[3:54] morning. We will call the August 19th

[3:56] DRC meeting to order and we'll start

[3:58] with roll call. Planning departments

[3:59] present. Police

[4:00] >> Andrew King

[4:01] >> public works.

[4:02] >> Dale Smith.

[4:03] >> Fire.

[4:04] >> Jeremy Autoville.

[4:05] >> Building

[4:06] >> John Hansen.

[4:07] >> Okay. First item on the agenda. what

[4:09] would be public comment period. I'm I'm

[4:11] getting good. I'm I'm remembering it.

[4:13] [laughter]

[4:15] Any member of the public would like to

[4:16] speak on any items on the agenda or not

[4:18] on the agenda? You have three minutes.

[4:21] Anybody wishing to speak?

[4:24] All right, we'll move on to construction

[4:26] site plan. First one is the others out

[4:28] parcel. Second submitt and June son is

[4:30] the project manager.

[4:32] >> Good morning. Um this is the other out

[4:35] parasell CSP second cell middle. Um this

[4:38] is the second phase of 2050

[4:41] PMA surrenal road development for the 77

[4:45] 7400

[4:46] square ft commercial building for

[4:48] multi-tenant for office restaurant and

[4:51] retail and DRC members had no comments

[4:55] so recommend for approval.

[4:59] >> All right appears the applicant is here

[5:01] Josh any items for the DRC? Okay with

[5:05] that planning recommends approval. Uh,

[5:07] police, no comment. Public works,

[5:10] >> no comments.

[5:11] >> All right. Fire,

[5:12] >> no comments.

[5:13] >> And building,

[5:14] >> I don't have anything. Thank you.

[5:15] >> Got the approval through the DRC.

[5:18] Next item on the agenda is Northwest

[5:20] Church CSP second submitt. Jean Sanchez,

[5:23] project manager.

[5:26] » Get my paper in order here. Sorry about

[5:30] that. Good morning. This is the second

[5:32] submitt for the Northwest Church. If you

[5:35] recall, this was the one where the

[5:37] development order was um expired

[5:39] essentially. And so they're resubmitting

[5:42] for a construction site plan. Um this is

[5:45] the Northwest Church. Uh their CSB is

[5:49] for 23,000.

[5:52] It's about 23,200 square ft of place of

[5:55] worship. It's on the southeast corner of

[5:56] Limit Road and Shopki Road. Um

[6:00] [clears throat]

[6:01] they did submit some updated

[6:04] uh I think they meant they intended to

[6:06] submit an updated traffic study. That

[6:08] was one of the significant things last

[6:10] time. Um and I just saw some

[6:16] conflicting dates as well on the

[6:18] landscaping and irrigation I think. Um

[6:20] but otherwise there are just some

[6:22] housekeeping items that um

[6:27] planning made comments on. Um we also

[6:30] need the the applicant to understand

[6:33] that a tree removal permit must be based

[6:36] on today's rate rather than I I'm not

[6:39] sure if this the mitigation was

[6:41] calculated before the increase of the

[6:43] arbor mitigation fee was established. So

[6:46] other than that, I really don't have

[6:48] anything additional.

[6:51] » Any questions uh from any other DRC

[6:54] members for the applicant of the

[6:55] applicants in attendance? Uh any

[6:58] comments or questions?

[6:59] >> I have a question.

[7:00] >> All right. If you wouldn't mind coming

[7:01] up here, Mr. Sabali.

[7:05] » Good morning. [clears throat] Good

[7:06] morning everyone. Sam Sabali with Thomas

[7:09] Engineering. Uh I just have a question

[7:11] on the utility comments. Um

[7:15] uh not sure they if they came from you,

[7:17] but uh there was a comment about uh the

[7:20] lift station

[7:22] and providing perimeter fencing. Um

[7:26] wanted to see if that's uh we looked in

[7:29] the code. I couldn't see it as a

[7:30] requirement in the code, but it

[7:32] references a detail. Uh the prior

[7:34] submitt, we had landscaping around it,

[7:38] and it's sitting way in the back. If you

[7:40] look on the site plan,

[7:43] it's behind the building close to the

[7:45] dumpster area and we have a hedge around

[7:47] it. Just wanted to see if we need to

[7:48] fence it.

