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:      March 9, 2006              

 

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

 

CALL TO ORDER:         2:00 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN:                  David Nearing, Planning and Zoning Director

 

SECRETARY:               Michelle Orton, Secretary

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Luthie                   John Groenendaal          Ron Trowell                   Tommy Howes

Rick Mauro                    Jeffrey Higgins               Dave Ennis                    Bob Friend

Michele Bronson            Veronica Witol               Ken Peck                      Lt. Bret Dunn

                       

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.                     Case # 6-1.11 – Spring Fling 2006 (Michelle Orton, Planning Tech)

Lakefront Park

Special Event – March 30-April 2, 2006

 

Steve Howes, Chairman of the Spring Fling was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         Temporary electrical wiring shall comply with the National Electrical Code (NEC) 2005

             Article 525. Note: Temporary wiring shall be ground-fault protected. Multi-conductor

             cord shall originate in an approved power outlet or panelboard and be of the type identified

             in Table 400.4 for hard usage or extra hard usage. Receptacles shall be the grounding type.

             Lamps shall be protected from accidental contact or breakage. Electrical cords shall be

             protected from damage and shall be placed so as to prevent trip hazards.

             When receptacles are installed on flexible cords/cables and exposed to weather or in wet

             locations, they shall be in a weatherproof enclosure.

 

Mr. Howes noted that the wiring had been destroyed but that they were going to repair them and put them back.

 

2.         If tents over 300 sq. ft. are used they shall comply with the Florida Building Code 2004 (FBC)

Section 3103.1 and Chapter 10, Means of Egress. Certification of flame resistance shall be filed with the

building department prior to a permit being issued.

 

Mr. Howes indicated that they were canceling the 300 sq. ft. tents, he wasn’t sure what they would bring in to replace them at this time.

 

3.         Tent exits, aisles, seating, etc. shall conform to assembly occupancy. All exits shall be kept free of

            obstructions while tent is occupied by the public.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments for this case.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         Until we receive formal documentation that Lakeshore Blvd. is under the City of St. Cloud jurisdiction you will be required to receive permission to close the road from Osceola County.       

 

Mr. Howes indicated that he spoke with Commissioner Bill Lane and Mr. Lane agreed to allow them to close Lakeshore Drive.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that would be fine as long as he could have something in writing from the County.  Mr. Luthie also indicated that on the application it states they were closing all the way to Mississippi so he wanted clarification.

 

Mr. Howes noted that would not be a problem getting the letter and he would get that to Mr. Luthie.  He also indicated that they will only be closing to Maryland that there was an error they will not need to be closed all the way to Mississippi.

 

2.         In the past the road was not closed to Mississippi Ave.  Please provide the reason for the need to close such a large portion of Lakeshore Blvd.          

3.         Please contact Ernie McDaniel, Solid Waste Superintendent regarding coordination of solid waste receptacles for this event.   

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         All fire protection equipment; building exits and other safety features shall remain accessible.

2.         Blocking of intersections shall be done using removable barricades and manned when possible.

3.         A lane shall remain open to allow emergency vehicles access if needed. (Movable barricades are                                                                                              acceptable.

4.         The Fire rescue Department will require the first-aid station be located in an area with electric and   water. The station will consist of a 20’ trailer with a 10’ canopy, requiring access to emergency vehicles.

 

Mr. Howes indicated that they will have a place just not sure where they will be setting up the cooling tent.

 

5.         Fire Rescue Department will require an area 100’x100’ near the boat ramp for landing the medical helicopter with no tents or loose objects in the area.

 

INFORMATION:

6.         Contact Lt. Bill Campbell 321-624- 0951 for divers, medical and fuel stand-by.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         The Temporary electric service is required please contact OUC Customer Service at 407-957-7373.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         All RV’s parked overnight at the Lakefront must be totally self-contained.

 

INFORMATION:

1.                   The applicant has made application and received approval for overnight parking of RVs at the Lakefront.  Please be advised that you must submit a written request to the Department of Planning and zoning for a refund of this deposit within fourteen (14) days of event.  Once an inspection of the site has been complete by the Parks & Recreation any deposit not retained for payment of clean up and/or damages will be refunded to you.

2.                   As a DRC approved Special Event, the applicant is authorized to utilize off-site signage to advertise and/or direct traffic for the event.  Please be advised that all signage must be placed so as to prevent visual obstruction to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, must be free standing and may be utilized beginning one week prior to the event.  All signage must be removed the day following the final day of the event.

3.                   The applicant has received approval from the City of Saint Cloud to serve alcohol per Resolution # 2006-047R as long as all of the other conditions per the resolution are met.

 

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The new stage may be here by March 24th.  But we do not know for sure.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   I would like to do a walk through at least two weeks before the event to give everyone time to make there adjustment if any.  Say lets meet on 15th at 1:30pm?

2.                   Check out the carnival area because it is smaller now then before.  Please make sure that they do not drive in areas where they are not supposed to be.

3.                   How do you plan on keeping people out of the Boat Basin area?

INFORMATION:

1.                   For the request of the banquet hall you need to meet with Kristin Caborn for the approval.

2.                   All we have now is (1) 140 seat bleacher that we pull with a truck just like the County has that we can set up for you. 

3.                   We only have (2) 10’x10’ tent to set up for you.

4.                   We do have (4) 20’x40’ tents to set up for you.

5.                   No digging into the ground due to underground wires.

6.                   Where do you want us to deliver the (40) tables and (240) chairs to?

7.                   We no longer carry 55 gallon trash cans because we are going with decorated cans in our areas.

8.                   Where do you want our mobile stage?  We will have to meet to see if it fits where you want it.

9.                   We will start setting up the tents on Thursday March 30th and we need a representative there to make sure we set the tents up where you want them.

10.               The stage will be delivered on March 30th or March 31st pending on if there is nothing in the way of where it is going. 

 

Mr. Tommy Howes wanted to know where they would like for the Parks and Rec Dept. to set up the bleachers.

 

Mr. Howes indicated that they have a crew that will be taking care of the bleachers.

 

Mr. Tommy Howes noted that they will not be able to get the bleachers as far down as they would like.

 

Mr. Howes then indicated that they would just eliminate the bleachers.

 

Mr. Tommy Howes noted that they were going to need 4 - 10 x 10 tents but the Parks & Rec Dept. only has 2.

 

Mr. Howes noted that they will use what they have but wasn’t sure they would need more.  He noted that they were going to have a walk through this week.  He indicated that they do have a tent coming in for the beer tent and they will be using sandbags for that and they would be setting up near the building and the playground.  He then noted that they had a map

 

Mr. Tommy Howes wanted to know where the table and chairs needed to be set up.

 

Mr. Howes indicated he wanted them by the marina.  He also noted that they would be near the beer tent and the Kareoke and perhaps they could use the new stage he heard was coming.

 

Mr. Tommy Howes noted that they were going to get a new 24 x 24 stage but it hasn’t come in yet but it should be in before the event.

 

Mr. Howes indicated that would work for them because they were going to have entertainment and the Karoke so they would need the stage and they were also going to have more power.

 

Mr. Tommy Howes indicated to Mr. Howes that the Parks Dept. no longer has trash cans.

 

Mr. Howes noted that they will be using boxes and taking care of the trash.

 

Mr. Tommy Howes wanted to know if they will be needing the City’s sound system because he would need to know the day and time.

 

Mr. Howes indicated that they will be needing it Friday and Saturday night and that Mainstreet would be running that, he also noted that he will get a copy of that information to Mr. Tommy Howes.

 

Mr. Tommy Howes wanted to know where that would need to be set up.

 

Mr. Howes noted that they would like to set up on the other side from the carnival.  He also indicated that they would have a meeting for final times and set up.

 

Mr. Tommy Howes wanted to know when that meeting would take place.

 

Mr. Howes indicated that it would be Monday at 5:30 pm at the Women’s Club and that everyone was welcome.  He then mentioned to Lt. Dunn that he had spoken with Chief Kelly and that someone from the department would be at that meeting.

 

Lt. Dunn mentioned that he also had talked to the Chief and that it was taken care of.

 

Mr. Howes noted that the only problem he thinks they will have in people wanting to come into the park without having to pay.  He then mentioned that they will have their boats out and properly tagged before it starts.

 

Lt. Dunn wanted to know when the Beer tent would be open, he wanted to know if it was going to be open on Friday night.

 

Mr. Howes indicated that it would and that they will have it open on Saturday and Sunday also but that they will only have 1 tent whereas in the past they had 2 tents.

 

RISK MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         Vendor must approve acceptable Certificate of Insurance via ACORD form or sign waiver documents no later than 10 days prior to the event.          

2.         An Hold Harmless Agreement must be signed by an St Cloud Chamber of Commerce representative prior to the event.

 

Ms. Bronson indicated that she still has not received a hold harmless agreement.

 

Mr. Howes noted that they would get that to her.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Contact Risk Management @407.957.7359 or go to 1400 Ninth Street (Building B Floor 3) to complete the Hold Harmless Agreement and provide a Certificate of Insurance as soon as possible.      

           

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The District has no comment.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that this is the first time for this event at the new park that maybe there can be an informal meeting to find out how things turned out.

 

FINDING: DRC recommends approval with conditions.

