Luke. >> Good morning everybody. My name is Jean Sanchez for the record with the community development department and we will now begin our development review committee meeting. It is 9:00. Um and
before we get started with the items, uh we'll take a roll call of uh city representatives obviously community development and planning here. Uh, police >> Jason W present >> public works >> Dale Smith >> fire
>> Jeremyfield >> building >> John Hansen. >> All right, the first item on the agenda is a special event. Um, this is at the Northwest Rec Complex and it is uh the
Duran >> Oh, I'm so sorry. I forgot. Yes. Is there anybody here for public comment today? All right. Thank you. So, um, as I was saying, this is the Duran 2650 at
Northwest Rec. It is, uh, going to be held July 11th from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. And, uh, Rack is the project manager. So, this event is an organized fitness event. Um, it's a workout where
participants will work through um and complete a series of exercises at the Northwest Recreation Complex on Barbecq Row. They're expecting about 75 people. Their setup will include 10x10 tents, food trucks, and then event staff will provide barricade to block off the road
from vehicles um entering the event area. Um the and parking will be located on the um parking lot closest to gate 4 at Northwest. Um no alcohol. Um and they will not be hiring a private security company. >> All right. There's no comments from
planning. Police >> I have no comment. >> Public works? >> No comment. >> Fire. >> No comments. Thank you. >> Building. >> I don't have anything. Thank you. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Let's see. All right, let's move on to the site
plans. Um, these are all being managed by me and the first item in the agenda is the 711 Anoki Apopka Road and >> um and this is the second submitt. I did
receive comments from public works, but planning also had one outstanding comment about uh the site layout and in general um how it is not meeting the city's development design guidelines
particularly for corner lots. Um so if the applicants here are in attendance, please feel free to come up if you have any questions or concerns. >> Yes. Good morning. Um, is there any chance you could bring the renderings up that we submitted?
>> Um, I have copies right here, but they should be in the packet. >> Was there was it a separate file? >> Yes, it was separate than the construction. >> I don't think it was included in here. >> Well, I have these here. Um, so there's a couple public works comments um from Vladimir, but we're all good with those.
Uh, no issues. So, the only comment that we need to kind of address and discuss is about the corner lot um corner lots and the design intent of what we're doing over there. So basically the corner lot appendix D it's architectural emphasis at the corner building orientation toward both frontages but
explicitly says it doesn't have to be located on the corner. So the renderings we have we've done a pretty significant streetscape. There's a 6ft tall masonry wall. Uh there's a 6ft tall aluminum black fence on top of that. Um there's trees. There's a hedge. So there's some
pretty I don't know if you can pass this around. This was included in our submitt packet, but basically we do a pretty >> This is I've seen your architecturals. >> Okay. So, >> an architectural is uh regulated by planning. So, the planning manager and I
looked at it in great detail. Um, and it hasn't really substantially addressed planning's comments in terms of making this a less vehicular oriented building. So, in the sense of is there anything
because we could move the hedges up to the top of the wall. If you did that, you wouldn't even see the building. >> I'll tell you what we did, Derek, just for our research. We went to Orlando. There's a 7-Eleven exactly on Colonial on 50 and it is pretty old from what I
can tell. I know because I used to live there. And um it is exactly laid out the way that that we interpret this code to say to lay this out as >> that's the one where it's like there's a roof over the entire drive and it goes
down to the building corner. >> No, it's uh it's really a building up against 50, right? And the canopy from what I can remember is either on the side or really oriented towards the the rear.