[7:49] >> It's it's actually part of the

[7:51] requirements and it is in our, you know,

[7:53] standards and I did miss it like my

[7:56] comment said, but you know, your comment

[7:58] says that you're going to meet all of

[7:59] our standards. So, you know, it'll have

[8:01] to be a fencing that's actually approved

[8:03] by, you know, development services.

[8:05] >> Okay. So, uh, is there any specific

[8:10] requirements for

[8:11] >> defense? There are. If you'll look at

[8:12] the Apopka, you know, design standards.

[8:15] >> Okay. It's And

[8:18] um, okay, I'll reach out to you because

[8:21] I couldn't find it online. So,

[8:23] >> okay. We've got uh, like I said, there's

[8:26] the written words and there's u at least

[8:28] one or two, you know, detail plates in

[8:31] the back of the design standards that,

[8:32] you know, show what is required.

[8:34] >> All right. And that's for private lift

[8:36] stations.

[8:37] >> It's and our standard says for public or

[8:40] private.

[8:41] >> Okay. All right. That's the only thing.

[8:43] So I guess from a plan revision

[8:45] standpoint, this is the only outstanding

[8:48] item for us.

[8:49] >> Well, and you know, like I said, I think

[8:50] your note covers that. I don't think you

[8:52] need to modify your plans. Like I said,

[8:54] >> okay, so we can just missed it. I said

[8:57] your note covers it. And then I just

[8:59] wanted to reiterate, you know, what the

[9:01] note covered.

[9:02] >> Okay. I got it. Thank you. All right.

[9:05] >> So, it should be it

[9:07] gene. Were there there there were still

[9:08] outstanding planning comments? Correct.

[9:11] >> I just need the updated I just need the

[9:14] response to these comments. I don't

[9:16] think unless we we see something

[9:18] significant otherwise in your responses.

[9:20] I don't think it should come back to DRC

[9:22] once we review those comments. Um but

[9:25] right now, no. I I I think we have

[9:27] outstanding comments. I haven't seen the

[9:29] updated TIA. Uh yeah, it wasn't included

[9:32] with the retrofit, so we didn't include

[9:34] it with this one, but it does match the

[9:36] same numbers.

[9:37] >> Okay. So, at this time, the

[9:39] recommendation of denial is there's

[9:40] outstanding comments that would need to

[9:42] be addressed prior to approval. Uh

[9:44] police,

[9:46] >> no comments.

[9:48] >> Works. No comments.

[9:49] >> Fire,

[9:50] >> no comments. Thank you.

[9:51] >> And building,

[9:51] >> no comments. Thank you.

[9:53] >> Next one is the church, Northwest Church

[9:56] existing building retrofit first of

[9:58] middle.

[9:59] This is the first submitt for the

[10:01] retrofit of the um there is an existing

[10:04] structure on the property. It's uh about

[10:06] 4,000 square ft. Um and as I understand

[10:10] I just had some comments about is this

[10:13] an additional

[10:15] like ancillary place of worship apart

[10:18] from the one we've seen in the previous

[10:21] submittal.

[10:22] Um

[10:25] otherwise I really don't have that many

[10:27] comments. I just need clarification. I

[10:29] just I got a little bit confused what

[10:32] the relationship is with this building

[10:35] and what's being proposed under CSP

[10:38] 2610.

[10:41] >> Right. And the applicant if you don't

[10:42] mind coming up and

[10:44] >> yeah, Jason is the church representative

[10:47] and he'll talk a little bit about it.

[10:49] >> Hey, good morning guys. Um yeah, Jason

[10:52] Gilkkey. I'm an elder at Northwest

[10:54] Church. So, uh, the, as uh, Jean had

[10:59] shared, we have an existing building

[11:01] that's been there for 30, 40 plus years.

[11:04] So, we actually went through the

[11:05] permitting process and had already

[11:06] retrofitted the inside of the building

[11:08] several years ago. So, over the last two

[11:12] years, we've used this building, kind of

[11:14] utilized it just for small group, a

[11:16] couple nights a week, things like that.

