morning. We will call the August 19th
DRC meeting to order and we'll start
with roll call. Planning departments
present. Police
>> Andrew King
>> public works.
>> Dale Smith.
>> Fire.
>> Jeremy Autoville.
>> Building
>> John Hansen.
>> Okay. First item on the agenda. what
would be public comment period. I'm I'm
getting good. I'm I'm remembering it.
[laughter]
Any member of the public would like to
speak on any items on the agenda or not
on the agenda? You have three minutes.
Anybody wishing to speak?
All right, we'll move on to construction
site plan. First one is the others out
parcel. Second submitt and June son is
the project manager.
>> Good morning. Um this is the other out
parasell CSP second cell middle. Um this
is the second phase of 2050
PMA surrenal road development for the 77
7400
square ft commercial building for
multi-tenant for office restaurant and
retail and DRC members had no comments
so recommend for approval.
>> All right appears the applicant is here
Josh any items for the DRC? Okay with
that planning recommends approval. Uh,
police, no comment. Public works,
>> no comments.
>> All right. Fire,
>> no comments.
>> And building,
>> I don't have anything. Thank you.
>> Got the approval through the DRC.
Next item on the agenda is Northwest
Church CSP second submitt. Jean Sanchez,
project manager.
» Get my paper in order here. Sorry about
that. Good morning. This is the second
submitt for the Northwest Church. If you
recall, this was the one where the
development order was um expired
essentially. And so they're resubmitting
for a construction site plan. Um this is
the Northwest Church. Uh their CSB is
for 23,000.
It's about 23,200 square ft of place of
worship. It's on the southeast corner of
Limit Road and Shopki Road. Um
[clears throat]
they did submit some updated
uh I think they meant they intended to
submit an updated traffic study. That
was one of the significant things last
time. Um and I just saw some
conflicting dates as well on the
landscaping and irrigation I think. Um
but otherwise there are just some
housekeeping items that um
planning made comments on. Um we also
need the the applicant to understand
that a tree removal permit must be based
on today's rate rather than I I'm not
sure if this the mitigation was
calculated before the increase of the
arbor mitigation fee was established. So
other than that, I really don't have
anything additional.
» Any questions uh from any other DRC
members for the applicant of the
applicants in attendance? Uh any
comments or questions?
>> I have a question.
>> All right. If you wouldn't mind coming
up here, Mr. Sabali.
» Good morning. [clears throat] Good
morning everyone. Sam Sabali with Thomas
Engineering. Uh I just have a question
on the utility comments. Um
uh not sure they if they came from you,
but uh there was a comment about uh the
lift station
and providing perimeter fencing. Um
wanted to see if that's uh we looked in
the code. I couldn't see it as a
requirement in the code, but it
references a detail. Uh the prior
submitt, we had landscaping around it,
and it's sitting way in the back. If you
look on the site plan,
it's behind the building close to the
dumpster area and we have a hedge around
it. Just wanted to see if we need to
fence it.
>> It's it's actually part of the
requirements and it is in our, you know,
standards and I did miss it like my
comment said, but you know, your comment
says that you're going to meet all of
our standards. So, you know, it'll have
to be a fencing that's actually approved
by, you know, development services.
>> Okay. So, uh, is there any specific
requirements for
>> defense? There are. If you'll look at
the Apopka, you know, design standards.
>> Okay. It's And
um, okay, I'll reach out to you because
I couldn't find it online. So,
>> okay. We've got uh, like I said, there's
the written words and there's u at least
one or two, you know, detail plates in
the back of the design standards that,
you know, show what is required.
>> All right. And that's for private lift
stations.
>> It's and our standard says for public or
private.
>> Okay. All right. That's the only thing.
So I guess from a plan revision
standpoint, this is the only outstanding
item for us.
>> Well, and you know, like I said, I think
your note covers that. I don't think you
need to modify your plans. Like I said,
>> okay, so we can just missed it. I said
your note covers it. And then I just
wanted to reiterate, you know, what the
note covered.
