Eustis commission weighs developer proposal, parking and hotel timing for Waterman site

City of Eustis commissioners spent a workshop session debating whether to move toward a development agreement with respondents to the Waterman-block request for proposals, focusing on whether a hotel should be the first phase, where parking should sit and how the city and developer would share risk and costs.

The discussion mattered because the three downtown blocks involved are central to the city’s master plan and to commissioners’ stated goals for bringing visitors and retail back to downtown. Commissioners repeatedly asked for clearer market and financial evidence before committing to a multi-block exclusivity or a binding development agreement.

Consultant Mike Gohman, who reviewed the presentation the developer submitted, described the submission as “a good start” but warned the commission that “the data is what lenders are gonna look at when they try to finance a project.” He told commissioners the usual sequence is market analysis, financial feasibility then design, and said a development agreement is the step that formalizes roles and responsibilities if both sides want to proceed. “There are an enormous amount of issues that have to be covered in that development agreement,” Gohman said.

Representatives of the respondent, G3C2, emphasized partnership and the time and investment required. Jerry Gunther, a G3C2 representative, said, “When we usually get brought on by cities, it’s because we’re the people who get stuff done.” Derek Wallace of G3C2 added that a hotel project “takes about 3 years to go through [the] construction process” and said the city and developer need to work together on marketing, infrastructure and phasing.

Commissioners pressed specifics. Multiple commissioners said they want a hotel and waterfront activation to be central goals but disagreed on sequencing and on the proposed location and scale of parking. One commissioner said bluntly, “I’m a tell you right now, I don’t like the parking lot on on the Magnolia.” Another emphasized the waterfront elements, asking, “Where’s the dock for the boat? Where’s the stuff for the airplane?”

Public commenters and other developers urged clearer, fully documented proposals. Daniel Divanonzo called the three-block packaging “the cart in front of the horse” and recommended separate requests for specific components (hotel, parking, Magnolia frontage). Danelle Hoffer of Center Green Development asked commissioners to “table this” if they were unsure and to require a full proposal including “financial modeling” and concepts before committing.

Commissioners and staff discussed options short of a formal vote. Several commissioners said they were not comfortable approving a contract extension without more detail; others urged allowing the respondent to return quickly with more focused material. Staff summarized the clear lines of requested follow-up: a more detailed look at hotel feasibility, a parking-location and quantity analysis, waterfront activation plans (docks/seaplane discussion), and consideration of phasing or parcel-by-parcel approaches rather than an all-or-nothing exclusivity.

No formal vote to extend any exclusivity or to enter a development agreement occurred that night. Instead the commission asked the respondent to return with revised materials and asked staff to provide written direction and a checklist. Staff noted the respondent’s exclusivity window runs to mid-June and commissioners discussed using the June 5 meeting or a special meeting to review any submittal; staff recorded June 12 as the practical target date mentioned in the discussion.

Commissioners repeatedly framed the next steps as: test the hotel case with data and a feasibility study, resolve parking location/quantity before committing on mass parking layouts, and clarify which parcels (single-block phasing versus multi-block exclusivity) the commission is prepared to vest in a single developer. If a development agreement is pursued, Gohman and other staff said it would likely take several months to negotiate and could still fail if either party cannot reach agreement.

The workshop closed with staff directed to capture the commission’s feedback in writing and to ask the developer to return with a package that addresses those specific items by the stated mid-June timeline.