 

2.                     Case # 6-1.12 – OPO/Lakefront Grand Opening (Michelle Orton, Planning Tech)

Lakefront Park

Special Event – March 25, 2006

 

Mr. Tommy Howes was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         Temporary electrical wiring shall comply with the National Electrical Code (NEC) 2005

             Article 525. Note: Temporary wiring shall be ground-fault protected. Multi-conductor

             cord shall originate in an approved power outlet or panelboard and be of the type identified

             in Table 400.4 for hard usage or extra hard usage. Receptacles shall be the grounding type.

             Lamps shall be protected from accidental contact or breakage. Electrical cords shall be

             protected from damage and shall be placed so as to prevent trip hazards.

             When receptacles are installed on flexible cords/cables and exposed to weather or in wet

             locations, they shall be in a weatherproof enclosure.

2.         If tents over 300 sq. ft. are used they shall comply with the Florida Building Code 2004 (FBC)

Section 3103.1 and Chapter 10, Means of Egress. Certification of flame resistance shall be filed with the

building department prior to a permit being issued.

3.         Tent exits, aisles, seating, etc. shall conform to assembly occupancy. All exits shall be kept free of

            obstructions while tent is occupied by the public.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments for this case.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.  

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         All fire protection equipment; building exits and other safety features shall remain accessible.

2.         All seating arrangements and occupancy shall conform to The Florida Fire Prevention Code.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         The application package indicates acknowledgement and compliance with all requirements of the Planning Department.  Therefore, we have no additional conditions.

INFORMATION:

1.                   The applicant has received approval from the City of Saint Cloud to serve alcohol per Resolution # 2006-019R as long as all of the other conditions per the resolution are met.

2.                   As a DRC approved Special Event, the applicant is authorized to utilize off-site signage to advertise and/or direct traffic for the event.  Please be advised that all signage must be placed so as to prevent visual obstruction to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, must be free standing and may be utilized beginning one week prior to the event.  All signage must be removed the day following the final day of the event.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   Get with Pete Jones about all your power issues that you need.

 

INFORMATION:

1.                   As of now they have not requested anything from us but Jenna will get with me when she finds out more from Lori English.

 

RISK MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         Vendor must approve acceptable Certificate of Insurance via ACORD form or sign waiver documents no later than 10 days prior to the event.          

2.         An Hold Harmless Agreement must be signed by an St Cloud Chamber of Commerce representative prior to the event.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Contact Risk Management @407.957.7359 or go to 1400 Ninth Street (Building B Floor 3) to complete the Hold Harmless Agreement and provide a Certificate of Insurance as soon as possible.      

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The District has no comment.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that since we are no longer having VIP tents and only the Park and Recreation Department and the Police Department are involved with this event, did the rest of the committee feel a need for them to come back to the committee every year.

 

The Committee agreed that they would not need to come back.

 

Mr. Nearing then noted that this would be the last year for them to apply to DRC.  He then wanted to know if they had turned in their Insurance Certificate.

 

Ms. Bronson noted that they did not and they also need to turn in their Hold Harmless Certificate.

 

Mr. Nearing wanted to know if alcohol was going to be served at this event.

 

Mr. Howes indicated that he didn’t know that he would only be setting up the stage.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that is why Ms. LaFleur needed to be here at this meeting because if they are going to allow the attendees bring in their own alcohol that they would have to close off that portion of the park.

 

Mr. Howes indicated that they would need to rope it off.

 

Ms. Bronson stated that was pretty minimal they just need to stakes and rope.

 

Mr. Nearing they would also need to notify the people that it was a designated drinking area.  He then asked Mr. Howes to get in touch with Ms. LaFleur and have her get with the OPO so they can get their Certificate of Insurance and Hold Harmless Agreement into Ms. Bronson and with the St. Cloud Police Department.

 

Ms. Bronson indicated that they could turn those into herself or Ms. McCorkle in the Clerk’s Office.

 

FINDING: DRC recommends approval with conditions.

 

3.                     Case # 4-59.12 – Anthem Park, Phase 5 (John Groenendaal, Planner)

2010 Kissimmee Park Road

West of Kissimmee Park Road and South of Neptune Road

Final Master Plan, 5.88 Acres; 96 Condominiums

 

Brian Malmberg with Miller, Einhouse, Rymer and Boyd and Mike Trishnoff with DR Horton were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this final master plan.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Effective immediately, all residential and commercial developments approved (issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” shall constitute approval) after December 1, 2005 shall be assessed a “Cyber Spot Capital Expansion” charge due and payable prior to issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” for the development.  This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

2.                   Poles that provide a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud, for mounting of the radios.

 

Mr. Trishnoff indicated that the lights that are in the first 3 phases are much lower then 25’ and wanted to know if they were going to have a mixture of sizes.

 

Mr. Peck noted he didn’t know that these were 3 stories and that size may even have to change.

 

Mr. Trishnoff noted that they are already in their 3 out of 5 phases and is there anything that the IT department or they could do to make this work.

 

Mr. Peck noted that they were getting together with OUC to try to work this out, he indicated that he had wished they could have done it all at the same time but then again with the different height this brings new problems.

 

Mr. Trishnoff noted he wasn’t trying to buck the system it’s just that they were in the 3 out of the 5 stages of this project.

 

Mr. Peck indicated that the best thing to do would be to set it up wit the IT Department.

 

Mr. Trishnoff asked that Mr. Peck drop him a line so that they can work out a solution because they like the idea but they are so far into the phases.

 

3.                   In instances of decorative light poles, matching decorative poles, providing a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required for mounting of the radios, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud.

4.                   The location of these poles will be determined by the City of St. Cloud.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         We will need written confirmation “letter of intent” to issue a permit from Osceola County that the proposed access to Kissimmee Park Road is approved.        

 

Mr. Malmberg noted that this parcel doesn’t have access onto Kissimmee Park Road he indicated that Phase 3 has the access and that they are already in the permitting process with that phase and that it has no bearing on this parcel.

 

Mr. Luthie indicated that as long as its been permitted they would just need to have some documentation.

 

Mr. Malmberg noted that they didn’t have it yet because it’s in the permitting process but that they would get documentation to Mr. Luthie as soon as they had it.

 

2.         Will Street AA and BB be dedicated to the public or remain private?

 

Mr. Malmberg indicated that those would be private streets.

 

3.         If the street system is intended to be dedicated to the public it must meet all requirements of the LDC.

4.         If the street system is dedicated to the public the landscaped medians will need to be dedicated to the HOA or CDD for maintenance.    

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A Certificate of Capacity application for this project is needed, you may provide it now or with construction plan submittal.

2.                   The Sewer Impact Reservation Fee $22,636.80, amount equal to 10% of required sewer impact fee, is required prior to issuance of Notice to Proceed. 

3.                   The Sewer Impact Reservation Fee shall be credited towards the sewer impact fee for each residential dwelling unit at the time of building permit at the rate of $235.80 per lot.  The balance of the sewer impact fee and all other impact and tap fees are due and payable at the time of Building Permit on a lot by lot basis.

INFORMATION:

1.                   Please be advised that the Certificate of Capacity will not be moved forward to City Council for approval until such time as the applicant notifies the Planner that it is needed.  Your planner will place the item on the next available City Council agenda.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A 6” Double Detector Check backflow preventer is required on all fire protection systems.

 

 

Mr. Malmberg wanted to know if the 6” was a city requirement  because he thought maybe they had shown a 3” and a 6” on their plans.

 

Mr. Mauro indicated that he showed a 6” on the plans but the City does not allow 3”.

 

2.                   Change the size of the individual water lines to the buildings to a minimum size 4” pipe.

3.                   The allowable limit of connections on a sanitary sewer lateral is two units.

 

Mr. Malmberg noted that they can only connect 2 units to each lateral.  He noted that each building is going to have 12 cleanouts because there are 24 units in each building and there is one technical building.

 

Mr. Mauro noted they could go smaller and wanted to know if they could run an 8” to the building.

 

Mr. Malmberg noted that they could do that and it wasn’t a problem.

 

Mr. Mauro indicated that he would prefer that.

 

4.                   Show the sanitary sewer clean-outs on the back side of the sidewalks.

5.                   Include a reclaimed water service and meter size for irrigation.

 

Mr. Malmberg noted he had no problem with the irrigation meter.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         Proof of adequate fire flow must be submitted to the public works department for verification prior to site plan approval by the fire rescue department.

2.         Fire Hydrants and Fire Protection Appliances shall have clearances of 7.5 feet front and sides and 4 foot to the rear for hydrants. (NFPA1 18.3.4.1)  This includes driveways. mailboxes, trees, shurbs and utilities...

 3.        During construction, when combustibles are brought on to the site in such quantities as deemed hazardous by the fire official, access roads and a suitable supply of water, acceptable to the fire department, shall be provided and maintained.  Completion of the base installation, including the appropriate tack coating and sanding, shall be considered sufficient for vehicular access.  The following requirements must be met before water is made available to the site: (LDC 16E)

      A.  A clearance letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F.D.E.P.) to place                a public drinking water facility into service; 

      B.  A fire flow test by the St. Cloud Fire Department with results verifying minimum specifications              have been met.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         Need original certificate of title.

2.         Need a floor plan, and an elevation.

3.         Max height is 35 feet. Need to amend the PUD to get 45 foot tall building

 

Mr. Malmberg indicated that this was a PUD site plan.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that when they wrote out the guidelines for their PUD they gave it a maximum height of 35 feet.

