Eustis delays decision on Derek Wallace master plan; schedules workshop to shape downtown development

The Eustis City Commission heard a lengthy presentation June 18 from Derek Wallace of G3C2 proposing a multi‑block downtown master plan that would add mixed‑use buildings, a parking structure and a new community center, but commissioners declined to approve a master‑developer deal and instead directed staff to convene a workshop to sort next steps.

Wallace summarized a master plan that he said treats the downtown as a district rather than “just develop 3 blocks,” and showed renderings and rough budgets for multiple blocks, including a mixed‑use garage he estimated at about $36,000,000 for one block and a later block feasibility estimate of roughly $40,000,000. He told the commission he had spent three years on the concept and had put personal money into early work.

The plan’s scale prompted commissioners to ask for time to evaluate details and alternatives. Commissioners and staff discussed staging the work block‑by‑block, opening proposals to competition rather than awarding a single developer everything, and clarifying who would manage construction and long‑term operations. Public works and a consultant gave updated construction numbers for a possible garage site east of Atlantic Coast Tile: a two‑level garage cost estimate of about $6.9 million for a basic structure and about $7.4 million with facades; capacity estimates ranged around 260–280 spaces depending on design.

City attorney Sasha warned that any conveyance of city property or unsolicited proposal must follow statutory notice procedures under Florida law. “It is necessary. It is not a private‑public partnership, even if it’s unsolicited, it does not in any way remove the requirements of 163.380,” Sasha said, pointing to the state statute that governs unsolicited proposals and public conveyances.

Commissioners repeatedly said they wanted more time. Several members said they favored breaking the work into discrete projects (community center, parking, block‑by‑block development) and issuing targeted requests for proposals (RFPs) rather than immediately approving a master‑developer contract. One commissioner emphasized the need for a parking study and a clear sequencing plan: “We have to identify what we want first,” the commissioner said, noting that building multiple projects at once could overwhelm the downtown.

The commission did not vote to accept the master‑developer proposal. Instead the body directed city staff to arrange a workshop to examine the proposed projects, timing and procurement approach; staff said they would seek dates in July and August but expected an August workshop was more likely. Staff also noted that, if the commission chooses to seek competing proposals for city property, advertising and notice periods (minimum 30 days) will lengthen the timetable.

The meeting included questions about community facilities and interim services while a proposed community center is built; staff said the city is responsible for ensuring affordable event space and must evaluate interim arrangements if the commission pursues a long‑range redevelopment.

Next steps: staff will circulate workshop dates and prepare materials — including parking analyses, the updated FinFrock garage cost figures, and draft procurement options — for the commission. No binding agreements were approved at the June 18 meeting.