>> Mhm. So I'm not sure um to us this doesn't meet the spirit of the development design guidelines. Um you can take it to city commission and ask for uh kind of an out ofstep variance but
really there's no variance applicable for development designs. What you'll need to do like we've talked to you before is to flip this building towards the corner. I that so from a engineering the grades and everything and a circulation standpoint that doesn't
work. So I think our biggest gripe on this is that yes the intent is to make in a structural appearance um avoid vehicular um observability around the front. So which is what we're doing. So we're meeting the design attempt but there's no direct
>> gas station canopy doesn't mean pedestrian friendly to me. Well, there there's pedestrian connection. There's also six foot tall wall. >> Pedestrian connection in terms of building facades and really the intent of the development guidelines does not
mean pedestrian friendly. This entire PD was contemplated on pedestrian friendly development. >> It's also I mean to it's inconsistent with the rest of the area around it too. Maybe >> there's not much in the rest of the area around it. Even Keen Road retail. You
have one Keen Road retail. >> I listen, I'm not gonna I'm not going to parse anything with you. I've talked to Bobby about this and you can talk to him also additionally via the portal or email. Um, but if you want to go ahead
and insist to propose this this project, we can go ahead and take it to city commission and have them deem it as accept acceptable because the development design guidelines that was theirs to begin with, right? They're the ones who adopted it. >> So, we're here merely to make sure it's
enforced. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Let's uh can we check potentially after this and then set something up? we can chat. Um, it has to be I think you're going to need to do anformational meeting request. I think you have that
link already. If not, then I'll send it to you after a DRC meeting. >> All right. Did you have any other questions about the public works comments? >> Nope. Public works. >> All right. Nothing additional from planning police? >> No, I have nothing.
>> Public works. No other comments. >> Fire. >> No comments. Thank you. >> Building >> nothing. Thank you. >> Great. All right. The next item on the agenda, let's see, is the
3716 Hogs Head Road Warehouse. And for some of you, this may look familiar. This is actually the second time around for it says MDP, but this is a construction site plan. um their previous construction site plan
expired. So that development order expired and they're resubmitting and it's going to be the exact same use. They're obviously grief. They're obviously submitting with the exact same plan. Um I only asked planning only
asked for an updated survey from the applicant. Um I believe there was a bunch of comments from public works. I'm so sorry. What is happening? Okay, I'm trying to find the
Jeez, Dave. Dave, did you include the site plan on this? >> Yes. >> Okay, hang on. >> Oh jeez. What page was that? >> Should be Okay, I think it's right here.
Sorry, bear with me. I can't seem to zoom out of this. Okay. All right. Here we go. I'm sorry. This is on Hogs Head Road and it's really a
kind of a long rectangular uh lot with uh the pond towards the rear and their frontage obviously in Hogs Head. So, uh planning has no additional comments other than the survey. Um
Dave, did you have any questions or concerns regarding the comments that you received? >> Um no, good morning. Now, as you mentioned, this was approved before. Actually, a lot of the construction is already done. It's just that the plans expired. So, our client submitted the
same plans. Um, but we can submit the items that public works asked for, the utility couches, the drainage couchs, and all that. There was a question about the outfall. So, the pond, um, I have to go back and look. It might have been either a city change or a St. John's change to add that outfall to the
spreader swale, but they said the pond's been built now for a couple years, and they've never seen water in the pond yet. So, I know the uh we almost like a bleeder is set above the 25-year storm. So, um I think it's just like an emergency pop off, but it does contain
the 100-year storm in the pond. >> My concern was there's a building behind there. >> Yes. >> And yeah, we just need to make sure that you know if you're truly putting in a spreader swale that it is. When I looked at some of the original reports your the
boring for the pond was up front because originally pond I guess when you did this design three four five years ago you were going to put the pond in the front and discharge >> correct >> you know you know to the street and then they decided at the end. I just don't
think the water originally went that way. >> Okay. I'll double check it >> and we'll call you if you have any questions. >> Okay. And if you know I don't know if you can make pond any bigger hold the hundredyear storm and then there'd be you would not be a concern.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> No additional comments from planning police. >> I have no comment. >> Public works. >> Just the comments that were written >> fire. >> I might have brought this up in the past. I'm curious the egress for second means of access that's
never that was never addressed on here. I see that a turnaround that's at the um I guess north side of the property. I'm thinking that's what that is. Um there's no second means of access at all in this in this parking lot. >> Correct.
