[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.