have full knowledge of. >> Okay, George, >> I I I see what Emily is uh talking about time to review and everything has been an ongoing concern of us as a commission.
However, my understanding is we're just forwarding it to commission for discussion. So, I think her her argument is her concern is legit, but But maybe comes up during the actual meeting or I guess if we feel
strong enough about it, we could stop it now. But um I I I would say that um if one of the commissioners has a concern and needs more time to make the best decision that we should allow allow
that. >> Yeah, I've been I've been saying that for weeks. So if if that's the case then >> I mean how how how are we supposed to go through this in three days? >> Yeah. So if that's the case then I I uh I would u agree and I would be in favor
of tableabling to give the commissioners more time to review it. >> Okay. >> Uh >> but what's the impact if we if we're wasn't nec I was just making a point that that um of the time that little time that we had >> but what's the impact if we hold it up?
It's already late. >> Uh, >> is there any impact? I don't know. Is that a question for >> I think Mike Lane or for the consultant who spoke or >> pipeline comes to >> you would not be able to um make any
amendments to the comprehensive plan until you transmit this to the state. >> Um, and where that where that affects your most of your business is related to annexations. Uh theoretically you can annex a property but you would not be
able to assign it a future land use until this is transmitted to the state. So what that means is you would either have to hold off on an annexation or annex it, bring it into the city and then let it continue to operate under the county's regulations until such time
as we could apply a future land use. >> But didn't didn't we already do that with the client of Mr. Jones's? Yes, I was just going to say that we went through this process with Moss Development. Um, in their ordinances though, we had included that language
because they were apprised of the um the issue with the ear uh process and that we would need to essentially go through it and they would not be able to get that designation until it was approved. And that was part of their ordinances and they agreed and they understood what
the ramifications were. um as as far as their submission for plans and all of that and they they agreed and and wanted to proceed under that fashion. So we can still do that uh with the applications that we have. um we will
just need to ensure that the applicants have the same courtesy that was given to um MOS development team and uh that they're agreeable to that and we incorporate that language if since we do have some of those items on the agenda tonight.
So if if if we table it now or should we proceed to the commission in order to do that next step if if the client wants to if if the applicant wants to do that.
>> Are they here right now? Mike the applicant I think if you table it now then it will have to come back to the the LPA for um future discussions. So any rate
it's entirely up to you. >> I think we do have a representative of Sangster here. Are you representing Lambert as well? >> So we do have a representative for the two items on the agenda tonight. >> Okay. Um, we would
need to speak with uh the applicant to kind of give them a bit of an understanding of of what's going on and see if you are agreeable to that in order for us to be able to proceed with what's on the agenda today. >> But have we decided we haven't done that
until we transmit it? >> Yeah, that was that was my question. Should we transmit it and then have that conversation with him >> or have the conversation about whether or not we're going to send Right. >> It's really at this point um it wouldn't
be tied. I mean if if you are going to >> what based on what you want to do right now, right? If you need more time to review it and it's going to end up being the same decision um at city commission then it's the application process for them is going to be the same as we did
with moss development. So it's really at this point the difference would be if this were to be transmitted and approved and it's um as presented tonight then um the understanding is that because the requirement is just submittal of the um
of the applications with the revisions to the state then we could proceed under regular process for annexation and land use and um design district designation. >> Okay. >> So that's the only caveat there. We don't have to wait to the state to
respond. >> The consultant has um indicated that it >> okay >> that's the only requirement is submittal. >> Okay. >> Of course I would love to build that caveat in as well. Um we can we can do
that but um that is essentially what there is. So um if you guys wanted to it's really up to you. You can forward it with transmitt. It's not going to get approved until commission of course um
votes on it. >> Okay. >> Well, we we have a motion and a second for transmitter right now. Anyway, >> right. I don't know if you wanted to reopen it to ask a question or if you wanted to just have the discussion. >> Second consulted.
