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:      December 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                 Rick Mauro                    Mark Luthie       Dave Ennis                    John Groenendaal

Ron Trowell                   Sue Boblett

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.         Case # 04-23.01 – Sawgrass Commercial

                                                Intersection of Pine Tree & Canoe Creek Road

                                                Rezoning from R-1B to HB

 

Mr. David Reid was present to represent the application.

 

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.

2.         Further conditions and recommendations will be addressed during the construction process.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

PLANNING

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   Staff recommends denial of HB zoning and recommends NB business zoning for parcel 26-26-30-0630-0001-00D0.  This zoning will be consistent with the Future Land Use and provide a transition from the residential zoning into commercial zoning.

2.                   Staff recommends denial of HB zoning and recommends to maintain the R-1B zoning for parcel 26-26-30-0630-0001-00E0 due to the parcel being shown as Wetlands Conservation Area on the Sawgrass Unit 6 plat with a Conservation Note stating ”The Conservation areas are hereby dedicated as common areas.  They shall be the perpetual responsibility of the Sawgrass Homeowners Association and may in no way be altered from their natural state  Activities prohibited within the conservation areas include, but are not limited to, construction or placing of buildings on or above the ground; dumping or placing soil or other substance such as trash; removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation – with the exception of exotic/nuisance vegetation removal; excavation, dredging or removal of soil material, or any other activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish

 

Page 2, DRC Minutes – 12/11/03

 

 

and wildlife habitat conservation or preservation.”  Additionally, there is no letter from the property owner of this parcel stating they desire this zoning change.    

3.                   Section 3.3.3.C.2.a of the Land Development Code contains 16 items that must be addressed in the report to City Council regarding rezoning.  If the applicant does not agree with these recommendations, the applicant should provide written comments and support materials to these items.

INFORMATION:

4.                   Please contact Planning Department to receive a refund for rezoning.  Property was rezoned by the City of St. Cloud in 1999 by Ordinance 99-115DR.  Due to Staff initiating the rezoning there will be no fee to return the zoning to a Commercial zoning.

5.                   The Future Land Use is Commercial.

6.                   The property to the North is zoned R-2.

7.                   The property to the East is zoned Professional.

8.                   The property to the West is zoned Highway Business.

9.                   The property to the South is zoned Highway Business.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         The District has no comment regarding this case.

 

Tract “E” of the project was briefly discussed with Mr. Reid noting that it was not a viable wetland and that the developer was considering doing some mitigation to allow development in the tract. 

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the case would be advertised as Highway Business and move forward to the Planning Board and City Council.  He noted that it would be up to the applicant to make their arguments before the City Council.

 

Possible re-platting was briefly discussed.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended denial of the requested re-zoning.  The case will be moved forward to the Planning Board and City Council for Public Hearings.

 

 


Page 3, DRC Minutes – 12/11/03

 

 

2.         Case # 04-22.01 – Block 337

Between 16th & 17th St.; Between Florida & Pennsylvania

Abandonment of Right-of-Way

 

Mr. Tom Rose was present to represent the applicants. He explained that he had lived on this block since the homes were built and that most of the fencing had been put in then.  He noted that there was one person on the block that wanted to open the alley for access because he was running a business in his garage.  He explained that this person was fabricating screen rooms out of the existing garage but was in the process of building a larger building for that purpose.  He went on to note concerns of what would happen if the alley was opened to traffic noting he was concerned about large trucks coming in and out to deliver materials to business.  Mr. Rose went on to give a brief history of how this had all come about noting that if the alley were to become open, fencing and trees would have to be removed.

 

Mr. Nearing asked if the person using the ally had access to the rear of his property now. 

 

Mr. Rose noted that he did not.

 

Mr. Nearing explained that operating a business such as this in a residential zoning was illegal and that Code Enforcement would be notified.

 

Ms. Witol noted that she had already advised Code Enforcement about the business.

 

Mr. Rose noted that the one property owner with the objections had problems with everyone in the block.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that staff would have some kind of response from Code Enforcement by the time the case went to the Planning Board and City Council.  He also noted that Mr. Rose should be aware that there was no guarantee that this abandonment would be approved and that if the objecting property owner currently had access to his property by way of the alley, there was case law that could support his objection to the closure.