>> Okay. I got it. Thank you. All right.
>> So, it should be it
gene. Were there there there were still
outstanding planning comments? Correct.
>> I just need the updated I just need the
response to these comments. I don't
think unless we we see something
significant otherwise in your responses.
I don't think it should come back to DRC
once we review those comments. Um but
right now, no. I I I think we have
outstanding comments. I haven't seen the
updated TIA. Uh yeah, it wasn't included
with the retrofit, so we didn't include
it with this one, but it does match the
same numbers.
>> Okay. So, at this time, the
recommendation of denial is there's
outstanding comments that would need to
be addressed prior to approval. Uh
police,
>> no comments.
>> Works. No comments.
>> Fire,
>> no comments. Thank you.
>> And building,
>> no comments. Thank you.
>> Next one is the church, Northwest Church
existing building retrofit first of
middle.
This is the first submitt for the
retrofit of the um there is an existing
structure on the property. It's uh about
4,000 square ft. Um and as I understand
I just had some comments about is this
an additional
like ancillary place of worship apart
from the one we've seen in the previous
submittal.
Um
otherwise I really don't have that many
comments. I just need clarification. I
just I got a little bit confused what
the relationship is with this building
and what's being proposed under CSP
2610.
>> Right. And the applicant if you don't
mind coming up and
>> yeah, Jason is the church representative
and he'll talk a little bit about it.
>> Hey, good morning guys. Um yeah, Jason
Gilkkey. I'm an elder at Northwest
Church. So, uh, the, as uh, Jean had
shared, we have an existing building
that's been there for 30, 40 plus years.
So, we actually went through the
permitting process and had already
retrofitted the inside of the building
several years ago. So, over the last two
years, we've used this building, kind of
utilized it just for small group, a
couple nights a week, things like that.
Um, and we had I'd called in about a
year ago to say, "Hey, we've got our
main building project, but we'd love to
actually utilize this building now for,
you know, maybe Sunday morning services,
more church type use." No real future I
vision to connect it to the main
project. This would be its own
standalone building that would be used
just for church purposes, general church
use. In the meantime, the the idea was,
you know, we could maybe hold 50 to 100
people at most in there for on a Sunday
morning. Um, we could use it for, you
know, maybe youth stuff, small groups
like we're using. Um, so they had
suggested we we put the parking lot in.
So, that's where this plan came from was
that the uh planning department uh
during our preapp meeting and said that
was what they what they wanted was a uh
a paved parking area.
So that's kind of, you know, how this
all came came to be. But it there's no plan to connect it or or to
be a part of our main campus. It's just
uh on the same parcel and trying to
utilize the existing building that's
there.
» Any questions for the applicant?
>> Um question, was a change of use put
through during this process or are
[clears throat] you pushing through now
on it? Because I mean you're going from
what essentially was residential at one
point down to now we're talking assembly
in the church where we are. So that
should have been a change of use.
>> So we were told that the well at least
the underlying parcel this we have a
special exception for church use over
the whole parcel. I'm not sure if
there's another process we need to go
through for the specific to the
building. So,
>> okay.
>> I mean, it the special exception, Bobby,
is that what is zoned for or that's what
it was changed over to?
>> Yeah, special exception allows the use
on the property. I think what you're
getting at is the conversion of the
building itself. Absolutely. From one
occupancy class to another.
>> Yes, I do recall the driveway
conversation and all that. I do recall
bringing up that we would have to make
sure this is trans assembly that all
fire codes are going to be applicable to
get corrected. And um I still haven't
been out for an inspection of any
portion of it. So, if there's been any
type of things going on out there, I
think that's something that should be
having me out there, especially if you
guys are holding any type of service as
we speak.
>> Yeah, there's no real services taking
place necessarily, more small groups,
things like that in the but still at
that point. I mean, I don't it's
basically being treated as a commercial
building. Correct.
