Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retail Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adam Retail Plaza resubmittal hits zoning and access questions over hookah retail, tire shop and turn‑lane requests
Summary
DRC staff and the Adam Retail Plaza applicant debated permitted uses, parking and a requested turn lane on U.S. 441. Staff said a hookah‑style smoke shop is not permitted in the mixed‑use downtown district without a special exception and asked for clarifications on parking, setbacks and utilities.
The Apopka Development Review Committee scrutinized a second resubmittal for Adam Retail Plaza, a proposed mixed‑use downtown retail site, focusing on permitted uses, parking dimensions, setback and whether a turn lane on U.S. 441 is required.
Amir Hamz, the project manager for the file, described the project as retail buildings totaling roughly 17,244 square feet. During the review a DRC member asked, “Is that like a smoke shop?” and the applicant’s representative, Al Tarani of Tarani Consulting Engineering, answered, “Yes. It is.” Staff clarified that a hookah‑style smoke shop is not a permitted use in the mixed‑use downtown zoning district and would require a special exception.
Tarani raised multiple review concerns during the meeting: he questioned a drafting comment on parking plan labeling, disputed an accessibility comment after saying the plans provided three accessible spaces and two van‑accessible spaces, and objected to a DRC request that would effectively require building a turn lane on U.S. 441. Tarani said FDOT, not the city, controls 441 and that several nearby businesses do not have turn lanes. A staff reviewer replied that the city engineer has discretion on left‑turn lane requirements and that a right‑turn lane typically is required only when speeds meet specific thresholds; staff also requested an FDOT letter if the applicant is relying on FDOT jurisdiction for access decisions.
Tarani also disputed a late comment that would force a zero setback toward 441, saying he had planned 25‑foot setbacks to match nearby uses; staff referenced the 2019 Land Development Code requirement that buildings in the mixed‑use downtown district be oriented closer to the street and said the applicant can pursue a variance with hardship justification. On fire issues, the applicant said buildings were sized under 7,500 square feet and separated so sprinkler triggers may not apply; reviewers asked for clarification to confirm separation.
Staff agreed to set up an offline meeting and provide a pre‑application Zoom link to resolve drafting issues, parking studies, and outstanding technical comments. No formal action or vote was recorded.