 

Mr. Rose noted that the alley had never been open.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         All utility companies will need to be contacted with regard to the abandonment request to determine if any utility easements will need to be recorded.  Also all property owners within the block which currently may use the right-of-way as access will need to agree to this request.

 

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)

CONDITIONS:

1.         OUC cannot consider the abandonment of the Right-of-Way unless a 10’ foot wide utility easement replaces it.  Any questions please contact Angelo Perri at OUC (407) 957-7231.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   No objection to the abandonment provided an easement is recorded for the utilities.

 

Page 4, DRC Minutes – 11/12/03

 

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         The District has no comment regarding this case.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval of the applicant’s request to abandon the platted alleyway of Block 337.  This case will be forwarded to the Planning Board and City Council for Public Hearings.
Page 5, DRC Minutes –
12/11/03

 

 

3.         Case # 04-21.01 – Engler Commercial Site

                                                Kissimmee Park Rd; S. of Teka Village

                                                Rezoning from NB to HB

 

Mr. Jim McNeil was present to represent the application.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that he had discussed this issue with Mr. McNeil over the phone and had advised him of the need for a Land Use Amendment.  He explained that Mr. McNeil would need to submit a second application and fee and that it would be up to him to argue the case before the City Council.

 

Mr. McNeil noted that he understood and was not planning to move forward with any plans until all the roadwork planned for the area had been completed.

 

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.

2.         Further conditions and recommendations will be addressed during the construction process.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

PLANNING

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   Staff recommends denial of rezoning to Highway Business based on compatibility with surrounding uses and the Future Land Use not being compatible.

2.                   Section 3.4.3.C.2.a of the Land Development Code contains 16 items that must be addressed in the report to City Council regarding rezoning.  If the applicant does not agree with this recommendation, the applicant should provide written comments and support materials to these items.

INFORMATION:

3.                   In order to obtain HB zoning a small scale land use amendment would be required to change the Future Land Use from Professional to Commercial.

4.                   Property to the North is zoned Planned Unit Development and Professional (City Fire Station)

5.                   Property to the West is zoned Planned Unit Development and Neighborhood Business

6.                   Property to the East is zoned Planned Development (PD County) and Residential Multi Family (RM-3 County)

7.                   Property to the South is zoned Residential Single Family (RS-1C County)

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.                   The District has no comment regarding this case.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval.  The applicant will submit application for a Land Use Amendment.


Page 6, DRC Minutes – 12/11/03

 

 

4.         Case # 04-24.01 – Lot #10 Commercial Site

                                                HC Yates Drive (St. Cloud Commercial Center)

                                                Site Plan

 

Mr. Jim Wells and Mr. John Jones were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         At least one accessible route (special emphasis crosswalk) shall be provided from public 

transportation stops, public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance per  section 11-4.3.2 (1) of the Florida Building Code 2001.

 

Mr. Wells asked for an explanation of the comment.

 

Mr. Trowell noted that a cross-walk with hash marks from the street to the building needed to be shown on the plan.

 

The issue was briefly discussed.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         The three parking spaces which are proposed along the southeast side of the project are not usable due       to the fact the driver must back-up across the entire parking lot in order to exit the site.  We recommend          that a reconfiguration of the parking be made to eliminate the need for backing across the entire parking           lot or enter into an agreement with Lot 9 for a cross access to utilize the existing ingress/egress at Lot 9.

 

Mr. Wells noted that this was something that could be corrected and the comment was discussed.

 

2.         The 15-foot drainage easement which is along the northwest side of the lot will need to be vacated in            order to construct the building.

3.         A SFWMD Permit Modification will be required prior to issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” for            construction.

4.         The proposed parking lot typical section indicates that this intended use is for automobile traffic only.  If heavier wheel loads are anticipated the typical section will need to be increase to 1-1/2 –inches of asphaltic concrete, 8-inch limerock, and a 10-inch stabilized sub-grade.