>> I think we were using that turnaround down adjacent to the pond as an area to back up and turn around. >> Okay. Um I'm gonna have to review that. I have some questions in regards. What is our I got to get our distances on that. I apologize. That's on me for not catching
that ahead of time. Um, yeah, I'll get back with you guys on that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Building >> nothing. Thank you. >> All right, Dave. Thank you. We will we will send you an updated set of comments
once buyers completed their comments. >> Um, all right. So, as of now, this item as well as the one preceding it are not approved by DRC. Moving on to the next item, we have the Oakmore construction
site plan. This was formerly known as it's actually on the south or on the north, I'm sorry. Um, so planning has no additional comments on this one. And I know there were a few comments from public works. Uh is the
applicant in attendance? >> Luke class 1828 engineering. The only comments we had remaining were for public services or public works. Um Dale, we talked about a few of them beforehand. I think we addressed um the biggest challenge is really the sidewalk in that's adjacent to the properties in
between our two entrances up on ditch because of the existing fences and power poles. we don't control those properties and so we got to we'll discuss that um whether or not we can include that sidewalk but I don't know that might be a challenge until those properties are developed. Um I did note that you wanted
us to change the lift station alignment. I can talk to you afterwards. I printed out some things. We can kind of discuss that. We're more than willing to adjust the lift station layout based on how public works or public service wants to um have their lift station set up for for easier maintenance in the future. We can work with you on that. Of course, we
made the mistake of the one call out leaving the twoinch blow out. That's our fault. We'll we'll change that. Um, and then there was a question about elevations on the crosssections and that was it. >> All right. No additional comments as I said from planning police. Any comments?
>> No comment. >> Public works. >> Yeah, we'll work through these comments. >> Perfect. Fire. >> No comments. Thank you. >> Building, >> I don't have anything. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Luke. >> Thank you. Again, we'll keep this. Um, right now it doesn't get DRC approval.
Moving on to the next item on the agenda is anything for discussion. >> When Yes. Real quick, when was that hog head originally approved? >> Was it three years ago? >> It's actually on here. The stamp is on
here. >> Our development orders only good for a couple years. Um, let's see. Okay. May 10th, 2022. >> Okay. >> So, it expired in on 2025. >> Gotcha. Cool.
>> Where are we at with water on Hogs Head as a whole? I've heard stories of >> people getting together and doing some type of association together to get all the water down the road. Um, I've spoke with one of the warehouses at the end of the road asking the same question. I'm
hearing stories of water going to be placed in the next six months or something. Is that is there anything accurate to this that I'm hearing? >> Well, the water for this site, you know, will be there because the low family warehouse as they're building, which they're just west of here, they're
building out the Herman Smith. A couple of developers have come in and asked about, you know, an upsizing agreement. And there is a way within the language of an upsizing agreement that they can actually be reimbursed for additional cost because an upsizing agreement just
pays for the additional pipe cost, but nothing else. And you know, and they met with the mayor. I was in on that meeting. We explained to them what they could do and they've gone back and never and have never come back with me. >> So,
>> all right. I know we have multiple warehouse type projects that seem to be existing or showing up on that road with a lot of uh >> language with when we get water. >> Yeah. Part of the problem is Advent Health was supposed to build from the low warehouse to there and then the one
on the very end was tying in to Advent Health. Well, >> okay. I think the middle is missing and I think that's why they were trying to do it and it's my understanding they were wanting to go into some form of a pioneering agreement. >> Yeah, >> they were um but that was uh during the
time the it's called Advent Health Fudge Road. That was the name of the project. They were slated to come in out right after their construction site plan, but that never really happened. Um, it kind of depended on that project to to jumpst
start the whole pioneeringish agreement. It had to do with the water and also the Hogs Head Road. Um, but that's all I know and it kind of stalled from there. I know the um the applicant for this, Sean Casey, was also trying to pick up the baton to try to get the like
pioneers together for the water, but I'm not sure if he's had any luck. And I know he's been working he was working on it for a couple of years. All right. Thank you. >> Sure. >> All right. With that said, if there's no other discussion items,
we're journ