 

Mr. Malmberg wanted to know if they stay at 35 feet it would be okay.

 

Mr. Trishnoff wanted to know where the point is measured, where they measure from the 35 feet.

 

There was discussion on measuring the height.

 

Mr. Groenendaal indicated that there was a note that said 45 feet so he was a bit confused.

Mr. Malmberg noted that he would change that on the plans because he will also be including floor plans and elevation.

 

Mr. Groenendaal wanted Mr. Malmberg to know that City Council may be alarmed because of the size.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated the need to emphasize is that these are condominiums and not apartments.

 

Mr. Trishnoff noted that this was a condominium Plat.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that the City has never done a condominium Plat and wanted to know if it was fee simple.

 

Mr. Trishnoff noted that it was fee simple and that it is done by the state.

 

Mr. Groenendaal questioned if this was recorded when they take the plat in.

 

Mr. Trishnoff indicated that the final documents are recorded and that the plat is recoded and the condo plat is filed with the state.

 

4.         There are 12 unit buildings that are connected to each other they are to be one building or separated by 10 feet.

5.         These will be private streets? If you are using inverted crowns, you need a variance for that.

6.         There is no page 8 landscape, need to provide it.

7.         Need to address these items from the FMP checklist

            B.6. Specific delineation, use, location, and size of each common open space and public and semipublic

            area. The amount of each open space type expressed as a percentage of the total site area.

            C. A site development plan including:

            1. An earthmoving concept plan indicating proposed terrain alterations. Areas to be cut shall be

            shaded and areas to be filled shall be crosshatched. The altered 100-year flood-prone areas shall

            be delineated.

            D. A transportation plan including:

            2. The layout of bikeways and pedestrian-ways with typical cross sections.

            4. A traffic circulation plan detailing methods of handling high traffic-flow areas, such as, major

            entrances.

            H. A landscaping plan showing:

1. Landscaped areas, including berms, fences, and buffers.

2. Species, location, size and amount for each planting. (Ord. 2000-51, 12/14/00)

3. Location, height, and material for walks, fences, walkways, and other man-made landscape

features. (Ord. 2000-51, 12/14/00)

4. Any special landscaped features, such as, but not limited to, man-made lakes, land sculpture, and

waterfalls. (Ord. 2000-51, 12/14/00)

I. A recreation concept plan including the location of major facilities by type and areas of use.

M. A written outline and justification of any charges from the approved preliminary master plan.

N. An aerial photograph of the site as it currently exists with a transparent overlay showing major roads

and tracts.

 

Mr. Malmberg wanted Mr. Groenendaal to know that some of the things listed are already on the plans.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that they were but he just wanted him to elaborate on other things that weren’t.

 

Mr. Malmberg wanted to know, regarding number 5, on the inverted crown, would he need a variance if this was a private street.

 

Mr. Groenendaal indicated that a variance is required.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that if it was a street that they wouldn’t be parking on he wasn’t sure if a variance was required.

 

There was discussion over parking and street curbing.

 

Mr. Luthie indicated that a variance would not be needed.

 

Mr. Nearing also indicated that a variance would not be needed.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that he just wanted to be consistent.

 

Mr. Luthie indicated that it was a call and since the City would not be taking the street a variance is not needed.

 

Mr. Malmberg also noted that regarding the nature of parking this wouldn’t be done here and it is private.

 

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. Please resubmit one corrected full set for DRC sign-off and then 15 sets of reduce copies for Planning Board and City Council.

2.         Please be advised that no model homes or centers will be permitted prior to recording of the final plat.  Any such structures shall also require approval of a “Mini Site Plan”.

 

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         The following is recommended for approval.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

CONDITIONS:

1.         Prior to submitting Final; applicant shall clear all proposed street names with the 911 Addressing Department.  Please submit Final Master Plan for review.

 

FINDING: DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

4.                     Case # 4-95.03 – 5th Street Townhouses (Jeffrey Higgins, Planner)

West of Brown Chapel Road and North of 5th Street

Subdivision Construction Plan #2, 5.38 Acres, 51 Townhomes

 

Scott Stewart, Jim Bailey, Alan Fenemore along with Val Taylor from Franklin, Hart and Reid were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on these construction plans.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

5.                   Effective immediately, all residential and commercial developments approved (issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” shall constitute approval) after December 1, 2005 shall be assessed a “Cyber Spot Capital Expansion” charge due and payable prior to issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” for the development.  This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

6.                   Poles that provide a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud, for mounting of the radios.

7.                   In instances of decorative light poles, matching decorative poles, providing a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required for mounting of the radios, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud.

8.                   The location of these poles will be determined by the City of St. Cloud.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         It is understood the road system will remain private and maintained by the HOA?

2.         The City of St. Cloud solid waste division will provide one burgundy collection cart for each unit and will be kept in the garage except on collection day (twice a week pickup).  A green cart for yard waste will not be provided.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

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

2.                   A Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee in the amount of $11,554.20 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.

3.                   Any wells and septic tank are to be abandoned properly.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approval with conditions.

INFORMATION:

1.         Please be advised that the Certificate of Capacity will not be moved forward to City Council for approval until such time as the applicant notifies the Planner that it is needed.  Your planner will place the item on the next available City Council agenda.

2.         The Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee equal 10% of the estimated sanitary sewer impact fee.  49 dwelling units x $2,358 = $115,542.00 x 10% = $11,554.20 due at the Certificate of Capacity.  Per Resolution 98-27R.

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

4.                   The demolition of the home on site will result in some impact fee credits.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         During construction, when combustibles are brought on to the site in such quantities as deemed hazardous by the fire official, access roads and a suitable supply of water, acceptable to the fire department, shall be provided and maintained.  Completion of the base installation, including the appropriate tack coating and sanding, shall be considered sufficient for vehicular access.  The following requirements must be met before water is made available to the site: (LDC 16E)

      A.  A clearance letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F.D.E.P.) to place            a public drinking water facility into service; 

      B.  A fire flow test by the St. Cloud Fire Department with results verifying minimum specifications              have been met.

2.         Proof of adequate fire flow must be submitted to the public works department for verification prior to site plan approval by the fire rescue department.

3.         Move the hydrant at building 9 south to curve.

4.         Access to clubhouse shall be paved and conform to NFPA1.

5.         Fire Hydrants and Fire Protection Appliances shall have clearances of 7.5 feet front and sides and 4 foot to the rear for hydrants. (NFPA1 18.3.4.1) This includes driveways, mailboxes, trees and utilities.

 

Mr. Taylor noted that he spoke to the owners regarding paving the sidewalk.

 

Mr. Ennis noted that this is just a bathroom with an overhang and not a cabana.

 

Mr. Higgins noted that they will need a mini site plan.

 

Ms. Witol noted that he meant a minor site plan.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that it would be a mini site plan since there was no parking.

 

Ms. Witol indicated that Mr. Nearing had spoken to her and Ms. Hobbs and made them have other developer do a minor site plan.

 

There was a discussion on the difference between a mini and minor site plan.

 

Mr. Taylor wanted to know when that would be needed.  He wanted to know if they would need to submit with the pool design.

 

Mr. Groenendaal indicated that if they were just developing the tract that they would need to bring it in at that time.

 

Mr. Steward noted that he was sure their attorneys will want them to call it a tract for the Home Owners Association.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

CONDITIONS:

1.         The owner will install all primary conduit and the concrete transformer pad.  The secondary conduit, wire, and terminations are also the responsibility of the owner.  Please have the conduit installed and inspected by OUC three weeks before you need pre-power. 

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

3.         There may be costs for temporary power to this site.

4.         There may be costs to provide electric service to this project.  Please contact Development Services.

INFORMATION:

5.                   OUC can provide parking lot lights for this project.  Please contact Development Services.

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

44 W. Jefferson Street   

P.O. Box 3193              

Orlando, FL  32802

(407) 236-9652 – fax (407) 236-9628

email: developmentservices@ouc.com

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

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A certificate of Title must be included with this application.

2.                   Please change the plans to indicate PSP/Construction plans for the review that is underway.

3.                   Need to provide a landscape plan that will address the following

a.        The tree mitigation plan, the subject site is heavy wooded and the City will need a proposal on tree replacement with tree used on site and donation to the City to be used in parks and other public places. Refer to 8.2.3.b

b.        The Eastern and Southeastern boundaries takes into account apparently, adjacent properties trees. This may not be the most effective plan to account adjacent properties trees for those that are required for this subject property.

c.        An opaque screen between residential and non residential use is required by section 8.7.3. However because both active uses adjacent are residential in nature (i.e. the nursing home and Bishop Grady) and because tree preservation is possible a site variance will be supported.

d.        The use of pervious paving or turf block is recommended where existing trees are being preserved, in addition the City Arborist should be contacted to ensure work crews understand how root pruning should occur.

4.                    

a.       No structure shall contain more than 2 stories.

b.       Townhouse shall have a 10 foot setback on front and side from any internal roadway.

c.       Garages shall not be converted to living space.

d.       All units shall be a minimum of 20 ft in width.

e.       All units shall have a minimum of 1,200 square feet.

f.         Unless each unit will have an enclosed or partially enclosed rear porch, a uniform six foot tall and wide fence panel will be erected perpendicular to the rear of units to provide an outdoor privacy area.

g.       Buildings shall have alternating façade depths, and include variation of building materials on front elevations.

