Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Infrastructure Parking Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pickleball courts plan raises parking, drainage and railroad fencing questions at DRC
Summary
Applicant proposing three pickleball courts in mixed-use downtown discussed parking configuration, stormwater exemption, fencing adjacent to railroad and required security/fence exemption documentation with city staff.
Developers and city staff discussed a construction site plan on May 7 to install three pickleball courts in Apopka’s mixed-use downtown district, focusing on parking layout, stormwater treatment, boundary fencing near the railroad and the project's small size relative to stormwater requirements.
Amir Hamza, the city project manager for the item, said the zoning is mixed-use downtown and the land-development code does not require on-site parking for the use in that district. The applicant’s engineer, Norett Saran of Comenoke Engineering, told the DRC the design provides parallel on-street parking and one handicapped stall and that the district’s code “doesn’t require on-site parking” for this use. Saran said the project team would note parking as “not required” on the construction-site plan, per staff guidance.
City staff and the applicant also discussed stormwater. Saran cited the stormwater statement indicating the site is about 9,000 square feet and is “technically exempt entirely” from the larger stormwater review, but staff asked for a grading plan to confirm whether overflow would discharge to the right-of-way. The city advised the applicant to submit the construction-stage grading information for the record.
The DRC also discussed fencing and safety. Staff reminded the applicant that the railroad requires an eight-foot minimum fence; the applicant confirmed contact with the railroad and that the project would meet that standard. The city advised the applicant to submit a security exemption letter for the proposed fence and to include the fence and exemption status on the CSP documents. The applicant and staff discussed photometrics, irrigation and landscape expectations, including tree-establishment guarantees; staff suggested standard one-year guarantees for plantings.
No formal action was taken at DRC; planning staff identified required clarifications and directed the applicant to upload the requested documentation so departments can complete review ahead of any approval or public hearing steps.
