Mhm. >> June 17th, 2026 the OC meeting to order will start with roll call. Planning is in attendance. If you could please be quiet, the meeting has started. Thank you very much. Planning is in in attendance. Police, Andrew King. Public Works, >> Dale Smith. >> Fire,
>> Jeremy Olderfield. >> And building, >> John Nelson. >> All right. Public comment period is on the agenda for any items anybody would like to speak on. If you're a member of the public, if you're an applicant, uh you can come up during your period uh to speak on your project. Any items? Public
comment? Hearing none, we'll move on. First item on the agenda, future land use amendment. Uh FLU 26-4 Bateman Properties, Jean Sanchez is the project manager. >> Good morning. This is a future land use designation proposal for the Bateman
Properties. I don't know if you all recall uh I think a couple months ago you saw the proposed annexation. That annexation is tentatively scheduled for July 1st and 15th to be reviewed by city commission.
Um, this is for the accompanying future land use and this is within the Kelly Park form based code area. So, naturally they're asking for mixed use future land use designation. It falls within, I think this is a transition overlay
district, which permits both um, kind of lower um, lower intensity commercial and um, some I think it's five, um, I think it's five uh, dwelling units per acre intensity in the transition.
So, um, this I don't have any comments in terms of uh, planning department, but the future land use application processing is contingent upon the adoption of the annexation and that's what I have on my comments. >> All right, is the applicant in
attendance this morning? >> Does not appear to be. >> Okay, planning has nothing further to add. Uh, police, no comment. >> Public works. >> No comment. >> Fire. >> No comment, thank you. >> Building. >> Nothing, thank you. >> All right, next item is
Crossroads at Kelly Park phase 2A plat, Jean. >> This is one of the portions of the Crossroads at Kelly Park phase 2A-2. I'm sure you'll recall exactly where that is. But, this is on the northwestern portion of Crossroads.
Um, this one is actually a re-plat of what they had before. It was for uh, future development. That's what it was platted for and um, it's for 78 residential units within that um, development. I don't have any comments
other than those issued by our legal counsel as well as city surveyor. >> Is the applicant in attendance? >> I don't believe they're in attendance. >> Okay. All right, planning has nothing further to add than what Miss Sanchez has spoke about. Uh police, no comment.
Public Works? >> Uh Jean, I had published some comments just before noon on the 15th. >> Oh, apologies. Yes, you're right. There is a comment about the perpetual easement as well as Let's see. I think the language on the perpetual easement as well as the 5-ft
wall easement in terms of the gas grid. >> Of the geo grid. >> Sure. I have sent that to them, yes, sir. >> Fire? >> No comments, thank you. Building? >> I don't have anything, thank you. >> Based on this, that one is denied as
there are outstanding comments. Next item, Ridgebrook Plat Phase Ridgebrook Plat third submittal, Amir. >> Good morning, everyone. So, this is a the third submittal for the Ridgebrook Plat. It consists of 86 lots. They're all single-family homes. Zoning is
RSF-1B. Future land use is residential low suburban. Applicant is in I believe the applicant is in attendance. Refer to comments or questions along with staff. >> Were there any outstanding comments? >> Yes, there were from legal. >> Uh do you have any questions or comments
for the DRC? >> Uh no, just that I don't know what that final comment was. I had approval from the city surveyor and I didn't receive >> any other comments. >> It's from the legal team, not not the city surveyor approved city surveyor has approved it, but legal
still has outstanding comments. >> is that comment? >> Uh it's uh you'd have to check your um the uh letter. Yeah, it's on it's uploaded on the open gov online portal. >> All right. Okay. Uh planning has nothing further.
Police? No comment. Public Works? >> Just the comments that were posted. >> Okay. >> Fire. >> I didn't know any comments posted, but I needed to act I needed to address the emergency access that's being brought up in I guess I can get with Jeff offline. >> Okay.