5.                   Please provide building elevation and floor plans that will also depict building façade, garage frontage, and building footprints.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approval with conditions.

INFORMATION:

2.         Revised plans 11 X 17 (15) sets for the Planning Board and City Council must be submitted. An additional (15) sets of full size plans for sign-off must be submitted after the public hearings.

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

4.         Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right of way permits and concurrency prior to Final Site Plan approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.

 

Mr. Taylor noted that they have already put in for a wall.  He also indicated that with the code change they couldn’t have more than 7 units per building.  That they have spoke with Mr. Nearing and Mr. Higgins and have agreed to allow one of the buildings to have 8 units and they converted the rest of them.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated to Mr. Higgins to check on the Bishop Grady file and see if they got a variance, he noted that he thought they got a variance to put up the type of wall that they put up.  That would mean that the variance would be on their property.

 

Ms. Witol wanted to know about the commercial building that is being built to the west of this development.

 

Mr. Taylor wanted to know who would be responsible for the wall.

 

Ms. Witol noted that it would be the responsibility of the person that builds first.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that Mr. Higgins would let them know of the schedule for a variance.

 

Mr. Taylor then noted that Mr. Schoolfield wanted them to tie in their utilities.

 

Mr. Luthie indicated that he had noted the comment.

 

Mr. Taylor noted that they could adjust that out in the field.

 

Mr. Stewart wanted to know if there was a issue over this.

 

Ms. Witol indicated that they had submitted a final plat but she hasn’t had a chance to look at it yet.

 

Mr. Taylor noted that their retention pond was over there (pointed to set of plans they were reviewing)

 

Mr. Stewart indicated that when he spoke to Mr. Schoolfield that they were going to move it.

 

Discussion over the plans and the retention pond.

 

Mr. Higgins noted that he needs a set of plans for DRC to sign off on.

 

Mr. Taylor indicated that they will bring in new plans with the change of the buildings on them.

 

Mr. Higgins noted that as soon as he can get a set of plans he can set them on the agenda for Planning Board.

 

There was discussion over the time period and the procedure for submitting plans.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

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

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

CONDITIONS:

1.         Prior to submitting Final: applicant shall clear all proposed street names with the 911 Addressing Department.  Please submit preliminary plans for review.

 

FINDING:  The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

 

5.                     Case # 5-85.03  – Turtle Creek (Veronica Witol, Planner)

                                                            South of Rummel Road and West of Narcoossee Road

                                                            PUD Zoning/PMP, 288.87 Acres; 728 Units

 

John Adams with R. J. Widden and Associates and Joe Tramell with Turtle Creek Land Company were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this PUD zoning/PMP

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

9.                   Effective immediately, all residential and commercial developments approved (issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” shall constitute approval) after December 1, 2005 shall be assessed a “Cyber Spot Capital Expansion” charge due and payable prior to issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” for the development.  This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

10.               Poles that provide a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud, for mounting of the radios.

11.               In instances of decorative light poles, matching decorative poles, providing a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required for mounting of the radios, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud.

12.               The location of these poles will be determined by the City of St. Cloud.

INFORMATION:

1.         Developers have already been in contact with I.T. in reference to this development.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         We recommend the “no overnight parking” restrictions be place in the HOA documents for enforcement through the HOA.  The SCPD will not enforce parking restrictions on public streets; therefore the zoning documents will not make reference to the “no overnight parking” requirement.

 

Mr. Adams noted that the “no overnight parking” was a recommendation but he will discuss it with the builder.  He asked if they have an overflow parking design if that would accommodate.

 

Mr. Luthie indicated that this recommendation was made on behalf of the St. Cloud Police Department in order to help them facilitate parking for overnight.

 

2.         Osceola County has collected the site development fees for a majority of the project. Therefore the City of St. Cloud will inspect and collect fees for the “City of St. Cloud utilities only” until build out of the phases under Osceola County inspection occurs. Upon build out of the phases currently collected through Osceola County for site inspection the City of St. Cloud will collect and provide inspection services in its entirety for the balance of the project.     

 

Mr. Adams wanted to know if there had been any further comments regarding the transportation impact fees that were already paid.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he didn’t know they were already paid.  He indicated he was referring to the site and sewer fees.

 

Ms. Witol noted that all of this is in the Development Agreement which she indicated he had mentioned to Mr. David Reid.  She also noted that when they do the math they are still paying less overall and would be less than if they paid the fee.

 

Mr. Tramell indicated that was why they came into the City.

 

 

 

3.         On the boundary survey entitled “Turtle Creek Parcel 3” the land between phases one and Rummel Road is identified as “not included’? Is the “not included” portion considered phase one?           

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1. The hydrant at lot 265 can be removed.

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Why does the application state 728 units and the narrative state 745?

 

Mr. Adams noted that this was a scribner’s error.  He wanted to know if they could just strike out and replace.

 

Ms. Witol indicated that would be fine.

 

Mr. Adams noted that he would change that on the design before he gave it to Ms. Witol.

 

2.                   Please verify the total acreage.  Application states 279.3 but we show 288.87.  This may be the ROW difference.

3.                   Since staff, Planning Board and the City Council are not familiar with your original PD.  Please submit a version that shows cross outs and underlines of all changes.  This way it is obvious how much more you are asking for and a narrative explaining the changes.

4.                   The package included a concurrency management application, but no signature (a copy of a signature is on another page, we need the original) or fee.  If you are applying for concurrency at this time you will need to sign the application form and submit the fee.

5.                   Include in the revisions, what benefits you are adding for justification.  Ex. Donation of __ toward the recreation Department, increased landscaping of ____.

6.                   Please provide the narrative in Microsoft Word format so that the development standards, permitted uses etc, may be pasted into the PUD ordinance.

7.                   Parking ratios are included, but no dimension.  The City of St. Cloud dimensions are 16 x 20 for 2 spaces.  If you need something different, this should be brought to our attention.

8.                   How tall is the berm?

9.                   It appears only the residents of Phase 3 have access to the Equestrian Park. Who will the equestrian park be dedicated to?

10.               Section 3.8 mentions the possible use of a Municipal Service Taxing Unit.   The City of St. Cloud does not use these.  Please delete from Narrative.

11.               Please revise Table 3.2 to subdivide the development area into detached single family and townhomes.

12.               Section 3.4 Landscaping Concepts does not discuss trees on site.  Will the site include street trees or a minimum number of trees per lot?  If so, please revise section.

13.               Please include Statement that all items that are not specifically addressed by the PUD documents shall be governed by the City of St. Cloud Land Development Code.

14.               The Development Standards list minimum lot width at mid-point.  We recommend revising to at building line.

15.               What would fall under “Other” in Development Standards?

16.               The side and rear setbacks for pool are included, but no setback to water.  We use an additional 3’.  Please revise to show setback to water’s edge of 8’.

17.               For Phase 3, what are minimum lot widths? And setbacks for pools.

18.               What is the setback for stables from the side and rear property lines? Please revise to state that info instead of from neighboring homes.  It will difficult when people apply for the building permits to have them prove the separation on someone else’s property since they don’t have survey of their neighbor’s house.

19.               Please include maximum building height in Phase 3 for primary and accessory structures (including stables).  Also include minimum air conditioned square footage.  If no side yard setback for driveway is given, they will have to follow the LDC which states 5’ unless City Manager’s designee allows reduction, not to exceed less than 3’ from side.

20.               Because Narcoossee road is currently failing, any development beyond what you are vested for, 473 units, will be required to wait until the Osceola County CIP is revised to show that it is 3 years for scheduled improvements, or Narcoossee Road level of service is improved.  Final Master Plan approval is good for 3 years and the applicant may wish to wait to complete the Final Master Plan for phases 2 and 3 until the Narcoossee issue is resolved.  Phase 1A and 1B are fine in the meantime as they were approved by Osceola County and have not changed.

INFORMATION:

4.                   Property Owner must fill out Residential Land Use Application checklist for fiscal impact analysis for land use amendment.

5.                   Please submit 1 full set of the Master Plan and narrative for DRC approval.  Once DRC signs off, you will be contacted to submit 15 reduced copies (11 x 17) of Preliminary master plan prior to being scheduled for Planning Board. 

6.                   The preliminary master plan showed more detail than was required.  A final master plan must still be approved by City Council.

7.                   Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right-of-way permits and concurrency prior to Final Site Plan approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.

8.                   Please be advised that no model homes or centers will be permitted prior to recording of the final plat.  Any such structures shall also require approval of a “Mini Site Plan”.

 

Mr. Adams noted that it was dedicated to those 7 lots but he will clarify that.

 

Mr. Adams indicated, regarding number 20 that he met with the County Attorney and also number 4 and that the developer has agreed to hire a transportation lobbyist and to do a corridor study for Narcoossee Road which will be funded by the County and the developer.  The developer will be taking ownership of that study in order to accelerate it from 2011 to 2009.  This will enable some funding to be available July 2007.  All of this is occurring sometime in November and they had some discussion with the secretary in Tallahassee since they funded part of Orange County.  His question for staff is, will they be required to wait for Osceola County CIP in order to apply for Building Permits.  The concurrency ordinance was amended two month ago during the preliminary so we were wondering if they can be processed.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that zoning doesn’t cause transportation trips.

 

Mr. Adams wanted to know if they would be able to process their building permits.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that they could process their building permits per the reservation fee until they reach that amount, he noted that it was one on timing for their part.