[11:18] Um, and we had I'd called in about a

[11:20] year ago to say, "Hey, we've got our

[11:22] main building project, but we'd love to

[11:24] actually utilize this building now for,

[11:28] you know, maybe Sunday morning services,

[11:29] more church type use." No real future I

[11:33] vision to connect it to the main

[11:35] project. This would be its own

[11:36] standalone building that would be used

[11:38] just for church purposes, general church

[11:41] use. In the meantime, the the idea was,

[11:43] you know, we could maybe hold 50 to 100

[11:46] people at most in there for on a Sunday

[11:47] morning. Um, we could use it for, you

[11:50] know, maybe youth stuff, small groups

[11:53] like we're using. Um, so they had

[11:54] suggested we we put the parking lot in.

[11:57] So, that's where this plan came from was

[11:59] that the uh planning department uh

[12:01] during our preapp meeting and said that

[12:03] was what they what they wanted was a uh

[12:05] a paved parking area.

[12:08] So that's kind of, you know, how this

[12:10] all came came to be. But it there's no plan to connect it or or to

[12:15] be a part of our main campus. It's just

[12:18] uh on the same parcel and trying to

[12:20] utilize the existing building that's

[12:21] there.

[12:24] » Any questions for the applicant?

[12:26] >> Um question, was a change of use put

[12:29] through during this process or are

[12:31] [clears throat] you pushing through now

[12:32] on it? Because I mean you're going from

[12:34] what essentially was residential at one

[12:36] point down to now we're talking assembly

[12:38] in the church where we are. So that

[12:40] should have been a change of use.

[12:41] >> So we were told that the well at least

[12:44] the underlying parcel this we have a

[12:47] special exception for church use over

[12:49] the whole parcel. I'm not sure if

[12:52] there's another process we need to go

[12:54] through for the specific to the

[12:56] building. So,

[12:58] >> okay.

[12:59] >> I mean, it the special exception, Bobby,

[13:01] is that what is zoned for or that's what

[13:03] it was changed over to?

[13:04] >> Yeah, special exception allows the use

[13:06] on the property. I think what you're

[13:08] getting at is the conversion of the

[13:10] building itself. Absolutely. From one

[13:12] occupancy class to another.

[13:13] >> Yes, I do recall the driveway

[13:14] conversation and all that. I do recall

[13:16] bringing up that we would have to make

[13:17] sure this is trans assembly that all

[13:19] fire codes are going to be applicable to

[13:20] get corrected. And um I still haven't

[13:22] been out for an inspection of any

[13:24] portion of it. So, if there's been any

[13:25] type of things going on out there, I

[13:26] think that's something that should be

[13:28] having me out there, especially if you

[13:30] guys are holding any type of service as

[13:31] we speak.

[13:32] >> Yeah, there's no real services taking

[13:35] place necessarily, more small groups,

[13:37] things like that in the but still at

[13:39] that point. I mean, I don't it's

[13:41] basically being treated as a commercial

[13:42] building. Correct.

[13:45] Uh, I guess in some regard, yeah, you

[13:47] could say I mean it's a church church

[13:48] type use, but if whatever the if you'd

[13:51] want to come take a look or inspect,

[13:53] >> I think we could probably meet offline

[13:55] and

[13:55] >> sure

[13:56] >> come up with the plan of figuring out

[13:57] what we're going to need to do far as a

[13:59] change of use would go into place to

[14:00] make sure it's done correctly and then

[14:02] um far as an inspection and getting that all caught up. So,

[14:06] >> okay. I know it went through the when it

[14:08] went through the permitting process

[14:10] before. I think it was looked at in that

[14:12] way because it does have, you know, fire

[14:14] uh fire alarms and exit signs and

[14:16] everything else. So, it it seems like it

[14:19] did go through that process, but happy

[14:20] to have you take a look at it and see.

[14:23] >> All right. No problem.

[14:24] >> That'd be fine. We'll um reach out um

[14:27] I'll get your contact information, reach

[14:28] out and set up something.

[14:29] >> Sounds good.

[14:31] >> Any additional questions for the

[14:32] applicant?

[14:35] So the CSP for this retrofit, it really

[14:39] should also serve your purpose of a

[14:41] change of use, it looks like I don't

[14:44] recall. I didn't review the change of

[14:46] use, I guess, when it went through, but

[14:49] it looks like there was a change of use.

[14:51] Is that what I'm hearing, John?

[14:54] >> I think this was years ago.

[14:55] >> Okay.

[14:59] » Yeah, it's been quite okay. So, so we'll

[15:03] this CSP as it should be really we'll treat it as your change of use.