>> Give him an email and find out as well. Thank you. >> Building. >> Nothing. Thank you. >> Based on this, it's this plat application is denied until the comments have been resolved. And once they are resolved, then it would be approved. Plats are administrative level approval
per Florida law. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda, Crescent Ridge phase one plat, Jean. >> Hi, Jean Sanchez again with planning and this is the proposed plat for Crescent Ridge, which is formerly known as Ondich
South. It's 481 residential lots. We did have comments from legal that I issued yesterday. I think public works doesn't have any comments. We are still waiting on comments from the city surveyor. I had a couple of clarifications sent out
to them. So, with that said, I really don't have anything additional. >> All right, is the applicant in attendance? >> I don't believe they are. >> Okay. All right, planning has nothing further. Police. >> No comments. >> Public works. >> No comments. >> Fire.
>> No comments, thank you. >> Building. >> Nothing. Thank you. >> is denied until comments have been satisfied as well. Okay. Next item on the agenda. Floridian Town Center multi-family phase one major development plan, Amir.
>> So, this is a proposal for multi-family development. It consists of 312 units. Zoning is a PD and future land use is residential high. It's located at the Floridian Town Center area. Staff and applicant are available for
further comments and questions. Is the applicant in attendance? >> All right. >> Hey guys, David Gastel with LJA. Keith Farling here as well. Um so some of our questions just surround some of the comments that we have about uh one of them being parking
directly. I think there was a comment about the ratio and percentage uh of parking on the site. Uh if you refer back to the PD, there was uh an approval for a lesser ratio. Uh so I just want to make sure that that was that's understood or if there's
an issue with that. >> If you could send me that, then I can confirm it and then the comment will be >> Okay, cool. Um and then the second thing that we had was uh about the bike parking. Uh so it seems like I think the long-term bike parking is
uh there's a little bit uh we're having some issues trying to satisfy that. Uh is there other are there other options that you guys have allowed or seen or variances uh particularly with like >> Yeah, so on some of these it's usually
like a storage room that they're built in in a lot of these multi-family developments. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And so that's been pretty there there's no there's no uh variance or ability to other options outside of that. You guys are looking for that. >> Correct. That's correct. Yes. >> Got you.
>> What are the any variance to the maximum distance from a building for the long-term parking? >> What would be the hardship? >> Um just the we're proposing one bike barn um
central um and we're having trouble meeting one of the buildings on the distance. >> I think that it's been done in the past. Other applicants have done it with their multi-family, so I I I No. >> Okay.
Is there anything else you had? >> Um that was it. Okay. >> Did uh public works I know this is in the Floridian Town Center. You know I had discussed something before about this. >> Right. I haven't finished my review, but one of the issues that I think we're going to have if we're going to have to
get with the master developer because none of the utilities have been accepted by the city of Apopka. The lift station has sat for 2 years without being exercised. Lines probably all need to be flushed and chlorinated. >> Yep, we're aware. The uh
the the issue has been platting uh and annexation which is moving forward. We're working with LAD to get the platting done to complete the work and certify everything. >> Right. >> Yeah. And yeah, what Bobby has said, you know, because as she just said MDP, we still have you know, time to do that.
>> Yeah. Just wanted to make you aware of that. >> Yeah, we're we're tracking both processes, but it seems like the annexation has finally been we're in the right direction on that one. And once the annexation gets done, we can make the plat and then finally certify all the utilities. >> Yeah, that'll take care of the lift station. Like I said, we're yeah, didn't
have a final inspection on any of the infrastructure, so we're going to have to work through that with the master developer. >> Yep. Sounds good. >> And by the annexation, you're referring to the annexation down here for Fudge Road. >> Yeah, that's right. So, it's it's kind of held up the plat. And so, we can't
plat, which means we can't hand over utilities, which we can't certify, and so on and so forth. >> And uh Orange County was going to take 6 months if they were going to vacate the right of way, so they've suggested the annexation. >> That's correct. Yeah, it there's still a
I believe there's still a vacating process that has to be done via the city at that point, but >> But it'll be quicker with this. >> It will yeah, yeah, it'll all go hand in hand. >> Okay, planning has nothing further. Police? >> No comment. >> Public Works? >> No other comments. >> Fire?
>> I comment regarding auto turn, which I can stand corrected on there. Your auto turn is correct on the link public. I apologize. But I also mentioned that the FTC locations need to be the same island as the fire hydrant, keeping them within 25 ft. I never saw any comments replied to that. Was that something you guys are able to address with the plans?
