Homepage -Family

Go To Search
TwitterFacebook
YouTube
 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

CITY OF ST. CLOUD

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

DATE OF MEETING:      September 11, 2003

 

LOCATION:                   Municipal Services Complex 1st Floor Conference Room

                                    2901 17th Street, St. Cloud

 

CALL TO ORDER:         2:00 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN:                  David Nearing, Planning/Zoning Director

 

SECRETARY:               Marty Hobbs, Development Officer

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dave Nearing                 Eric Holloway               Mark Luthie                   Major Faucett

Dave Ennis                    John Groenendaal          Ron Trowell                  

 

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.         Case #3-116.01 – East St. Cloud Commerce Park

                                                E of Eastern Ave, S. of US 192

                                                Annexation/LUA/Zoning to PUD

 

Mr. Roxy Howse, Mr. Karl Theobald, and Mr. Ken Sampson were present to represent the application.

 

Mr. Howse addressed the Committee.  He noted that he was in agreement with staff’s comments on all three cases regarding East St. Cloud Commerce Park.  He noted that he had a very good two hour work session with the Planning Department regarding the project.  He explained that these units were to be sold fee simple and that the development would be 20X50 foot platted “lots”.  Mr. Howse explained that this project was going to provide ownership for businesses within a common setting.  He noted that this would be a first for the City of St. Cloud and that the only way a project such as this could be done was through the PUD zoning.

 

Mr. Howse submitted and elevation of the building for the Committee’s review.  He explained that it was not going to be just another metal structure and described how the façade and sides of the building would look.  He also explained that this type of development would allow ownership for small businesses along U.S. 192 before the larger businesses bought all the land.  He noted that this type of development was very conducive to a small community such as St. Cloud.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the Planning staff was supportive of the reduction in size to allow the PUD.  He also explained that a list of allowable uses would need to be included in the PUD documents noting that it could contain some uses that were to be considered “conditional uses”.

 

Mr. Sampson noted that the information was included in the PUD documents and that a copy would be provided to the Planning Department.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that if the intent was to copy documents from an older PUD, the applicant might want to look at it closely because of changes that had taken place.

 

Mr. Howse noted that the phasing lines and parking needed to be adjusted.

 

Mr. Groenendaal asked if compact parking was going to be utilized.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he would not support any reduction in parking space size and the issue was discussed.

 

Mr. Groenendaal asked if Mr. Luthie was OK with the ratio indicated.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he would be more supportive of a reduction in number than in size.

 

 

Page 2, DRC Minutes – 09/11/03

 

 

Mr. Howse noted that Osceola Industrial Park allows a 25% usage of Compact Car Parking in their PUD documents but he would be willing to reduce that number for this project.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that he had worked with compact spaces in the past and they were normally relegated to the back of the development.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that this was more of a policy decision.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that his thought was that the extra space saved by allowing the compact parking could be used to provide more green space or trees.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that if the reason was to simply get more building on the property, he could not agree.

 

Mr. Howse advised Mr. Groenendaal that all of the green space and pervious area requirements had been met and that the site actually had an excess.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he was looking at the issue realistically.  He explained that event the 10x20’ spaces are sometime tight.  He noted that if the “City Fathers” want to consider it to allow more green space then the code itself needed to be addressed.  He went on to note that the City either needed to maintain the standard or change the code.

 

Mr. Howse noted once again that he was willing to reduce the number of compact spaces requested to 10%.  He noted that the City had just approved the same thing in a future phase of the Dr. Robinson’s project.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that this request would move forward with a proposed 10% and with a staff evaluation that includes the pros and cons.  He noted that staff would make sure that the differences in thought at staff level were represented and if the Council denied the request, the compact spaces would be removed and the applicant would have to go from there.

 

Mr. Howse requested that the case be continued until further discussion with Civil Engineering and Planning and Zoning could take place.  He noted that he wanted the project to move forward as quickly as possible but that the issue needed to be addressed first.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         This case has no effect on the building department.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         Approval of this case will not cause an adverse affect on fire rescue department operations.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

PLANNING

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Recommend approval of the annexation, land use and if granted the variance the PUD zoning.

 

 

Page 3, DRC Minutes – 09/11/03

 

 

INFORMATION:

2.         Revised plans must be submitted within sixty (60) days of this review.  Revised plans submitted after the allotted time frame will require a new application including payment of additional fees.

3.                   All submitted plans must be folded at the time of submittal.  Rolled plans will not be accepted.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   This request should not have a major impact to the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department, at this time.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         The District has no comment regarding this case.

 

The issue of the requested continuance was discussed.  This portion of the case will move forward to the Planning Board and City Council for Public Hearings.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval of the Annexation/Land Use Amendment/Zoning to PUD.  The applicant will meet with Civil Engineering and Planning to further discuss the issue of the compact car parking spaces.