 

Mr. Tramell indicated that they are going to try and make this positive for Narcoossee Road.  That they are volunteering to do this with the intent that they will be reimbursed.

 

Mr. Nearing wanted to know if they were trying to find other participants in this endeavor.

 

Mr. Tramell noted that they are going to be reimbursed but that they are trying to get others to help pay for the lobbyist because it could go beyond their portion of Narcoossee Road.

 

Mr. Adams wanted to know what they were talking about in regards to “intent to permit”.  He indicted that he had spoken to Mr. Chris Crow and he didn’t know what “intent to permit” was. 

 

Mr. Luthie indicted in a letter they had received from the county they were to make sure that they received from the applicant an “intent to permit” letter.  He noted that he could give Mr. Adams a copy of that letter and he can discuss it with the county because this was a request from the county not from the city.

 

Mr. Adams also noted that they have an issue regarding the Osceola County School District.  He noted that they are creating a demand for schools but give the fact that they are already under construction for the first phase he didn’t think it would be practical especially with the current condition of Narcoossee Road for a school to be included in this area.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that he would need to contact Mr. Tanner Roe from the school district.  That he would need to discuss that issue with them.

 

Ms. Witol noted that it may be in their interest to get together with the school district and perhaps get another letter indicating that they had met with the school district to bring before the Planning Board and City Council.  She indicated that Mr. Roe had asked her to specially put these comments and letter with her staff report to Planning Board and City Council. 

 

Mr. Adams indicated that it wasn’t practical to have a school in this area especially with the problems existing with Narcoossee Road.

 

Ms. Witol noted that this had to deal with the other case and not this one.

 

FINDING:  The DRC recommended approval with Conditions.

 

6.                     Case # 5-85.04 – Turtle Creek (Veronica Witol, Planner)

South of Rummel Road and West of Narcoossee Road

Large Scale LUA, 288.87 Acres; 728 Units

 

John Adams with R. J. Widden and Associates and Joe Tramell with Turtle Creek Land Company were present to represent the application.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the committee is well briefed that Turtle Creek had been approved for 473 units with the county and that they are going to have more.

 

Mr. Adams indicted that the existing land use of Osceola County recommended the average of 3 units per acre and that is what they are requesting.  They still only have 3 units per acre.  He also noted that he had a question.  That some of the neighbors are getting misinformation and that they would like to have a meeting with the neighbors and was wondering if something could be set up so that they would be able to have a meeting space available.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that there was space in the Civic Center.  He also noted that perhaps he could coordinate something with Ms. Witol and that they should consider going about this meeting as if it were an HOA meeting.

 

Ms. Witol wanted to know if they were planning this before Planning Board.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that if they waited for Planning Board and tried to discuss it then that it would be broadcast live so that he would perhaps want to meet with the neighbors prior to it going to Planning Board.

 

Mr. Tramell indicated that he would rather do it as a civic meeting instead of live.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that all Planning Boards and City Council are live meetings and that everything goes out.

 

Mr. Tramell indicated that he wasn’t familiar with a “Notice to Proceed”.

 

Mr. Nearing began to explain what a notice to proceed was and the steps to get to that process.

 

Ms. Witol noted that they have already done that for Phase 1 and 2 and that their people were familiar with that process.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this large scale LUA.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

13.               Effective immediately, all residential and commercial developments approved (issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” shall constitute approval) after December 1, 2005 shall be assessed a “Cyber Spot Capital Expansion” charge due and payable prior to issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” for the development.  This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

14.               Poles that provide a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud, for mounting of the radios.

15.               In instances of decorative light poles, matching decorative poles, providing a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required for mounting of the radios, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud.

16.               The location of these poles will be determined by the City of St. Cloud.

INFORMATION:

1.         Developer has already been in contact with I.T. in reference to this development.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1. No comments.          

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         The Fire Rescue Department recommends moving forward in the near future with the staffing of a Fire Station in the eastern area of the City of St. Cloud.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Property Owner must fill out Residential Land Use Application checklist for fiscal impact analysis.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Recommend approval of Low Density Residential which is higher than your PD needs.  Therefore, staff shall also process a text amendment setting a maximum cap of 745 total dwelling units.

 

INFORMATION:

9.                   Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right-of-way permits and concurrency prior to Final Site Plan approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

 

I.          Proposed # Residential Units:                 553 SF              192 MF/TH        0 MH

            Resort Residential:                                 0 SF                 0 MF/TH

            Resort Res. to be guaranteed by Deed Restriction?            X    Not Applicable       Yes        No      

 

II.          Estimated Number of New Students Generated by Proposed Development:

            173 Elementary (grades K-5)          44 Middle (grades 6-8) 106 High School (grades 9-12)

 

III.         Current Status of Schools with Proposed Development within School’s Attendance Boundary

 

           

 

 

School

Permanent

Student Station

(02/05)

Proposed

Enrollment

(SY 05-06)

 

Proposed

Utilization

# Portables

on Campus

(SY 05/06)

St. Cloud Elem.

521

855

164%

6

St. Cloud Middle

928

480

52%

6

St. Cloud High

1925

1552

81%

0

 

IV.        Impact of New Students on Schools to Serve this Proposed Residential Development.

 

 

 

 

 

School

Estimated # New

Students in Other

Previously Approved

Development (3 yrs)

Estimated

Total

Future (3 yrs)

Enrollment

 

 

Future

Utilization

St. Cloud Elem.

653

1681

323%

St. Cloud Middle

296

853

92%

St. Cloud High

1246

2904

151%

 

V.                  School District of Osceola County, Florida Prototype School Sizes.

 

School Type                              Elementary                    Middle School                High School

# Student Station                           1088                                1324                             2151

 

VI.        Notes

1.       The estimated number of new students generated by residential development is calculated using the student generation rates listed in the “Impact Fees for Educational Facilities in Osceola County, Florida” study dated November 11, 2003.  Deed restricted, resort residential units are NOT included in the calculation.

2.       Permanent Student Station numbers includes Voter Mandated Class Size Reduction Amendment.

3.       “# New Students in Other Previously Approved Development” includes an estimate of new students that will reside in new developments (other than this proposed project) that are already approved, located within the attendance boundary of the listed school, and to be constructed within approximately 3 years.

 

(SEE ATTACHED LETTER)

 

FINDING: The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

7.                     Case # 6-30.02 – Fire Station #31 (Jeffrey Higgins, Planner)

                                                            Minnesota Avenue between 9th and 10th Streets

                                                            Site Plan, 1.05 Acres

 

John Dollar and Richard Clar with Osceola Engineering were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this site plan.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.   With the implementation of the Cyber Spot wireless system thru out the City of St. Cloud, Wifi fees will apply prior to development of said property.

This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         Please utilize the latest City of St. Cloud standard detail for dumpster construction.  The revision is dated 6/3/05 and can be obtained from the City of St. Cloud website.  The depth of the enclosure was increased to 12 feet.          

2.         Please indicate on the plan the dimensions of the parking stalls on the north side of the proposed structure.  Also provide the width of the travel lane serving the parking stalls on the north side of the structure.        

 

Mr. Dollar noted that it is 18’ with the 2’, he noted that it is there and it will be revised on the plans.

 

3.         A variance to the 18’ depth parking stalls along the east side of the site abutting Minnesota Ave. will be necessary unless changes are made. If the 2 feet of concrete sidewalk were changed to sod per the LDC then a variance would not be necessary. We recommend the sidewalk width be narrowed by 2 feet.

 

Mr. Dollar noted that the parking along the front and east side, that they are proposing to eliminate 2’ of the 7’ width sidewalk and have 20’ space and 5’ sidewalk.  He also indicated that instead of 2’ of sod that they will have wheel stops that will make it a separation from the sidewalk.  It will be 20’ of pavement with 5’ of sidewalk.

 

4.         The proposed sidewalk which extends across the driveway access to the water treatment plant building should not cross the driveway.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

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

2.                   A Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee 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.  The sewer reservation fee is calculated to be $ 1,421.00.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approval with conditions.

INFORMATION:

1.         The Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee equal 10% of the estimated sanitary sewer impact fee.  For the public/institutional develop is 14,210 s.f of building x $1,000 ÷ 1,000 = $14,210 x 10% = $1,421.00 shall be paid prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, per Resolution 98-27R.  A list of all impact fees is available from the Planning & Zoning Department upon request.

2.         Please be advised that the Certificate of Capacity will not be moved forward to City Council for approval until such time as the applicant notifies the Planner that it is needed.  Your planner will place the item on the next available City Council agenda.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Show a deflection of the proposed water main at the crossing of the sanitary sewer main with the necessary fittings on Utility Crossing #1.

2.                   Include a 6” sanitary sewer lateral at the backside of the sidewalk.

3.                   On the water service connection show a 6” x 2” tap plug, 2” gate valve, 2” P.E. tubing, 2” curb stop and a 2 x 1-1/2” brass reducer bushing.

4.                   Show a 1-1/2” x 2” increaser after the backflow preventer assembly.

5.                   Show the fire line backflow preventer as a Double detector Check.

 

Mr. Dollar indicated that he spoke with Mr. Mauro and everything is sanitary.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         Fire Hydrants and Fire Protection Appliances shall have clearances of 7.5 feet front and sides and 4 foot to the rear for hydrants. (NFPA1 18.3.4.1) This includes driveways, mailboxes, trees and utilities.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         If the electric service is underground the owner will install all the primary conduit and the concrete transformer pad.  The secondary conduit, wire, and terminations is the responsibility of the owner.  Please have the conduit installed and inspected by OUC three weeks before you need pre-power.