>> Yeah, shouldn't be a problem. >> Okay, thank you. >> Building? >> Nothing, thank you. >> All right, at this time the DRC recommends denial of the plan as there are outstanding comments. And once the comments are resolved, then you'd be scheduled for planning commission and then city council for approval.
>> Thank you. Okay, next item on the agenda is Southern Tire Mart MDP first submittal. I am the project manager on this one. It is for a 45,000 sq ft Tire Mart facility located on 441. Uh there were extensive comments that
were issued by planning and public works on this one. I don't know if the applicant's in attendance this morning. Uh but now is your chance to come before the DRC and talk. >> Morning. Good morning. I'm uh Frenchie >> I'm Campos with Kimley-Horn
uh from the applicant side of the project. >> Are there any specific comments you'd like to discuss or are they pretty self-explanatory or >> Yes, there's one main topic we wanted to discuss um with the city regarding the amount of
parking uh required for this site. Um if you can see here on sheet uh uh, 2.0 based on the proposed use of this site, which is a a tire repair facility. Um, the city requires
four spaces per every thousand square feet of building. Um, which for our proposed building square footage of 45,000 square feet, uh, we would need to provide 180 parking spaces. Um, as as you can see, this is for the
proposed used of our site, um, one that serves not only passenger vehicles, but also uh, semi trucks. Um, it it involves a larger footprint, but it doesn't expect a much higher um, parking spaces being used on a
day-to-day. Uh, we actually reflected this on our TIA um, letter we included with this submittal. And we show that we expect no more than 64 trips
per day. And then a total of six peak hour trips as well. And so the what we want to discuss with the city is trying to find a a path forward to reflect the actual amount of parking
spaces that would be used and actually needed for this site, uh, understanding that it has both components, not only passenger vehicles being served, uh, but also those semi trucks and involving that larger footprint for storing the uh, the tires. And and the the site as
well. >> So there's a provision in the code that allows a parking study. Um, you could provide that. Would have to be reviewed by the staff, um, and we would determine whether or not that that would work or not. Um, you could use a comparable
facility, and and it would be reviewed accordingly. >> Perfect. Yeah, I have um, the client here with me, Andrew, and um, we can look at other similar sites, um, around the country. I don't think there's a similar building like this in
in the city. If I'm if I'm correct, serving both passenger and and semi trucks for tower repair facilities. Um So, if that's okay with the the city, um our our parking study can show those similar sites being analyzed and
presented as a parking study. >> Okay. Yeah, you just provide that, we'll review it accordingly. >> Awesome. And then, I understand the methodology needs to be approved prior. Who who would we need to run it by? >> Public Works would review the methodology for the the studies, yes.
The city engineer is what it says, I believe, in the code. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um I I did have a couple other questions that I wanted to discuss about the comments. Um under planning and zoning
uh regarding the open space set aside, we are showing in this site plan on the right-hand side, uh the existing Page Lake as the open space set aside. Just wanted
to confirm if if that was okay for the city as as the open space needed for this. >> Yeah, if you could note that on the plan, I couldn't see in the notes what gets called out as open space. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. And then, I understand um
we have a FEMA um delineation in in the plans. On the right-hand side, we have a flood zone A and on the left-hand side is zone X, so outside of the of the 100-year flood
elevation. Um we we received a comments from Public Services um to determine the 100-year flood elevation, uh which is what I wanted to confirm giving that the proposed development doesn't impact the zone A if
the elevation still needed to be determined as we are staying out of it. >> Was that a public works comment? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> The thing is the footprint that you see on the flood map with the zone A, it doesn't have an elevation, so
you the reason you set an elevation cuz that footprint can grow or shrink. So, if it grows, it means it then you would you may have to, you know, compensate for any fill that you put in that flood plane, so you're going to have to determine that elevation and
then compare it with the elevations on your site. >> Okay. Understood. And would that be something that we'll have to do a separate permit for, for >> You'll have to give us the elevation as part of the CSP so we can see what the
impacts will be to the site. >> Got it. So, that has to be provided by the CSP permit. >> Um, by the our CSP permit, right. And then, you know, if you want to modify, you know, the flood plane, then you'll have to work through FEMA, you know, changing, you know, the
footprint, you know, of the FEMA flood plane. In other words, if you were to come up with an elevation that pushed it, you know, truly closer to the actual Page Lake rather than the flood plane, if, you know, if that gave you more property to develop, kept you from doing
any compensating fill, you may want to do that. But you at least have to come up with that elevation so we can compare it to your site. >> Okay. Understood. Um, and and yeah, also understanding that this flood zone covers, you know, much more area than what's what's shown here
on on our project. Um, is is that then tentative determine >> Well, you're going to have to look at, you know, Page Lake and what comes to it and determine that flood zone. >> Okay. >> So, in the only outlet for Page Lake is a, you know, drainage well.
