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:      May 20, 2004

 

LOCATION:                   1300 9th Street - 1st Floor – DRC Conference Room; St. Cloud

 

CALL TO ORDER:         2:00 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN:                  David Nearing, Planning/Zoning Director

 

SECRETARY:               Marty Hobbs, Development Officer

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dave Nearing                 Mark Luthie                   Major Holliday

Dave Ennis                    John Groenendaal          Ron Trowell

Veronica Witol               Tommy Howes

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.         Case #4-70.01 – Landry/Hoffman

                                                2205 Kissimmee Park Road

                                                SS Land Use Amendment/Zoning

 

Mr. Jim Wells was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION

1.         No comments.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION

1.         No comment.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.                   Water is available to this parcel.

2.                   Sanitary sewer is not currently available.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comment.

 

POLICE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         None

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approved

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         The City can not take action on this request for 12 months in order to meet the requirements of 163.3187.1b.

2.                   Need a letter of authorization from property owner.

3.                   Provide a concept plan for an R-2 subdivision for the Public Hearings.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1                     The request for Medium Density Residential is appropriate for the surrounding properties.

Page 2, DRC Minutes – 05/20/04

 

 

2                     The request for R-3 is inappropriate for the surrounding properties. Based on the density of units in Natchez Trace the staff will support R-2 for single family and duplex uses.

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.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The District has no comment regarding this case.

 

Mr. Wells noted agreement with the comments and there were no discussions.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval with conditions.  This case will move forward to Planning Board and City Council for Public Hearings.

 

 

 

2.         Case #4-63.02 – Blackberry Creek Flex Space

                                                Kissimmee Park Rd/Commerce Center Drive

                                                Site Plan Variance

 

Mr. Bruce Taylor was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         Staff supports the variance 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.

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comment

 

POLICE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         None

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approved

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Based on the 50-foot drainage easement and road design Planning has no objection to the variance requests

Page 3, DRC Minutes – 05/20/04

 

 

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.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

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

 

There was no discussion of the comments.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval.  The case will move forward to the City Council for Public Hearing.

 

 

 

 

 

3.         Case #4-71.01 – The Shoppes

                                                S. of U.S. 192; E. of Kissimmee Park Road

                                                Rezone to PUD

 

Mr. David Reid was present to represent the application.

 

Mr. Wayne Schoolfield was present via a telephone conference call.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         Water and sewer extensions may be required to provide service to these parcels.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comment

 

POLICE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         None

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approved

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

 

Mr. Reid acknowledged that there were some things that needed to be added in the area of landscaping and that a landscaping plan would be submitted.

 

Page 4, DRC Minutes – 05/20/04

 

 

Mr. Reid noted that the current parking plan had too few islands.

 

Mr. Schoolfield discussed the issue of the islands, landscaping, and whether irrigation was already available at the site.

 

Mr. Reid noted that he would address the issues discussed with the landscaping plan.

 

1.                   Please provide 12 copies of the PUD master plan on 11”x17” paper to be included in staff reports for Planning Board and Council members.

2.                   Any new parcels will require a replat of the subdivision.

3.                   Final master plan will need to be submitted before the additional parcels are created and developed.  This can be done concurrently.

4.                   Included on the plat shall be easements for access, parking, stormwater management, and signage

5.                   Please move existing Cross Access easement along 13th street to align with existing driveways and drive aisles to access lots 3, 4, and proposed 2 A.

6.                   The narrative mentions a church.  Is a church planned on either parcel 1A or 2A?

 

Mr. Reid noted that he was not aware of a church planned for the project and noted that it might have been a typo.  He noted that he would make sure it got changed.

 

Mr. Nearing explained that if there was a church planned, the owner needed to be aware that any restaurants planned would not be able to advertise alcohol with a church in the center.

 

7.                   In section 2.3.6, Lot 2 is shown as having 66,701 sf when the master plan and previous sections stated Lot 2 has 23,280 sf.  Please clarify.

8.                   Section 2.4, states the maximum building size of both lots to be 5,000 sf.  According to the LDC current standards, lot 1A could have a maximum building size of 9,120 sf. and a maximum of 8,130 sf on Lot 2A.  Do you intend to limit to the exact square footage described in the narrative when it is below what may be possible due to cross access and parking easements?

 

Mr. Nearing asked if the applicant was sure he wanted to in include such limits and the issue was discussed.

 

9.                   According to the ITE Parking Generation Manual equation, only 2+ parking spaces are needed for every 1,000 sf within a shopping center.  (The range was between 1 and 6 vehicles per 1,000 sf during peak hour.)  Staff is recommending 3 per 1,000.  Please update the PUD narrative section 2.4.3.

 

Parking discussed.

 

10.               Section 2.5 states that parking will conform to LDC Division 18, however staff is recommending a more relaxed parking schedule, please eliminate this comment or refer to section of narrative that will list the updated parking ratio.

11.               Section 2.5 states that signage will conform to LDC, please change “Chapter 15” to “ Article III, Division 19” or follow Condition # 10 - 13.

12.               Staff recommends that for integrated signage:

·  Sign shall be a maximum of 96 sf., not including the casing as our current LDC requires. 

·  Maximum height is 12’ including the casing. 

·  The side casing may be a maximum of 1’ in width on each side with decorative features extending 1/2’ to a maximum width of 1.5’ casing on each side.

·  Sign shall have a minimum of 1’ in height above 96’sf sign that consists of decorative architectural features.

·  The bottom planter of the sign shall be a minimum of 1’ in height and a maximum of 2’ in height.

