The Development Review Committee on Aug. 6 pressed the applicant for the Invitation Court construction site plan on multiple safety and infrastructure issues, focusing on the absence of a guaranteed second point of vehicular access, alley widths and auto-turn clearances, and extensive water and drainage work that may exceed typical project scope.
The exchange centered on emergency access and life-safety concerns. Fire-department representatives told the DRC they are uncomfortable approving a plan that relies on an undefined “future” connection for a required secondary access and asked for a stabilized or paved emergency access to be secured before occupancy. A fire representative said stabilized access in the past had not been maintained and that the department now expects a paved access or a clear, maintained emergency route.
Public-services staff raised technical infrastructure items: alley pavement widths, garbage collection routing and concrete pads for can pickup, sidewalk and drainage easements, and a requested replacement of a long run of aging AC water main from near a nearby Winn-Dixie to beyond the project’s lift station. Public-services staff also flagged uncertainty about jurisdictional responsibilities on Monroe/436 — whether the city maintains the surface while Orange County controls roadway and drainage — and said the applicant will likely need permits from Orange County for roadway or drainage work in the county-controlled systems.
Transportation and public-works reviewers questioned an existing left-turn taper and whether a dedicated left-turn lane is warranted by the traffic study; staff suggested removing the left-turn element if the traffic analysis does not support it. Reviewers also requested auto-turn diagrams sized to the correct design vehicles (and appropriate garbage-truck turning templates) and asked for pavement and profile details so staff can confirm vertical clearances and that drain infrastructure will be serviceable without encroaching on private property.
The applicant’s representatives said some items would be addressed through follow-up submittals and that they had already provided or would provide additional elevation/rendering materials, profiles for sewer and water, and pipe-size information. Public-services staff asked for an engineering meeting with Vlad (city reviewer), the applicant, and fire staff to work through the water-main, turn-lane, drainage, and emergency-access options.
No final approvals or permits were issued at the DRC meeting; staff said many of the comments will require revised plans or additional discussions, including potential upgrades to the lift-station pumps if flows increase. The DRC indicated the project will be returned to staff-level review or a follow-up DRC meeting after the applicant submits the requested clarifications and revised engineering plans.