So. >> Uh thank you. Um And the last question I had was uh there was a comment from also public services and engineering that this site is part of a karst area. >> Correct. >> Um
just wanted to understand where we can uh find a little bit more information about the implications. >> You need to get a comp- get to the comp plan and there's a uh couple sections that'll tell you what you need to do with the karst area and what buffers you will need depending upon how connected
it is to the Florida aquifer. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> Do you have any other questions? >> Uh no, that would be all. >> Okay. >> Planning has nothing further than other than comments that were generated. >> Uh public I'm sorry, police. >> No comments. >> Public works.
>> No other comments. >> Fire. >> I only have one comment. The um I'll be updating on the uh next uh uh the updated highway entrance. I'd like to have it relocated next to the F P C Island in the front of the building. Break that up. It's like six
parking spots over. But keep them within a distance of their first so. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Building. >> Nothing. Thank you. >> Based on the comments that have been generated, uh the DRC recommends denial at this point till everything's been satisfied. As this is over 25,000 square
feet in area, the building area is required to go to the planning commission and city council for final approvals. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next item on the agenda, Wild Oaks cell tower. It's Sanchez. >> So, this is the proposed um
telecommunications tower. It's a mono tower. I think it's they call it stealth mono-tower on there within the Wild Oaks um development. And um it is permitted without special exception or any other
pre-requisite approvals per the Wild Oaks Town Center Overlay which was recently adopted by City Commission. Um I just have a few comments on my end in terms of housekeeping comments and really based on the
aesthetic um standards uh that's been established by the Wild Oaks Town Center Overlay. Um I did have a couple questions about screening. I needed to see a little bit more landscaping on there and I know it's a cell tower, but this is proposed to be closer to the Saddler right-of-way
it looks like to me based on the site layout. And um I needed to see that the fence the proposed I think right now they're proposing a chain link fence. Wild Oaks in particular that Town Center Overlay district requires a little bit
more in terms of aesthetics. So I don't know if we would permit a chain link fence on here. So um it looks to me like it's deferred to the land development code requirement within this zoning that it needs to be some
decorative fencing and a lot more screening than the what's currently shown on the site plan. Other than that um I don't have any additional comments. >> All right, thank you. Is the applicant in attendance? >> Good morning. I am Joe Banko with Kimley Horn.
Um we did receive the comments which we believe to be minor um uh and we do intend to comply. I'm here basically just to uh confirm um what type of uh decorative wall um
we want to move forward with uh for the area cuz when we spoke with the uh the Wild Oaks development, um the fence they showed us was a three-rail aluminum fence, which I don't believe would be uh better than a chain-link fence. Um
and uh to go with the landscaping around the cell tower um lease area, if we were to put up a decorative wall, um would that still require more plants and trees to be put around the compound as well?
