Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Technical Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC presses Invitation Cove applicant for updated geotech, drainage and circulation details
Summary
Planning and public-works told the Invitation Cove applicant to provide updated geotechnical data, drainage easement clarity, water-flow calculations for fire hydrants, and ADA ramp details before the project advances.
The Apopka Development Review Committee spent the longest portion of its Oct. 29 meeting reviewing technical comments on the Invitation Cove construction-site second submittal, pressing the applicant to resolve transportation, drainage, utility and geotechnical issues before the plan advances.
Planning staff cited the city comprehensive plan’s transportation element and said, “the comprehensive plan says that in the transportation element, if you have turnarounds, you can't do that. So you have to figure out basically a continuous loop road,” noting that on-street parking is required adjacent to the proposed townhomes. Planning asked why a previously approved configuration appears inconsistent with current code language and requested offline follow-up.
Public-works asked for missing calculations and clarifications: staff confirmed lift-station calculations were included but requested water-flow calculations for fire hydrants and asked whether the internal roadways, sanitary mains and water mains would be public or private. Staff emphasized that water mains must be public and that drainage easements are needed for future maintenance if the system is public.
On ADA/accessibility, staff said the plans show only a straight-line sidewalk and asked for details showing how ADA ramps will tie into the valley curb and sidewalk flares.
Geotechnical questions were a persistent concern. A staff reviewer said the project covers about 5 acres with 17 borings; the committee noted borings relied on a previous apartment design and some are four years old. Staff asked the applicant to have the geotechnical engineer reconcile borings across the site or provide a current letter and to obtain the project's '3P clearance' confirming seasonal high groundwater elevations.
Developer and applicant representatives agreed to schedule follow-up meetings with staff (including Vlad) to resolve outstanding items. Staff suggested submitting a construction-site/mass-grading plan or a right-of-way clearing permit using the city’s OpenGov portal to begin necessary work after erosion- and sediment-control plans are provided. The committee also recommended retention ponds and additional fenced protection on the south side if clearing proceeds.
No formal decision was rendered; staff and applicant arranged to meet offline and resubmit the requested materials.