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

3.         There may be costs for temporary power to this site.  The existing power poles will be removed that conflict with the proposed building.

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

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

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

                        OUC Development Service

                        44 W. Jefferson Street

                        P.O. Box 3193

                        Orlando, FL 32802

                        407-236-9652 Fax 407-236-9628

                        Email: developmentservices@ouc.com

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

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Parking stall depth may be reduced to 18 feet with 2 feet of adjacent landscaping, pedestrian travel ways, or open space.

2.                   Parking stall depth along the north end is scaled at 12 feet. This does not meet code requirement.

3.                   Please indicate on plans any proposed sign location.

 

Mr. Clar noted that they had determined they were putting a sign on the southeast corner of the property 32 x 64 inches high to show it is the Fire Administrative building.

 

4.                   Internal landscaping increased to 12.5% which is approximately 1,792 sq. ft. plans show 1,672 sq. ft.

 

Mr. Clar indicated that the internal landscaping was 1,672 sq ft but that they could easily meet 1,792 sq ft and that it wouldn’t be an issue.

 

5.                   East Palatka Holly not recommended as a tree replacement, American Holly is accepted.

 

Mr. Clar noted that they were fine in changing the East Palatka Holly to American Holly.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approval with conditions.

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. Please be advised that the number of plans required for submittal has increased to 15 sets.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The following will require review by the City Engineering Department only.

 

FINDING:  The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

8.                     Case # 6-30.03 – Fire Station #31 (Jeffrey Higgins, Planner)

                                                            Minnesota Avenue between 9th and 10th Streets

                                                            Site Plan Variance, 1.05 Acres

 

John Dollar and Richard Clar with Osceola Engineering were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this variance.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments for this case.

 

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.  

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comment.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         The Fire Rescue Department strongly supports this variance.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A right-of-way utilization permit must be obtained.

2.                   Trees of species providing roots known to cause damage to public roadways or other public works shall not be planted closer than 12 feet to such public works, unless the tree root system is completely encased with a container for which the minimum interior dimensions shall be 5 feet square and 5 feet deep in compliance with the construction requirements of the City Engineering Dept.

 

Mr. Clar wanted to know if the City had a list of trees that they don’t want to see there.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that he could give Ms. Duffy a call.

 

Mr. Clar noted that he has worked with Ms. Duffy before and that she was happy with what they’ve used in the past but that he would get in touch with her.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approval with conditions.

INFORMATION:

4.         Provide a narrative addressing the following three exceptions for a site plan variance:

a.                   That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structures, or required subdivision improvements involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or required subdivision improvements.

b.                   That a literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties with similar conditions.

c.                   That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

 

Mr. Higgins indicated that he would like to see the information answered on number 4 sections a-c.

 

Mr. Dollar noted that in regards to the water treatment plant, that for the proposed future expansion plan that they were instructed to get as far away as possible from the plant.  He noted that they have landscape buffering also in order to satisfy everyone.  That is why they are constructing some of the planting within the right of way.

 

Mr. Higgins indicated that he would like them being instructed to get as far away from the plant as possible in writing.

 

Mr. Clar noted that the sewer treatment plant is the special condition.

 

Ms. Witol asked Mr. Higgins if he would like that in writing from Mr. Swingle.  She noted that when you have Mr. Swingle saying that in writing it makes it a strong point.

 

Mr. Dollar noted that they do plan on responding to Mr. Higgins points and that they plan on getting a letter from Mr. Swingle.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that they may want to gather this all together before going to City Council.

 

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The District has no comment.

 

Mr. Dollar noted that one of the questions was concerning a dumpster and trash disposal.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that Units 31 and 32 use a small roll out can.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that they are required to have dumpsters from solid waste.

 

Mr. Dollar indicated that he was told they would use a roll out but that they were to have a pad.

 

There was discussion on having a pad for a dumpster and trash cans.

 

FINDING:  The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

9.                     Case # 6-42.01  – OSC Industrial Park, Tract VII (John Groenendaal, Planner)

                                                            Old Hickory Tree Road and Hamlin Avenue

                                                            Final Plat, 6.53 Acres; 3 lots

 

Mr. Curtis Arrington and Ms. Mary Jane Arrington for CM Arrington and Associates were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this plat.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         With the implementation of the Cyber Spot wireless system thru out the City of St. Cloud, Wifi fees will apply prior to development of said property.

This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

 

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         Is there a reason to create Tract A rather than a public R/W for Hamlin Ave.?         

2.         Typically the 10’ wide easement abutting the R/W is for Utility purposes only.  Unless there is justification we recommend the easement be exclusively for utility purposes.

3.          If the plat is filed prior to the improvements to Hamlin Ave. a performance bond in the amount of 110% of the road cost will need to be furnished.           

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         The Final Plat looks OK with The Orlando Utilities Commission Electric Engineering Division.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         The lot numbers shall be revised to fit the numbering in the rest of the park. Lot 1 is ok, Lot 2           should be Lot 3, Lot 3 should be Lot 37.

2.         Tract A is being platted as public R-O-W, label it Hamlin Ave. with 911 Addressing approval.            Provide the 911/ Addressing memo.

3.         Tract B is not dedicated to anyone. Is the sewer easement the only use? Does Ruby Red Cir.         exist as a platted ROW?

4.         Is there a reason why there is not a heavy line on the southern edge of Lot 3?

5.         This approval is based on the construction drawings being approved by the City.

6.         Access to lot 1 shall be from Hamlin Avenue, No access into Old Hickory Tree. Need a 4 foot          sidewalk along (Old) Hickory Tree Road

INFORMATION:

10.               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. Please resubmit one corrected full set for DRC sign-off and then 15 sets of reduce copies for Planning Board and City Council.

11.               Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right-of-way permits and concurrency prior to Final Site Plan approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         The following is recommended for approval.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

CONDITIONS:

1.         Please submit Final Approved plat and tenant buildout, if applicable, to the 911 Addressing Department for issuance of addresses.

 

Mr. Arrington indicated that he had made all of the revisions per the comments except for Public Works.

 

Easements were discussed between Mr. Luthie and Mr. Arrington

 

Mr. Arrington noted that they will resubmit their plans tomorrow.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that they only need one set for sign off.

 

FINDING:  The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

10.                    Case # 6-43.01 – OSC Industrial Park, Tract V (John Groenendaal, Planner)

Tilleston Road, US 192 and Hamlin Road

Final Plat, 10.14 Acres; 8 lots

 

Mr. Curtis Arrington and Ms. Mary Jane Arrington for CM Arrington and Associates were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this plat.

 

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.   With the implementation of the Cyber Spot wireless system thru out the City of St. Cloud, Wifi fees will apply prior to development of said property.

This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

 

Mr. Groenendaal wanted to know what was going to happen with the wireless.

 

Mr. Peck indicated that they will be charged based on the size of the lot.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         Is there a reason to create Tract A rather than a public R/W for Hamlin Ave.?         

2.         A 10 ft. wide utility easement is typically platted along property frontage rather than at the rear of the parcels.  Please explain the reason the plat is being prepared differently from the norm.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         The Final Plat looks OK with The Orlando Utilities Commission Electric Engineering Division.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         The lot numbers shall be revised to fit the numbering in the rest of the park. Lot 1 should be kept Tract V to allow commercial use. Lots 2-8 should be re-numbered to lots 21 – 27    respectfully.

2.         Tract A is being platted as public R-O-W, label it Hamlin Ave. with 911 Addressing approval.            Provide the 911/ Addressing memo.

3.         Does this plat dedicate a portion Tileston, the plat shows a 50 foot ROW but the survey shows 47.5 ROW width. 

4.         This approval is based on the construction drawings being approved by the City.

5.         Access to lot 6 or the new lot 25 shall be from Hamlin Avenue, No access into Tileston.

INFORMATION:

12.               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. Please resubmit one corrected full set for DRC sign-off and then 15 sets of reduce copies for Planning Board and City Council.

13.               Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right-of-way permits and concurrency prior to Final Site Plan approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.

 

Mr. Arrington indicated that they have changed the numbers and that they need to check on Tileston Road, he noted that they had originally dedicated the ROW but need to go back and take a look and then they will comment on that.  They noted that the construction plans were initially submitted but that they will need to resubmit.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         The following is recommended for approval.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

CONDITIONS:

1.         Please submit the Final Approved plat and tenant buildout, applicable, to the 911 Addressing Department for issuance of addresses.

 

Mr. Arrington wanted to know what the procedure was for submitting plans.

 

Mr. Nearing discussed the procedure with him.

 

Mr. Arrington indicated that they already have a permit for access onto a County Road, he indicated that this was a concern.

 

FINDING: The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

11.                    Case # 6-44.01 – Sidelines (John Groenendaal, Planner)

                                                            4060-4066 13th Street (Within The Oaks Shopping Center)

                                                            Conditional Use

 

Christopher Lacata and Nancy Lacata lessee of property within The Oaks Shopping Center. Stan Sandefur owner of The Oaks Shopping Center were all present to represent the application.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that it had been determined that Sidelines is an alcohol business therefore, the Planning Department does not recommend approval.  There are two options that can be considered, the first is to take it to council and try and the second is to withdraw and we can return your money except for administrative cost.  The reason for denial is that the bar is within 750 feet of a church and school.