Um cuz with the fence and say vinyl slats, uh that would cover the the area um where the equipment would be. Um and then plants and shrub shrubbery around that would also again um act as coverage. Uh so if we could just get some
direction on the type of wall that we want to move forward with, um we we are willing to comply with that. Uh just just need more clarity around um that area and that aesthetic that we're looking for. Um and then there was one other comment
around colored elevations. Uh we believe that photo simulations would uh be adequate to to address that comment. I'm just also looking for a confirmation around uh if that if that is the what that comment is uh looking for to be
addressed by. >> That is all. >> Sure. So, we can treat this like any other proposed development we've had outside of uh KPI where we require screening. If you do put up an opaque wall, um there's
not going to be as much and I will give you exactly which section of the land development code that you would need to follow. If it is going to be an aluminum fence, which we don't have an issue with. Um then obviously the screening, the landscape screening will be a little bit
more. Um and in terms of uh rendering simulation that you talked about, um we've seen a conceptual one when we've had previous um discussions with the Wild Oaks folks, that team they showed us what they had in mind and I
think between Wild Oaks uh team and city staff we are slowly but surely coming up with um development or design standards for this town center overlay um that is uh that meets the intent of
that overlay. So, that's fine if you want to send us a simulation, we'll be happy to look at it as long as it's colored. Um I think we agreed I thought there was some sort of specific um aesthetics that
Wild Oaks proposed to us. So, we can't really, you know, staff can't regulate the actual message of the sign. We can just look at the aesthetics and and what the intent of the town center overlay code is. So, if you want to send us that, that's fine.
>> We'll take a look at it. >> Any additional questions? Uh no. No further [clears throat] questions, sir. Anybody on DRC have any questions? All right, planning has nothing further than the comments that were generated. Police? >> No comments. >> Public Works? >> No comments. >> Fire? >> No comments, thank you. >> Building?
>> Nothing, thanks. >> so at this time the recommendation is denial as there's outstanding comments that need to be resolved. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Where did the agenda go? Next item, Logistics 429 at the Popka Ridge construction site plan second
submittal. Jean. Once again. >> Again. We're almost done. Um okay, so this is for logistics. It really shouldn't surprise some of you have seen this area time and time again.
This is just a proposed construction of buildings 400, 500, and 600. This is considered to be phase two of the logistics at 429 development. Um I didn't have any comments other than a
couple of minor comments in terms of advising the cover sheet, but I understand public works has issued comments and I didn't get any additional comments from other DRC members. >> Right. Is the applicant in attendance?
Good morning, Mark Smiley, engineer for the applicant. And really just few clarifications on the public works comments. Um the reclaimed water system is actually already tied in on the on the east side right where the where Bronson
Lake starts to bend off the page there. So reclaimed's already got a tie in there. Um and that the next comment was is a backflow preventer required. Was that referring to reclaimed or to water? Well, uh on the reclaimed also.
I'm sorry, say On the reclaimed. On the reclaimed. Okay, so it's already installed everything on that we're tied into is already private. >> see it on the plans that were submitted and had it here through >> No worries. I'll call it out with the note or and and also explain here in my response to you. That's not a problem at
all. Um I know the water demand issue with the peak factor that all be cleared up. The lift station, it is calculated for the square footage of the entire park. So I'll explain that also and just note it in my response. And then the last one, the design speed for Bronson Ridge or or
Bronson Lake, um you're just curious if the speed limit's going to change once they tie into a a Koala Park Road? >> Well, that's correct. I mean, it's a dead-end street now. >> Right. >> I know there wasn't a speed study, probably not needed because it wasn't a cul-de-sac. >> Yep. >> What is it going to be? We're looking at
the apartments, you know, to the east and have sort of asked Ace Engineering a question. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I'll I've already reached out to BHB who's who's doing that design, and I'll get that answer for you, and I'll get that in the response. >> Okay, thank you. >> Good. >> Everything else was was simple, though.