>> I did >> consulted. I'm sorry. Yeah, we >> Yeah, I was just going to mention too. So, I mean where you're at now, you're at the transmitt stage. So, this still goes to the state for review. If you were to transmit it and hear it and take it to the city commission, the city
commission transmits it. This would go for 60 days. Again, if there's changes that you want to make in that we can make them at the end of the 60 days, we're going to incorporate the other changes from the other state agencies if they have any comments and then it comes back to the commission. So, this isn't I
mean, you're not adopting this today. >> It's still in draft format. You still can make changes. >> Okay? >> I mean, it'll be It'll be 90 days from now before we go to adopt it. >> Okay. >> So, there's still room to mention. >> So, we decided to workshop it and learn
more about it. Don't give me that look >> and learn more about it. Then we still have 60 days to >> Yes. >> for everyone to feel comfortable. >> Okay. >> Only got one chance. >> All right. Um Okay. Uh so, it's been uh
first and probably second. Roll call, please. This is motion to table, right? >> No, this is motion to transmit and then we can say want to >> Oh, to transmit. Okay. Right. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Miss Lee, >> I
>> Mr. Asbat. >> I >> Mr. Ashcraft. >> I >> Mr. Hawkins. >> I. >> Okay. All right. With 2.1 Tom. Do we proceed with this one?
>> Uh, yes. >> Okay. >> Um, if you had not transmitted, then we would have to talk to Logan about whether we move forward, but I think at this point we hear item 2.1 and then the commission make a decision on whether or not to transmit that to city commission.
>> Okay, Kyle. >> Good evening. Kyle Wilks, senior planner. The next item before you is 2025- C plus-10, a future land use map amendment for annexing properties and alternate key 121 3835.
The applicant is Logan Wilson for Lambert Properties Group LLC. Uh the request is a smallcale comprehensive plan map amendment for approximately 5.5 acres from county urban low to mixed commercial industrial and a design district assignment of suburban
corridor. This map shows uh the property here uh north of County Road 44, east of State Road 19. It is in an enclave area. Shows the aerial here with the city
limits. And you may recall that the large scale that came to the north and northeast of this property uh is still in the process. It'll come back before city commission this evening. Uh, and I mentioned that because
currently this shows urban low for both properties and but both this property as well as the property to the east in the north are requesting MCI as well. This shows the proposed future land use MCI sorry for the label there.
This shows the proposed suburban corridor design district. Utilities are available to the site as you can see on the map here. It is in a flood zone with low low recharge and the soils are very limited.
We did uh analyze this based on chapter 163 in the future land use element appendex and of course chapter 102 of the LDRs facilities are available and at capacity uh to meet the development request. There is no wetland present but it is a
100-year flood plane. Uh properties are not within the study area. It again is in a low recharge and has potential wet or hydric soils. And I important to mention here that any future development of this property will
have to seek uh a LMAR F from FEMA um letter map revision for this site. Uh the level of service for transportation has not been evaluated but again water and sewer capacity is available. It is consistent
with the city future land use uh map and comprehensive plan. uh consists of the surrounding future land use designations uh as they occur and proposed. Here are the requisite dates for uh public notification and advertisement.
So we prevent we provide to you ordinance number 2535 only for your consideration tonight for approval for the future land use map amendment from urban low to MCI commercial industrial Kyle, did we hear anything back from any
of the residents? >> I heard from one resident this afternoon. She just thought it was annexing her property, but that was the only response that we >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions? >> Public input as well. >> Okay.
>> We have no cards on this item. >> No cards. Okay. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this matter? Cindy. Exactly. >> Sydney Newton uninccorporated Eustace. I would just like to remind you that this
is 100% flood and it's also in a very environmentally sensitive area that affects your waterfront. any disruption with fill and then a big
retention pond to uh make up for the the difference there. It will affect drainage over on to tr lake and on to useless. >> Thank you Cindy. Does anyone else like
to speak on this matter? Okay, hearing none. It's closed. you know, she um she brought up a good point. Um and I know we talked about this before with the other property, but I mean, I do have a slight concern being it's right across the street from the
conservation area, Trout Lake. >> Um I think we have all seen that what the uh what the impacts could be. Um I know we can't predict the future but um Trout Lake is really important to us
conservation wise and you know we don't want to do anything to to damage that. So just a statement. >> Okay. Right. >> On the other hand, too, Gary, to your comments, Commissioner, um, this has been a troubled property,
>> and I think we're in a catch 22, I think they call it, stuck in between a rock and a hard spot, >> but I would rather I think I would rather us five determine the future of how we're going to handle that >> than somebody else.