 

Mr. Lacata wanted to know how far they were from the church.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that they measured from the front door and a straight line to the church and it was about 550 feet.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that the previous owners business was for the sale of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant.  He wanted to know if they could possibly find some other place they could put their business.

 

Mr. Lacata noted that Grandstands had a retail license.  This is the reason they purchased the retail license because there had been an alcohol establishment that had been in operation for 7-8 years.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that he understands their concern but that this happened over 7-8 years ago and wasn’t sure why this was allowed.

 

Ms. Witol noted that the Mr. and Mrs. Lacata had come into the office for looking for an LDC change application and a Variance request, she was wondering if that would be an option.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that it still fell within 750 feet of a school and church and this would be a self imposed hardship.

 

Mr. Lacata wanted to know if the church itself would have a say in the matter, if they didn’t have any opposition to them having the alcohol establishment that close to the church.

 

Mr. Nearing again noted that this would be considered self imposed.

 

Ms. Lacata wanted to know why this was considered self imposed.

 

Mr. Nearing let her know that there were six criteria that must be met. 

 

Ms. Lacata wanted to know what the six criteria were and why this was considered a self imposed hardship.

 

Ms. Witol noted that she gave them the wrong packet and that when they were finished she could get them a different application.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that if they were already established in this location and then there was a change in zoning that would be a non conforming use but since this is a new application you would be placing yourself in a self imposed hardship.

 

Ms. Witol indicted that The Oaks Shopping Center is doing a PUD, would it be possible to attach one of the conditions for an alcohol establishment.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that they wouldn’t be able to because of the church.

 

There was discussion between Mr. Nearing and Ms. Witol regarding the PUD amendment for The Oaks and possibly speaking with the City Attorney regarding this matter.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Lacata noted that he understands regarding the serving of alcohol.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that if they were a restaurant the purpose would be to consume food.  As an alcoholic establishment the purpose is to consume alcohol and with the church and school nearby children the endangerment is our concern.

 

Ms. Witol indicated that if they did this as a PUD it should be allowed.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that it would still need to go through the City attorney but then they would be taking a chance between the Planning Board and the City Council denying it.

 

Mr. Lacata noted that the reason for him getting this retail license was because it was already established.  He noted that they have been honest about what they were doing and that they will not be able to meet the 51:49 percent and they would be allowed to have smokers.  Aside from having this as primarily an alcohol establishment just owning the license is a big asset to the business.  The value grows all the time, the state only issues 1 out of 7500 that apply.  He noted that he also wants it understood that even though it’s viewed as a primary sale of alcohol that they are members of a regulatory compliance center.  This is kind of like Florida retail association, because they are listed as responsible vendors.  The center sits down with himself and with employees and teach them how to spot ID fraud and when the customers are inebriated and need to stop drinking.

 

There was discussion with Ms. Witol, Mr. Lacata and Mr. Sandefur regarding adding it as a condition for the PUD.

 

Mr. Lacata also mentioned that with this license that he would be able to sell alcohol as packages to go but that he has no intention of doing that.

 

Mr. Sandefur noted that his previous tenant did sell alcohol that way and he didn’t understand why this is now an issue.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that the cast of characters has changed and he didn’t know why it was previously approved.

 

There was discussion of approval of the previous accepted use.

 

Mr. Nearing requested that Mr. Groenendaal check with the City Attorney to see if the PUD could be modified to include an alcohol establishment within the distance requested.  He noted that if it can then it needs to be apparent in the PUD.

 

Mr. Sandefur wanted to know if the Board thought that Father Fabian from the nearby church would object to the establishment.

 

Mr. Nearing indicted that he couldn’t answer that question, he didn’t know if responsible restrictions regarding the school hours or Sunday services would help.  He did note that they were free to meet with Father Fabian.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this conditional use.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments for this case.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         The two new out parcels (parcels 4 & 5) will generate additional trips and will be charged a transportation impact fee in accordance with City ordinances at the time of the development order issuance.

 

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         The Fire Rescue Department can not comment with the information provided.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The distance to the church is to be greater than 750 feet. Based on GIS software the alcoholic beverage establishment is within the 750 feet, and is not permitted.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

2.         Staff can not recommend approval as it violates the LDC alcoholic beverage establishment rules. You may withdraw the application and apply for occupational license as a restaurant with alcohol provided the total receipt from food alcohol is at least 51% of total receipts.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The District has no comment.

 

Mr. Nearing recommended that this application be suspended and Mr. Groenendaal check with the City attorney and if it is possible Mr. Groenendaal will let the applicants know or if it needs to be processed along with the PUD.  If the answer is no then an option would be for a variance with the BOA but for the applicants to know that this would be considered a self-imposed hardship and that they are making this a need because of their actions.

 

Mr. Lacata wanted to know what Mr. Nearing meant by their actions.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that they did not check with the Planning Department before purchasing and getting into a lease, that the applicant did not do their homework.

 

FINDING: The DRC recommended continuance, if it can be worked out then we will use this as a continuance and not come back to DRC but go to Planning Board.

 

12.                    Case # 6-45.01 – Tom Harlam (John Groenendaal, Planner)

                                                            Lot 65 Buckingham Court, Steven’s Plantation, The Estates

                                                            Abandon Easement

 

Tom Harlam at 3550 Buckingham Court was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this abandonment.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments for this case.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         What elevation is proposed for the pool deck? 

2.         The grades that are shown along the swale are proposed or existing?        

3.         How much of the easement (in feet) is to be abandoned?  

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         To abandon the rear 20’ easement does not have any effect on The Orlando Utilities Commission Electric Engineering Division.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         No objection to vacating of 3 feet of the drainage easement.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

2.         The notices to utilities were sent on 2/28/06.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The following will require review by the City Engineering Department only.

 

Mr. Harlam noted that he doesn’t believe there is any cabeling behind the property.

 

Mr. Nearing wanted to know if there was a swale.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that there was.

 

Mr. Harlam indicated that he drew one of the pictures of the back.  This drawing also shows the elevation planes of the pool deck.  He noted that he wants to move into it about an inch and a half.  He also noted that he spoke with Mr. Kevin Rainey and he indicated that he told him that it wouldn’t change the function of the swale.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he doesn’t have a problem as long as he could get a letter from Mr. Rainey noting that the minor encroachment will not have any effect on the swale.

 

Mr. Groenendaal questioned Mr. Harlam if he thought Mr. Rainey worked for the City.

 

Mr. Harlam noted that he thought he did work for the City and that he would be present today.

 

Mr. Luthie indicted that he did not work here and that Mr. Harlam’s neighbor or Distinctive Homes had Mr. Rainey come in because his company was the designer of the swale.   He noted that Mr. Rainey works for Dufresne-Henry.

 

FINDING:  The DRC recommended approval with conditions.  Public Works is requesting a letter from Mr. Rainey that the encroachment will not have an effect on the drainage.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that as soon as he receives the letter then the Planning Department will let him know when he will be able to go to Planning Board.

 

 

13.                    Case # 6-46.01 – Whaley (John Groenendaal, Planner)

Northwest Corner of Pine Tree Drive and Cord Avenue

Annex/LUA/Zoning, (Commercial) 8.5 +/- Acres

 

Philip Vincent, Dave Hawley, David Williams, and Bill Coffman as members of the Canoe Creek Christian Church were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this annexation.

 

 

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         With the implementation of the Cyber Spot wireless system thru out the City of St. Cloud, Wifi fees will apply prior to development of said property.

This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1. No comments.          

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         Water, sewer and reclaimed water are available with extensions.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

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, measured along the road right-of-way and shall not be measured across private property not designated and used as a road right-of-way.  Furthermore, any future development will require standards set forth according to the City of St. Cloud’s Land Development Code.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Prior to build out of this project the City of St. Cloud should consider staffing a Fire Station in the general  area.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         Recommend approval of annexation the property.

2.         Recommend LDR land use over Commercial.

3.         Recommend A, Agricultural zone.

4.         Need some data for the FIAM model.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The District has no comment.

 

Mr. Coffman began by stating that when they started that they thought they would be annexing several properties at the same time and that they are actual here to represent Mr. Larry Whaley so that they can annex the property due south to bring in Public Works property into the church.  He then noted that they were informed a couple of days ago that it was going to DRC without the church.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that the church came in first and the DRC recommended that they come back and asked for continuance.  Now that they have Whaley’s property and the Municipal Services on the agenda we can make sure that the church goes back onto the next agenda.  He indicated to them that they can put these on hold until the church catches up with them so they can all go together.

 

Mr. Hawley noted that he was disappointed that the church was not on this agenda, the church’s property was more important and somehow the church’s property was not on the agenda.

 

Mr. Groenendaal indicated that the case was tabled at the DRC meeting in December.

 

Mr. Hawley noted that he gave his stuff to Ms. Megan Berkau and thought it would all happen at the same time.

 

There was discussion regarding the DRC Agenda between the members of the church and Mr. Groenendaal.