>> All right. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Planning has nothing further. Police. >> No comments. >> Public Works. >> No other questions. >> Fire. >> No comments, thank you. >> Building. >> Nothing, thanks. >> All right. As there are outstanding comments, the recommendations deny until it comes forward and everything's resolved. >> Sounds good.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Next item, I'm sure it's Jeans. Uh I don't know what it is, but let's see. Wild Oak Lot 7 access road. >> That is entirely your fault. It were then your control to not give me the project. Um but, this is the Wild Oaks
access roads. This is the uh I think this is the third submittal, if I recall correctly. Um Wild Oak or I'm sorry, Public Works actually had issued some comments for this one. I know you guys were going back and forth on some things. So, um it
looks like we still have some outstanding comments from staff. I'm not sure if Wild Oaks applicant is here, but this is it's it's like a drive aisle situation we have here. Um I'm not sure,
is this a one deal that that is private or public? >> Well, there's a public road and two private roads on this application. >> Okay. >> And there's a connection between this and Kelly Park and the right turn lanes, and that's what we're going you know, back and forth on is the right turn lane
required. And then there are just some other little things that you know, sort of got left off and and missed. >> Okay, and I think this one on the west is going to be a public one. I think the eastern one is private and the one on the south is private. Um
But yeah, other than that, I don't I didn't get any other comments from DRC. There were no comments from planning either, so. >> All right. We'll leave that till 8:30 this morning. >> Hi, good morning. Uh my name is Moises Armas with Kimley-Horn.
Uh on on the lot seven access road uh we we might start with the with the minor comments that were submitted by staff. Uh most of the comments uh I I sent yesterday uh Dale
uh an email with uh with with plans. Uh we addressed those by just adding language that makes sure that uh uh those get implemented before CO. Um
the next comment uh stop about this the road sections uh those are permissible in the submitted alternative 1D. Uh it says uh it's under review
for the private road. >> Have land hasn't, you know, come up with a decision on that. >> Okay. >> So. >> Okay, perfect. Uh the next comment it's uh it was the top of the drainage map, Kelly Park to Saw Mill to the Oaks map.
Uh I mean, we can talk about uh that here. >> Well, we can yeah, we probably need to look at look at a map. >> Of course. >> You know, I think I sent you a uh guess it got into the comments. They the drainage map from the Kelly Park roadway
project and your drainage map and they don't really align, so we just need to work out the differences. >> Okay. Uh yeah, can we talk that after the meeting? >> We can do that. Well, I don't have the maps here. You can either come back to my office or we can just, you know, schedule a you know, conference call.
>> We'll schedule a conference call. Okay. Um all the other comments are we just added notes to make sure that they they get implemented. Uh but those were the major ones. Uh about the right turn lanes. Uh I know there's still conversations to
be made there and our main objective here I think we submitted in March. And this is something that uh the conversation has dragged the project. I thought our main objective right now is to start construction and
to have more delays while we know we pay attention to uh reach an agreement on these before the the project uh receive a CEO um between the city and the Wild Oaks developer about
this right turn lane. And I guess I I sent you uh some documents a couple days ago. >> Yeah, we're having meetings every Friday. You know, on the on the Kelly Park and you with Joe Benati because he's the constructing party of that. We've This has been one of our main
conversations is the right turn lanes because there were none included in the project. And then we have a right turn lane at the you know, far eastern end of the project that we're trying to get it included and uh one thing the the developer said was, "Are
you treating all the developers like you're treating me?" And we've said, "Yes." And this is why the discussion is going on. >> I I I understand. I understand. Uh and that's that's something we we don't want to go around or anything. We just want to, you know, do what's best for the city and for the
developer and uh just my only point is uh the this development right that this this access roads are not uh bringing any development. They're not going to have any uses uh as as they're being built. Um
so it's just mainly infrastructure and we we we're trying to seek uh approval of the plans to continue uh to go up with construction uh given the fact that by the time this road get constructed uh we might have to
uh tie to the current uh condition of Kelly Park >> Okay. We we need to talk about this offline because we we worked out some conditions with the developer to the east and if it's decided that, you know, and you've got two driveways there, one
private and one public and the public driveway, you know, truly would require a right turn lane by our code and >> and we've worked out, you know, some conditions with them. They were permitted, you know, many many months ago and we can, you know, sort of apply
that same logic to this, but we need to talk about that offline that you might not build it as part of your development because then it would just be torn up when cuz we're going to widen to that side, but we would uh basically have you escrow some money for the cost of that
right turn lane and we would include it in the Kelly Park construction. >> Of course and I I I sent you that two two days ago uh I know an OPC on on on on the cost and we already made some uh