Page 4, DRC Minutes – 09/11/03

 

 

2.         Case #3-116.02 – East St. Cloud Commerce Park

                                                E. of Eastern Ave, S. of US 192

                                                Concept Plan

 

Mr. Roxy Howse, Mr. Karl Theobald, and Mr. Ken Sampson were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         At least one accessible route (special emphasis crosswalk) shall connect accessible buildings, facilities, elements, and spaces that are on the same site, per section 11-4.3.2 (2) of the Florida Building Code 2001

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         The Land Development Code does not have a provision for compact vehicular parking.  All non-handicap spaces must be a minimum 10 feet in width and 20 feet in depth. 

2.         The Solid Waste Division has made the following comment regarding the dumpster locations.  The locations as shown are acceptable; however, we recommend the dumpster at the Phase I/Phase 2 line be rotated to a more northerly direction to facilitate the pickup. 

3.         Please provide the parking stall depth and two-way drive width as shown in Phase 1. 

4.         The storm water retention and discharge must be approved by the FDOT.

5.         An FDOT connection permit must be obtained for the driveway entrance.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Construction plans are required.

2.                   Easements are required over the proposed water and sewer mains and service laterals up to the point of connection.

3.                   Water and sewer D.E.P. permits are required.

4.                   A legal description of the existing 30’ off-site easement is required.

INFORMATION:

5.         Water and sewer are available.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         After initial review of the limited information inherent with a concept plan, nothing appears as if it would cause an adverse affect on fire department operations.  Since items addressing fire protection generally are not shown on concept plans, the fire rescue department will further review the project at the time of site plan submittal.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

CONDITIONS:

1.         If the service is underground the owner will install all primary conduit and concrete transformer pad.  The secondary conduit, wire, and terminations are the responsibility of the owner.

2.         A utility easement will be required once the location of the transformer and primary run is determined.

3.         The electric will come from the existing power line located on US-192.

4.         There may be costs to provide electric service to the project.  Please contact Bill Ellwood.

5.         OUC can provide parking lot lights for this project.  Please contact Bill Ellwood.

6.         Please send all site and electric information to OUC Development Services.

            Bill Ellwood                               (407) 236-9652; Fax (407) 236-9628

            500 South Orange Avenue          email: developmentservices@ouc.com

            P.O. Box 3193

            Orlando, FL  32802

7.         Once all the information is obtained by Development Services and Engineer will be assigned to the job.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The parking lot needs to be redesigned:

Page 5, DRC Minutes – 09/11/03

 

 

    1. The parking provided is inadequate in Phase two. Each phase should be able to stand without any further phases. Bringing some of the compact parking into phase one or two may be part a solution.
    2. A landscape island along the east side of Phase 1 could be made larger so that no more than 10 spaces result without an island.
    3. Create a landscape island along the southwest corner of that parking lot.
    4. The two landscape islands will eliminate two parking spaces, the redesign of the site needs to bring them back.

2.                   Provide a location map of the surrounding zoning and land use.

INFORMATION:

3.                   Revised plans must be submitted within sixty (60) days of this review.  Revised plans submitted after the allotted time frame will require a new application including payment of additional fees.

4.                   All submitted plans must be folded at the time of submittal.  Rolled plans will not be accepted.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Please submit a landscaping plan in accordance with Article VIII.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         A South Florida Water Management District permit is required for this project.

 

FINDING:

Concept Plans do not require action by the DRC.  No formal action was taken.

 


Page 6, DRC Minutes – 09/11/03

 

 

3.                   Case #3-116.03 – East St. Cloud Commerce Park

E. of Eastern Ave, S. of US 192

Variance (PUD < 20 Acres)

 

Mr. Roxy Howse, Mr. Karl Theobald, and Mr. Ken Sampson were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         This case has no effect on the building department.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         Upon annexation, this site will receive fire protection from the St. Cloud Fire Rescue Department.  In order for the site to receive the ISO rating inherent with the rest of the City, a hydrant must be located within 1000 feet of any existing structures.  Furthermore, any future development will require standards set forth according to the LDC 7.9.3

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

PLANNING

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Recommend approval based on the arbitrary nature of the 20 acre rule.

INFORMATION:

1.                   Revised plans must be submitted within sixty (60) days of this review.  Revised plans submitted after the allotted time frame will require a new application including payment of additional fees.

2.                   All submitted plans must be folded at the time of submittal.  Rolled plans will not be accepted.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   This request should not have a major impact to the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department, at this time.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         This case will require review by the City Engineering Department only.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval of the variance allowing a PUD on less than 20 acres of land.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 2:35