5.         It appears that a solid waste dumpster will not be constructed on site.  What type of use is intended for        the facility, and it is possible that a future dumpster will be required? 

 

Mr. Wells noted that Mr. Jones had an agreement with one of the adjacent business owners to share a dumpster.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that this could only be allowed if there was something recorded with the land that would tie the agreement to the property regardless of the ownership.

 

The issue of the dumpster was briefly discussed with Mr. Luthie asking if it would be possible to designate one of the excess parking spaces for the location of a dumpster if needed in the future.

 

The use of the property was discussed with Mr. Nearing explaining that designation of a use was important because so many of the requirements were based on what the use is to be.

 

Mr. Wells asked of that was something that could be handled through the Building Permit process.  He also asked if a currently vacant building that had a change in its use had to go through the site plan process and Mr. Nearing noted that it did.

 

After extensive discussion Mr. Jones noted that the use would be designated as office space.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

Page 7, DRC Minutes – 12/11/03

 

 

1.                   A certificate of Capacity approved by City Council shall be required prior to receiving a Notice to Proceed.

 

Mr. Wells noted that he thought a Certificate of Capacity was not needed if the project was inside the City.

 

Mr. Nearing explained that only residences in the old grid were exempt from the requirement.

 

2.                   A Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee in the amount of $418.00 shall be paid prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, per Resolution 98-27R.  The Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee shall be credited towards the sewer impact fee at the time of building permit.  The balance of all impact and tap fees shall be at the rate in effect at the time of building permit.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

3.                   Staff recommends approval with the above conditions.

INFORMATION:

4.                   The Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee equal to 10% of the estimated sanitary sewer impact fee.  For the commercial development this is:  3,800 s.f. of building x $1,100 ÷ 1,000 = $4,180 x 10% = 418 due at the Certificate of Capacity.  Per Resolution 98-27R.

5.                   A list of all impact fees is available from the Planning & Zoning Department upon request.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A minimum 6” sanitary sewer lateral is required. Change all fitting sizes to 6”.

2.                   A grease trap will be required for any on-site food preparation.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

2.         Further conditions and recommendations will be addressed during the construction process.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         If the electric is underground, the owner will install all primary conduit and the concrete transformer pad.  The secondary conduit, wire and terminations are the responsibility of the owner from the padmount transformer or to the power pole is service is underground.

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

3.         There may be costs to provide electric service to this project, please contact Development Services.

4.         OUC can provide parking lot lights for this project, please contact Development Services.

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

            500 South Orange Avenue                                  (407) 236-9652 – Fax (407) 236-9628

            P.O. Box 3193                                                   email: developmentservices@ouc.com

            Orlando, FL  32702

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

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Please provide the Future Land Use of Commercial on plans.

2.                   Please provide trip generation calculations.

3.                   Please provide the calculations for the 20% open space landscaping requirement.

4.                   Please show irrigation on landscaping plans.

5.                   A 10’ front buffer is required. Extra parking currently exists, therefore please redesign site to include 10’ front buffer.

 

Mr. Wells asked if a variance could be requested for the buffer and the variance was briefly discussed.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that it could but that a letter from the association indicating that there was no intent to change the green space would be required.  He then asked Mr. Wells if the required plantings would still fit within a reduced buffer.

 

Page 8, DRC Minutes – 12/11/03

 

 

Mr. Wells noted they would and that there would be plenty of room.

 

6.                   A minimum distance of 30’ must be provided from the property line to the building site along the western property line adjacent to the residential zoning (County).  Please redesign site reflecting this building setback.

 

The issue of the adjacent property’s land use and zoning was discussed with Mr. Wells noting that it was AC.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that Mr. Wells would need to provide something from the County that states they consider the property not to be residential.  He explained that if the County did consider it residential, a BOA variance would be required and approval of such a variance was not likely.

 

Mr. Wells asked if the 30’ buffer would be unusable.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that it could be used for anything but building and could be calculated as part of any setbacks or easements.

 

The matter was further discussed with Mr. Wells noting that he would take another look at the plan.

 

7.                   A wall will be required with a 1’ setback along the western property line adjacent to the residential zoning (County), however a site variance may be possible.