preliminary designs for this right turn lane, so we're trying to work >> Well, I wasn't here yesterday, so I have not caught up on my email yet. >> Yeah, no no problem. I uh just trying to make that point. >> Okay. >> Thank you, though. >> All right. Any questions for the
applicant? Anything additional? I mean, planning has nothing further. Police? >> No comments. >> Public works? >> No other comments. >> Fire? >> No comments. Thank you. >> Building? >> Nothing. Thank you. >> As there's outstanding comments, the recommendation is denial until those are satisfied. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you for your time. >> All right. Moving right along. Last one. Wolf Lake Ranch phase two construction site plan second submittal. Jean is the project manager. >> This is actually that was my my oversight. This actually a third
submittal. Um I planning just needed some specifications. I need actual specifics of the proposed open space. Um mainly because we've been asked by city commission. Open space is a big
deal um for them and of course for the constituents. So, that's all I had and I just needed a work order number to reference with Duke and just to check on the street lights on this one. This is the 59 lots um phase two and this is north adjacent
of phase one east of Boncan Pines. Um they are actually share or it's a continuation in terms of access from phase one. So, you access this through phase one subdivision. Um other than that, I don't have anything. I know
public works issued comments this morning in reference to the secondary access. Um So, yeah. >> All right. The applicant's in attendance. Uh Mr. Palm? >> Morning, Jimmy Palm of Lennar Homes. >> [clears throat]
>> Uh most importantly, there's donuts right there. So, hopefully you all will grab one on your way out. Uh Uh So, we've had a couple meetings on on this um and just for the record, you know, me myself, our our attorney uh Pam, our
traffic consultant, our engineer disagree with uh public works' stance that the offsite road needs to be built with this phase. Um having said that, we in an effort to
uh find a solution mutually agreeable with everyone, what we have agreed to do is build this phase concurrent with phase three across the street. And so, what I'd like to propose to
satisfy your concerns uh Dale is that phase two is approved with a condition that a pre-construction meeting for phase three will be held prior to any permanent COs being issued on the lots in phase two.
And what I think that accomplishes is a a bond would then be in place at the time the pre-construction meeting is held for phase three, which would guarantee the offsite road improvements, um but allow us to, if we need to in the spirit of time,
uh expedite construction on phase two because the the issue outside of of permitting that we're running into is having to coordinate both of these with two different owners independent of one another. And so, while we're delaying phase two and
trying to bring phase three up, it's a it's an exercise of of of working with um time constraints on closings and when deposits are released and um the financial aspect of that. So,
I I think that gets us there. Uh I I I tried reaching out a couple weeks ago to talk about it, but I know everybody's busy, and I hadn't seen a response, so um I hope that gets over the hump.
>> Okay, if you could send that to us in writing. Now, when would the performance bond for the access road would it be with phase If it would be with phase two, I think that'd be, you know, completely separate. >> So, so the bond the bond for the road for the the road improvements would be with phase three.
However, the the way this would likely go is if you issue approval the day for phase two, we would we would not hold a pre-con for phase two until phase three is approved, because we would want to build them concurrent with one another. So, the condition of approval on phase
two would be conditioned that a pre-construction meeting for phase three must be held before a permanent CO will be issued on a phase two lot. So, the the bond for phase three, including the outside road, all of that would would occur with phase
three. However, think of them both occurring at the same time. It's >> Okay. So, what you're saying is you wouldn't schedule a pre-construction on phase two until you got approval on phase three. >> We So, we we likely would not. However,
say say we find ourselves in a position where this the seller of phase two, we're having to close before we can get final approval. Cuz keep in mind, phase three is still at roughly MDP approval. So, we still have
four to six months of CSP submittals. So, just in the [clears throat] hypothetical that we're forced to close early on phase two, what we might elect to do is get a jump-start on site development with phase two. So, perhaps a pre-construction meeting
occurs uh several months before phase three. >> Okay, will give us this in your timeline, and would you have a problem approving that, Bobby, if we agreed with that? From a CSP standpoint. >> as you guys are good with it, yeah. >> Okay. So, you know, direct that, you
know, go ahead and send it to Vlad. >> Just the condition of approval? >> Yeah. Well, we we like to talk about the bonding because, you know, most places I've ever worked is you have a hard time of proving something based on a future improvement unless you can
guarantee that future improvement and a performance bond would guarantee that. >> Right. So, the performance bond would occur with phase three, but however, this the the condition of approval would be see permanent COs on phase two wouldn't be issued until phase three. The pre-construction meeting has
occurred. >> But COs are approved by this man on the right and I have no control over it. >> Well, I I thought that was the purpose of the condition of approval. >> Yeah. So, I mean, that yeah, I mean, you're going to have to get a performance bond for that section of the road one way or the other. >> Right.
