Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Apopka reviewers ask applicant to reupload plans after file confusion delays 20,250‑sq‑ft warehouse review
Summary
City reviewers spent the DRC meeting sorting file‑naming and access problems for a resubmitted 20,250‑square‑foot warehouse at 357 West Fourth Street, agreed to review a corrected upload and allow department‑level signoffs if remaining comments are minimal.
City of Apopka development reviewers spent much of the Development Review Committee meeting on May 14 sorting submission and file‑access problems that have delayed a resubmittal for a proposed 20,250‑square‑foot warehouse and office at 357 West Fourth Street.
The practical issue, reviewers said, was that a revised plan set uploaded in April contained redline marks and a file extension that some staff could not open. The applicant agreed to reupload a clean file and to retitle the submission to “Construction site plan, second submittal” so reviewers can reliably find and open the latest set.
The resubmittal covers a warehouse and office on property zoned industrial light. “We can download it and…we also have it in our planning and zoning folder as well. So I can email it to you,” a member of staff offered to the applicant to ensure all reviewers have the correct PDF. Staff said they would retitle the file in OpenGov if necessary so future reviewers do not miss the latest version.
The applicant stressed that addressing some outstanding review items will require substantial engineering work. “Be realistic about what we're asking for. If I'm doing something that's actually incorrect, then that's one thing. But for me to have to go back and revise everything like we're talking about here…That ain't gonna be a 5 minute job,” the applicant said, adding he has the survey and some materials ready to share.
Reviewers also identified outstanding technical issues that will be checked once the clean submittal is available. Those include sanitary sewer connection requirements referenced to state standards and a question about whether potable water service will require upsizing (from an existing 8‑inch main to 10‑inch) along Fourth Street. Staff said they would compare the new submittal against prior comments to remove obsolete items and focus only on unresolved issues.
The DRC and the applicant agreed on a process to speed approval if possible: staff will retitle/reupload the file, reviewers will examine the corrected set, and departments will clear comments via email if only one department remains with outstanding items. The committee indicated it would allow an administrative approval path rather than requiring the applicant to return to a subsequent DRC meeting if the outstanding comments are minimal and resolved by email.
The committee did not take a formal vote; staff committed to circulate updated comments after the corrected upload and to coordinate a follow‑up with the applicant.