 

Mr. Wells noted that the applicant would be requesting a variance from this requirement.

 

Mr. Nearing explained that if the letter from the County stated that the adjacent property was not considered residential, the need for the wall would go away.

 

8.                   Please provide a tree in each front island.

9.                   A hedge will be required for screening along the rear parking area up to the building.

 

Mr. Wells noted that he did not understand the need for any such screening.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that it was a requirement of the code.

 

10.               A site variance may be possible for the sidewalk.  Please provide a crosswalk where the sidewalk ends.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that sidewalks were required on all street frontages but staff could support a variance in the instance.  He further noted that there should probably be some type of pedestrian ramp provided on the other side as a receiver though.

 

INFORMATION:

11.               If no loading area is provided, trucks will be permitted to occupy only one parking space for deliveries.  If trucks occupy more parking or park along building, property owner will be cited.

12.               If a site variance is desired for the dumpster as stated on cover letter, please submit application and fee to the Planning Department.

13.               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.

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

15.               Property to the north, west and south are zoned HB with a Future Land Use of Commercial.  However the property located to the east is zoned Agricultural Conservation (County) with a Future Land Use of Low Density Residential (County).

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

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

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval with conditions.  The applicant will resubmit corrected plans within 60 days.


Page 9, DRC Minutes – 12/11/03

 

 

5.         Case # 04-25.01 – Fawn Meadows at Deer Creek

                                                W of Canoe Creek Rd; S. of Old Canoe Creek Rd

                                                Final Plat

 

Mr. Jeremy Kibler was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         The Gator Bay Slough is under control of Osceola County and it is vital that Osceola County           acknowledge the proposed width of the tract which encompasses the Gator Bay Slough.      Furthermore,      the County must acknowledge that the access for maintenance of the Gator Bay Slough        will be   adequate for their equipment.  It appears that Tract L will be under the Homeowners Association         jurisdiction; this will need to be acceptable to Osceola County.

 

Mr. Kibler asked what Mr. Luthie was looking for.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he needed something from the County that says they have looked at it and it is acceptable.

 

2.         Please graphically indicate the 10-foot utility easement along property frontages of all lots for utility purposes.

 

Mr. Kibler noted that he would show the easement.

 

3.         Please remove note #11 from the general notes.  Place the drainage easements under the dedication to       the public.

 

Mr. Kibler asked if the dedication needed to be made to the City or to the Public.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that the dedication would be to the Public.

 

4.         Please remove the typical 5-foot drainage and utility easement along the side lot lines and rear lines of         all lots unless specifically required for utility purposes.

 

Mr. Kibler noted that he would remove the easement.

 

5.         We will need verification and acknowledgement from Osceola County with regard to the dedication of            Tract I to Osceola County.

 

Mr. Nearing asked if Tract “I” was a right-of-way and Mr. Luthie noted it was.

 

6.         Near the entrance way along the southside of Deer Creek Blvd. is a 15-foot sidewalk/landscape and             utility easement.  This must be included either in the dedication portion of the plat or in the general           notes as to future ownership and maintenance.

 

Mr. Kibler noted that he was making the necessary changes.

 

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.

2. Further conditions and recommendations will be addressed during the construction process.

Page 10, DRC Minutes – 12/11/03

 

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Please research tract C you have may have rezoned it from NB to R-1B by including it in the Deer Creek Residential rezoning request. The Ordinance for Deer Creek Residential is available in our office. If NB is desired again you will need to change it again.

2.                   If Tract C is to remain residential you will need a six foot wall to buffer the roadway.

 

Mr. Kibler noted that the intention was to rezone the property to make the zoning and land use compatible.

 

Mr. Groenendaal discussed the buffers for the project.

 

Mr. Kibler discussed the easements along the rear of the lots.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         The District recommends approval of this case.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Prior to submitting final plan, applicant shall clear all proposed street names with the 9-1-1 Addressing Department.  Please submit site plan for review.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval with the conditions as discussed.  The final plat will be corrected and resubmitted for review by the Planning Board and City Council.

 

ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.