>> But I guess it's two different owners. >> It's two different owners and um it it's also a uh uh a money aspect because it costs money to pull a bond for, you know, we're we're talking but again, it's
>> [clears throat] >> the hypothetical component of this is is like what if phase two occurs before phase three, but again, if with approval if we get approval on phase two, phase two will essentially sit on the shelf until phase three is approved because the goal at this point for us is if the road needs
to be or uh per per public works' position needs to be built with phase two, we're just going to delay all of it and build it all at one time because there's there's a savings for us in going through and doing all of it at one time rather than mobilizing, beginning phase two, and then having to go back and then
remobilize, and so yeah, to avoid schedule overlap and and all that, it just makes sense to do them both at the same time. >> Okay, I know we've had several phone calls about this. So, if you'll go ahead and just, like I said, put it in writing, send it to Vlad, then we'll respond. >> Okay. Would
are we at a point where you would be comfortable issuing approval with the understanding that final condition of of approval is is a >> It's it's not my position. It's the city engineer's. So, like I said, you know, give it to us in writing.
It sounds okay with me. I'll discuss it with Vlad. But, you know, we need to have, you know, something in writing that we can approve. >> What's the time frame on that, do you think? Do you think you could get it turned around pretty quick? I just know we've had issues >> I I understand. You have Vlad's in the
middle of budgets, you know, right now and it's it it it's truly crazy for him. So. >> Why why couldn't we give him a conditional approval and wait for him to get that to Vlad? I mean, just so he can sort of move on a little bit.
Stating that nothing will move forward until Vlad >> I would I would still like to have his proposal in writing before I even say it's conditional approval. >> So, I I'd sent you the this in writing. >> Okay. I >> Previously. I I'll get it I'll get you a I'll re-forward it the email to you.
>> it sounds a little bit different than what we had talked about before cuz before there was a performance bond, you know, tied in with phase two. And now you're saying the performance bond would really be tied in with phase three. So. >> For the road. Obviously, phase two will have a performance bond for the
improvements shown on the phase two plans. And then that performance bond will be issued for the improvements shown on the phase three plans. The phase three plans include the road. What the condition of approval does though is it guarantees the road prior to a CO being issued in phase two.
Do you want me to So. >> Yeah. Let let me go back and look at what if you've already sent it to me, let me go back and look at it. >> Let me I'll I'll re-forward it. Um But, it it grants what I'm proposing grants protection that the road gets built one way or the other because essentially, if we don't have a pre-con
for phase three, then we can't get COs on homes in phase two, which is what Vlad had originally proposed. And at the time we disagreed with because we thought we were going to be building them separate. We've come to the mutual agreement of let's build it all at one time.
By issuing the CO or the condition of approval of the CO in phase two contingent upon phase three having a pre-con where all the improvements are bonded. That guarantees the road one way or the other. I mean, it's >> I just like to sit down with Vlad let him go over it. So >> Okay. I'll already forward you an email. If we could if we could get it
I'd just appreciate if we could get this >> Okay. All the other comments were addressed, so I'm good with yeah, everything from an engineering standpoint. >> Okay. Motion to approve. >> All right. So, is the DRC okay with recommending approval contingent subject
to the satisfaction of the discussion? >> As long as the approval subject to Vlad approving that, yes. >> Okay. All right. Planning concurs with that. Police? >> No other comments. >> All right. Public Works? >> No other comments. >> Fire? >> No comments. Thank you. Building?
>> No, thanks. >> All right. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. All right. That takes us down to the discussion portion of the agenda. Any items for discussion? Hearing none, we're adjourned.