So, that being said, we want to make sure we um cover what we need to cover, bring it under our control and put it in the light we feel and the light more importantly than what we feel is what our constituents feel about what's there
considering Trout Lake, considering uh all of that. We already got now plenty of action going on up there with with residential development. So, um if we don't control it, then they're going to control it for us, and that's the catch.
So, Um, I know we talked about a development agreement and I forgot what Sasha said about that, but there was some concerns about being able to have a development agreement for what it what it is, but I think I think we I'd rather us five be in
control of it than some other group. So, that's the where I'm kind of stuck. Can we do a development agreement with them to cover any concerns is always been the question to you. >> Yeah. So development agreements are voluntary um if they want to participate
in that and um we cannot condition of course annexation on them executing a development agreement. So anything that they would qualify for under the comp plan that's what they would be applying for and um that's what they would be
vested for as far as um any construction. I think this was MCI is that right? So, it's it's one of the um designations that we have that are we don't have many of those. Um if I'm not mistaken, we don't have many MCI so it's more of a
commercial component to it too. So, um we can have the applicant elaborate more on that and then you can >> So, how do we how can we if you're saying we can't do it subject to an accation? I think we just did something in the last meeting or two with with was
it with Brett Jones on >> Yes. But Brett Jones So >> what's the difference? >> The difference is they approached us with the request to do a a development agreement um not based on the city accepting the annexation. The reason for their development agreement is because
uh they are looking to have more um lots than what would be afforded to them under our current code. Otherwise, they can still qualify under our current code. They would just have, I think, four or five less um units that they could build. And in order for them to
get that concession, they've agreed to do a development agreement where they comply with our new um standards as far as design guidelines because we can't enforce those. Remember that the we're on hold because of SB80 for that. um those are voluntary anyway, but we also
have the restrictions on lot sizes, but they are aware of that and they have said that they are going to follow something that is not required of them because we put in all that work to ensure we have different facades and based on that they've entered into uh they've requested to enter into
development agreement that would afford them that. If the development agreement is denied, they can still proceed under the code based on what is allowed for that designation, but it's to their benefit. So that's why they came voluntarily requesting to enter into a development
agreement where they would find themselves to follow our design guidelines and um you know all the efforts that was done with Kimley Horn. It was their it was their approach. So, with the new regulation, did we change anything that we couldn't um in
MCI? Did we change anything that we did not allow on MCI before uh Senate Bill 180 came in? I can't remember. >> Um I don't believe we did unless there was a >> Was it something about concrete crushing that we we >> Well, that um that was taken care of
ahead of time. It was a use restriction that would have had to have been um >> updated or >> yeah it's one of the things that we would have to remove based on SB80. We can't really do anything with any comp plan amendments >> right >> were restricted there. >> Okay. >> So but voluntarily through a development
of course we can do that but that's >> I understand >> completely up to the the applicant. >> Yeah you're right commissioner as body it's a catch 22. >> Yeah. >> No matter no matter where you no matter no way you come come to it it's a catch 22. And I think and I think we have a
property owner that's appears to be very um committed to our city, been here forever that I hope that we can all sit down and and and come up with a resolution. I
think they're very u open to probably try. We could try. Nothing lost. But I think we got to then decide what is uh what what do we want in that. But um I I think we got to bring it into our
house and I don't think I really crazy about that, but we we do. >> I agree. We need the control here. >> Okay. Well, uh let's take a vote on transmitter. Can I get a motion? >> So move. >> Second.
>> Okay. Uh moving properly second. Uh roll call, please. >> I'm I'm sorry, but I couldn't quite hear who moved and seconded. move and second. >> Okay, that's what I thought, but I wanted to confirm. >> Miss Lee, >> I
>> Mr. Asody, >> I >> Mr. Ashcraft, >> hi. >> Mr. Hawkins, >> I Okay. Uh, anything else, Tom? Before we Okay, we take five minutes. >> Okay. All right. We're going to be
adjourned until 6:15.