[15:08] You need to make the comments that you

[15:10] need to make and treat it as a change of

[15:12] use. It's a redevelopment is really what

[15:14] it is.

[15:16] >> I commented on the workflow. Yeah, the

[15:18] change of use was required.

[15:20] >> So, it should have been that's on our

[15:21] comments as of right now.

[15:22] >> Okay.

[15:23] >> So,

[15:25] >> all right. Uh sounds like there's

[15:27] outstanding comments from planning. So

[15:28] the recommendation at this time would be

[15:30] denial uh on addressing the comments.

[15:32] Police

[15:33] >> no comments.

[15:34] >> Public works,

[15:35] >> no comments.

[15:36] >> Fire,

[15:37] >> no other comments. Thank you.

[15:38] >> Building,

[15:38] >> nothing. Thanks.

[15:39] >> All right. Thank you. Next item on the

[15:42] agenda is Lester Oaks CSP second submitt

[15:45] and Amir Hams as the project manager.

[15:49] » Good morning everyone. So this is a uh

[15:52] subdivision that consists of uh seven

[15:54] lots. It's uh right off West Lester

[15:57] Road. The zoning is RSF-1B. U feature

[16:01] language is residential low suburban. Uh

[16:04] staff and applicant are available for

[16:05] comments and questions. They are

[16:07] outstanding comments. So planning and

[16:08] zoning is recommending denial.

[16:10] >> All right. Is the applicant in

[16:12] attendance this morning? Right.

[16:20] » Good morning. Tom Faber, Faber

[16:22] Engineering.

[16:24] Uh don't have much but just want to go

[16:26] over these last few minor comments. Um I

[16:29] have been talking with uh planning staff

[16:31] on their couple comments. I think we've

[16:34] got a resolution to that uh for the

[16:37] turnaround. Uh we did add a 5ft sidewalk

[16:40] out to Leester Road. Um so we we're

[16:44] planning to extend that to an 8ft

[16:46] sidewalk and that'll go all the way

[16:48] through our subdivision. Um that'll be a

[16:50] multi-use trail. Um that should meet

[16:52] that comment just for the record. Um and

[16:55] then uh Dale for your comments. Um go

[16:59] with them all. Um for the inlet, you

[17:03] know, you wanted three three feet on

[17:05] both sides of that weir. Um so

[17:09] it's it's it's a shallower inlet just

[17:11] based on our constraints there. We we'll

[17:13] probably just change it to an H inlet or

[17:15] something along those lines so that we

[17:17] can we can get it there. But just

[17:19] letting you know, I think that'll

[17:20] address address your concerns with that.

[17:22] Um, and then, um, there's a comment here

[17:26] to add a bleed down at the weir. Uh,

[17:29] which

[17:31] I wasn't really clear about

[17:34] how that would work because that would

[17:36] really change our design and our

[17:38] retention.

[17:39] >> Well, the the comments what I did is I

[17:42] put the last comment so that I just

[17:44] what's in red and hopefully it showed up

[17:46] in red.

[17:46] >> Uhhuh. Okay. So that comment is

[17:48] addressed.

[17:48] >> Yeah, that comment's no longer

[17:49] >> fantastic. Okay, thank you for

[17:51] clarifying. Um, and then yeah, we'll

[17:54] create a notch in the burn uh for that

[17:56] last comment to to outlaw there. We had

[17:59] some conversations on that uh in that

[18:01] neighborhood to the south with that

[18:02] inlet being covered up. Um, so if

[18:07] there's any questions for me, I'm happy

[18:08] to happy to answer them, but I think we

[18:10] can address these last few.

[18:12] >> Any additional questions for the

[18:13] applicant? All right. As mayor had

[18:16] indicated, pending residdle comments of

[18:19] recommendations denial.

[18:20] >> Thanks.

[18:21] >> All right. Um, police,

[18:22] >> no comment.

[18:23] >> Public works,

[18:24] >> no comments.

[18:25] >> Fire,

[18:26] >> no comments. Thank you.

[18:27] >> Building,

[18:27] >> I don't have anything.

[18:28] >> Thank you very much. We'll look forward

[18:29] to the resubmitt.

[18:31] >> Any items for discussion?

[18:34] Hearing God were jerk.

Development Review Committee Meeting

Transcript