·  Planter shall be landscaped the entire width consisting of decorative plants that will cover the 2 feet.  This landscaping shall be irrigated.

·  No individual signs shall be approved for any lot participating in joint signage including lots 1A and 2A.

 

Mr. Schoolfield noted agreement to removal of the existing sign.

Page 5, DRC Minutes – 05/20/04

 

 

Mr. Reid asked what the reasoning was behind shortening the height allowance.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that it was an attempt to bring the signage below the landscaping.

 

Mr. Nearing provided Mr. Reid with a copy of what the new standard sign dimensions would look like and signage was discussed at length.

 

Mr. Reid noted that he did not think the lower sign height was a good idea because of sight problems with traffic.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that was the reason that relocation of the sign was being recommended.

 

13.               Sign shall be placed within parking island located along 13th street within future parcel 2A.

 

Mr. Nearing explained where the City would like to see the sign relocated to in the west corner of 2A.

 

Mr. Schoolfield disagreed with the relocation noting that the sign needed to be near the entrance way.

 

Mr. Reid explained that it may mean blocking the sign with the trees at the bank.

 

Mr. Nearing again noted that the reason for lowering the sign height allowance was to keep it under the tree canopy to prevent that from happening. 

 

The location of the signage was discussed at length.

 

14.               Only allowing 4 sf in area for each establishment’s wall signage appears extremely small.  Recommend comply with the St. Cloud LDC Division 19.

 

Mr. Reid noted that this was an error and would be removed.  He noted that the revised plan would reflect what was allowed by code.

 

15.               Please install bushes along perimeter on site, specifically along 192 and Kissimmee Park Road.  Additionally, please install bushes within the dividing strips.  Hedges are to be a height of 2 feet immediately upon planting, 2 ½ feet height shall be obtained within 1 year of planting.  Hedges shall be a solid screen with final growth height to be 4 feet.

16.               Please replace dead trees in parking islands, specifically the 2nd row closest to Kissimmee Park Road.  Please remove the tree stump located in the landscaped dividing strip adjacent to 192 entrance and replace with a live tree.

17.               Please add parking islands in the following locations:

·  Along the parking row adjacent to Kissimmee Park Road.  Currently there are 17 parking spaces undivided. 

·  Along the parking row within Lot 2 adjacent to the perimeter of the property.  On the original boundary survey, a parking island is separating the parking spaces.  Currently, there are 19 parking spaces undivided. 

·  Along the existing building within Lot 2.  Currently there are 34 parking spaces undivided.

Said islands shall be placed so that no more than 10 parking spaces are consecutive.  Islands shall be a minimum width of 6 feet, measured from the backs of all required curbing.

18.               Several parking islands only have one tree.  Please install an additional tree within each of these to ensure 2 trees per parking island.  If the existing tree is located within the center of the island or contains one of the large oaks, please place shrubs at each end that are at least 2’ in height and can attain a height of 3’ and can be maintained at that; an example being podocarpus.

19.               If the large Live Oaks are removed in a future phase, they shall be replaced at a rate of 2 for 1 above the minimum requirement for trees.

20.               If the large Live Oaks are removed, additional parking islands will be required in that row.  Said islands shall separate every ten parking spaces in that row and the island shall be a minimum of 6 feet, measured from the backs of all required curbing.

21.               20 new spaces have been added below Wendy’s.  Please separate parking rows with a continuous landscaped divided strip.  A minimum width of 4’ shall be maintained between the backs of all required

 

Page 6, DRC Minutes – 05/20/04

 

 

curbing.  Where wheel stops are used, the length of the parking stall may be reduced to 18’ feet if the dividing strip is widened to 8’.  If waiving this requirement is part of PUD, please state in PUD narrative.

22.               Staff understands that one of the tenants has historically placed drop off boxes in the parking lot.  This shall not be permitted.  Drop Off boxes must be located in the front of the store while maintaining 42” clear walkway per ADA requirements.

23.               A cart corral was noticed, staff is not opposed to this, however it will disqualify this parking space from being included in spaces required to meet parking requirements.  Pleases show cart corral on master plan.

24.               New outdoor storage will not be allowed other than tat permitted by existing conditional use. 

25.               Please identify dumpster locations on master plan and ensure dumpsters are properly screened per City standards.

26.               Please submit original owner authorization letters.

27.               Please update narrative and provide updated version to Planning Department prior to 6/1/04 for the 6/22/04 Planning Board meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   Recommend approval of preliminary master plan with the above changes.

 

Ms. Witol explained that the trees within the islands could be removed.  She noted that Mr. Duffy, the City’s Arborist, had indicated that they were deteriorating and not worth saving.  She also noted that Ms. Duffy was of the opinion that the large oak located at the Kissimmee Park Road access needed to be saved.

 

The buffer at the rear of the building was discussed with Mr. Reid noting that he would reduce the pavement to allow room for the landscaping.

 

Mr. Reid noted that the plans would be revised and resubmitted.

 

Processing of the project from this point forward was discussed.  Mr. Nearing explained that a master plan for the overall area would be needed as well as separate plans for 1A and 2A.

 

Mr. Mauro noted that reclaimed water was available to the site.

 

Mr. Reid asked where it would be coming from and Mr. Mauro noted that it would be coming off of Kissimmee Park Road.

 

Mr. Reid asked if the project was going to be required to connect and Mr. Mauro noted that it would be.

 

Mr. Reid asked if a monument sign would be allowed on Kissimmee Park Road and Mr. Nearing explained that it could be proposed and discussed.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval with conditions.  This case will be moved forward to Planning Board and City Council for Public Hearings.

 

ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 P.M.