Uh, I guess in some regard, yeah, you
could say I mean it's a church church
type use, but if whatever the if you'd
want to come take a look or inspect,
>> I think we could probably meet offline
and
>> sure
>> come up with the plan of figuring out
what we're going to need to do far as a
change of use would go into place to
make sure it's done correctly and then
um far as an inspection and getting that all caught up. So,
>> okay. I know it went through the when it
went through the permitting process
before. I think it was looked at in that
way because it does have, you know, fire
uh fire alarms and exit signs and
everything else. So, it it seems like it
did go through that process, but happy
to have you take a look at it and see.
>> All right. No problem.
>> That'd be fine. We'll um reach out um
I'll get your contact information, reach
out and set up something.
>> Sounds good.
>> Any additional questions for the
applicant?
So the CSP for this retrofit, it really
should also serve your purpose of a
change of use, it looks like I don't
recall. I didn't review the change of
use, I guess, when it went through, but
it looks like there was a change of use.
Is that what I'm hearing, John?
>> I think this was years ago.
>> Okay.
» Yeah, it's been quite okay. So, so we'll
this CSP as it should be really we'll treat it as your change of use.
You need to make the comments that you
need to make and treat it as a change of
use. It's a redevelopment is really what
it is.
>> I commented on the workflow. Yeah, the
change of use was required.
>> So, it should have been that's on our
comments as of right now.
>> Okay.
>> So,
>> all right. Uh sounds like there's
outstanding comments from planning. So
the recommendation at this time would be
denial uh on addressing the comments.
Police
>> no comments.
>> Public works,
>> no comments.
>> Fire,
>> no other comments. Thank you.
>> Building,
>> nothing. Thanks.
>> All right. Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is Lester Oaks CSP second submitt
and Amir Hams as the project manager.
» Good morning everyone. So this is a uh
subdivision that consists of uh seven
lots. It's uh right off West Lester
Road. The zoning is RSF-1B. U feature
language is residential low suburban. Uh
staff and applicant are available for
comments and questions. They are
outstanding comments. So planning and
zoning is recommending denial.
>> All right. Is the applicant in
attendance this morning? Right.
» Good morning. Tom Faber, Faber
Engineering.
Uh don't have much but just want to go
over these last few minor comments. Um I
have been talking with uh planning staff
on their couple comments. I think we've
got a resolution to that uh for the
turnaround. Uh we did add a 5ft sidewalk
out to Leester Road. Um so we we're
planning to extend that to an 8ft
sidewalk and that'll go all the way
through our subdivision. Um that'll be a
multi-use trail. Um that should meet
that comment just for the record. Um and
then uh Dale for your comments. Um go
with them all. Um for the inlet, you
know, you wanted three three feet on
both sides of that weir. Um so
it's it's it's a shallower inlet just
based on our constraints there. We we'll
probably just change it to an H inlet or
something along those lines so that we
can we can get it there. But just
letting you know, I think that'll
address address your concerns with that.
Um, and then, um, there's a comment here
to add a bleed down at the weir. Uh,
which
I wasn't really clear about
how that would work because that would
really change our design and our
retention.
>> Well, the the comments what I did is I
put the last comment so that I just
what's in red and hopefully it showed up
in red.
>> Uhhuh. Okay. So that comment is
addressed.
>> Yeah, that comment's no longer
>> fantastic. Okay, thank you for
clarifying. Um, and then yeah, we'll
create a notch in the burn uh for that
last comment to to outlaw there. We had
some conversations on that uh in that
neighborhood to the south with that
inlet being covered up. Um, so if
there's any questions for me, I'm happy
to happy to answer them, but I think we
can address these last few.
>> Any additional questions for the
applicant? All right. As mayor had
indicated, pending residdle comments of
recommendations denial.
>> Thanks.
>> All right. Um, police,
>> no comment.
>> Public works,
>> no comments.
>> Fire,
>> no comments. Thank you.
>> Building,
>> I don't have anything.
>> Thank you very much. We'll look forward
to the resubmitt.
>> Any items for discussion?
Hearing God were jerk.