Mr. Nearing indicated that there will not be a delay and this will not hold up their case with their church.  It will go as a package deal and will go at the same time.  He noted that they will catch it all up and get it going as one item.  He did note that there had been discussion with the Osceola School District and if they build a school it will guarantee water and sewer to this property.  They are currently negotiating with someone that owns property south of Sawgrass so they will need to see what happens and probably get it up and running before the school gets the water and sewer then your church can take the septic and replace it when the school district gets theirs.

 

Mr. Coffman asked if the school was trying to buy property out there.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the piece across from the church would be enough land to put ponds in to make something work.  He did note that this probably won’t happen for at least the next two years.

 

Mr. Coffman indicated that he had been hurdling all the fences and has been the go between in talking with Mr. Whaley, he noted that he convinced Mr. Whaley when this first came up that it would be beneficial for all three of them to come to terms because it would make it best for the whole pack.  He noted that when he went to Mr. Whaley to be annexed they were considering Business Commercial and knowing it wouldn’t be Highway Business that perhaps it would be Neighborhood Business.  The conversations with Mr. Whaley were that he was going to have Business Commercial but where he sits now it is ideal for him and he has no reason to come into the City, he was only doing this on behalf of the church.  He then noted that they were hearing that they can’t do Business Commercial so then when they asked Mr. Whaley about doing Neighborhood Business and now that that is not on the table they don’t really have much to offer Mr. Whaley.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that the staff does not feel comfortable pushing Commercial Business, this would allow for Auto Body Zoning and that is out of the park in that area.

 

Mr. Coffman wanted to know if they could try Neighborhood Business.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that they could request that zoning but that the City is not comfortable with that.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that they can take it to City Council with their request and the staff’s recommendation.

 

Mr. Coffman noted that their choices are limited.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that Neighborhood Business is lower intensity commercial and that staff would normally recommend Neighborhood Business but that they would need to see how it will build out and that they are not sure how this is going to change.  He noted that if they go before City Council and he’s asked about this he will say it can exist but it may not be the appropriate time for this property.

 

Mr. Coffman noted that Mr. Whaley is doing them a favor and that it may be better for him to keep it in the County.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that if the issue were Neighborhood Business or no annexation he would have to get up and say before Council that he is not opposed to Neighborhood Business but it is premature.

 

Mr. Groenendaal wanted to know how they would feel about doing two five acre lots instead of one 10 acre lot.

 

There was discussion between Mr. Nearing, Mr. Groenendaal and Mr. Coffman regarding the amount of acreage for Commercial.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that perhaps they could put this before Mr. Whaley, that  staff would support  5 acres of Commercial and the remaining acreage as Low Density Residential.  They would also make the zoning for the entire parcel Agriculture.  He noted that this way they could then change the zoning for whatever may come up in the future.  He indicated that once the Land Use is in place they are vested in that use but that they could come in for a change in zoning.

 

There was discussion with Mr. Groenendaal and Mr. Coffman on the difference between Land Use and Zoning.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Coffman indicated that when you take out the easements that the total acreage is only 8.5.  He then wanted to know if he could get a copy of the minutes.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the minutes are not verbatim but a summary.

 

There was discussion on this type of zoning would be held and then at a future time they could come back and request a change in the zoning.

 

Mr. Coffman indicated that Mr. Whaley thought it would be commercial and noted that Mr. Whaley knew they were talking about having it Neighborhood Business.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that there is a Land Use called Commercial.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that, what is being discussed is part of the Comp Plan.  He noted that there is Land Use and Zoning. 

 

Mr. Coffman noted that he understood and wanted to know what the next step would be.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that perhaps Mr. Coffman would like to speak with Mr. Whaley to see if he is alright with this.

 

(Mr. Coffman made a phone call to Mr. Whaley and he and Mr. Groenendaal spoke with him)

 

Mr. Vincent wanted to know when the two cases would merge.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that they will both go to the second Planning Board in April.

 

Mr. Vincent  wanted to know if Mr. Whaley doesn’t agree to this would the church still be alright because they are trying to get with the City to bring water and sewer to the church.  If there isn’t a way to work that out and they will need to add a septic and well then would it just be better to keep their property in the county.

 

There was discussion with Mr. Vincent, Mr. Hawley and Mr. Mauro on connecting sewer and water.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that perhaps Mr. Vincent would like a side meeting with Mr. Mauro.  He noted that there are about four weeks to set something up and come up with a resolution.  He also mentioned to Mr. Vincent to check with the county’s transportation impact fees and then check with the city’s fees he emphasized that this is  tangible. 

 

Mr. Vincent noted that the City was waiting on a letter from the church in order to proceed and that was given to them.

 

Mr. Nearing again emphasized that they will be all together when they go to Planning Board.

 

Mr. Vincent wanted to know when they could set up this side meeting so that they can move forward. 

 

Mr. Nearing indicated to call Mr. Mauro for that information.  He noted then they will know whether or not the water and sewer are moving along.

 

Mr. Vincent noted that they have been given direction from the church to take the direction that is most beneficial to the church.  He indicated that Mr. Whaley has been helpful in getting this done.

 

FINDING: The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

14.                    Case # 6-47.01 – Municipal Services (John Groenendaal, Planner)

East of Cord Avenue and North of Pine Tree Drive

Annex/LUA/Zoning, City Property; 9.242 acres

 

John Groenendaal with the City of Saint Cloud was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this annexation.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.   With the implementation of the Cyber Spot wireless system thru out the City of St. Cloud, Wi-fi fees will apply prior to development of said property.

This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         We recommend the property be zoned Public in order to be utilized for public purposes (i.e. a fire station and Public Works storage yard).     

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         Water, sewer and reclaimed water are available with extensions.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

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, measured along the road right-of-way and shall not be measured across private property not designated and used as a road right-of-way.  Furthermore, any future development will require standards set forth according to the City of St. Cloud’s Land Development Code.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Prior to build out of this project the City of St. Cloud should consider staffing a Fire Station in the general  area.

 

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         Need the Certificate of Title and Petition to Annexation paper work

2.         Recommend the annexation and LDR and A, Agricultural

3.         Need some data for the FIAM model.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The District has no comment.

 

FINDING:  The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

15.                    Case # 6-48.01 – King-Fayne Properties (Jeffrey Higgins, Planner)

600 Block Eastern Avenue

Annex/LUA/Zoning, .87 acres; 2 Duplex Lots

 

Bernard Fayne with Fayne Properties and Eric Blackford with Blackford Engineering were present to represent the application.

 

 

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this annexation.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         With the implementation of the Cyber Spot wireless system thru out the City of St. Cloud, Wifi fees will  apply prior to development of said property.

This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.  

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Water is available to this parcel.

 

Mr. Fayne wanted to make sure water was available.

 

Mr. Mauro noted that it was.

 

2.                   Sanitary sewer is not available to this parcel by gravity.    

 

Mr. Fayne questioned the availability of sewer.

 

Mr. Mauro noted that it was not available, that he went out to take a look at the property and it was not possible through gravity.

 

Mr. Nearing indicted that perhaps Mr. Fayne and Mr. Mauro get together so that they can discuss options.

 

Mr. Fayne wanted to know what the code on septic systems was.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that he would need to get with the Health Department for specifics.  He did note that if you have public water ¼ acre and if you have a well it is usually a ½ acre but for specifics to contact the Health Department.

 

Mr. Fayne indicated that before the recommendation is made for Low Density or Medium Density that they would like to go to the Health Department first and get some information.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that would be fine.  The DRC will make an approval but not schedule them for Planning Board at this time.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

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, measured along the road right-of-way and shall not be measured across private property not designated and used as a road right-of-way.  Furthermore, any future development will require standards set forth according to the City of St. Cloud’s Land Development Code.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment.

 

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Replatting required to subdivide the lots as proposed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approval of annexation, Medium Density Residential land use amendment, and R-2 zoning. If a septic tank is approved then a Low Density Residential Land Use Amendment is recommended.

INFORMATION:

1.         Applicant must check with the Public Works Dept. for sewer availability. If none available, the Health Dept. must verify if the development can be sustained by a septic tank.

2.                   Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right-of-way permits and concurrency prior to Final Site Plan approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The District has no comment.

 

FINDING: The DRC recommended approval with conditions but will not move forward

 

16.                    Case # 6-49.01 – Covington Estates, Phase 4 (Jeffrey Higgins, Planner)

East of Canoe Creek Road (County Road # 523)

Construction Plans, 13.96 acres; 87 MH Lots

 

Sandra Bowling and Valeria Surerus with Hanson, Walter and Associates were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on these construction plans.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

17.               Effective immediately, all residential and commercial developments approved (issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” shall constitute approval) after December 1, 2005 shall be assessed a “Cyber Spot Capital Expansion” charge due and payable prior to issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” for the development.  This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

 

SB: we’ve already paid that and we have a receipt

18.               Poles that provide a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud, for mounting of the radios.

19.               In instances of decorative light poles, matching decorative poles, providing a minimum mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched power source, will be required for mounting of the radios, at no cost to the City of St. Cloud.

20.               The location of these poles will be determined by the City of St. Cloud.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         Pine Tree Road is under Osceola County jurisdiction.  A permit or a letter of intent to issue a permit will need to be received prior to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed for Phase 4.

 

           

2.         A SFWMD permit is required for this project.       

Ms. Bowling indicted that they have applied for a permit.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that this is a standard statement.

 

3.         The previous phases had privately maintained streets.  Therefore the typical section on sheet 06 of 25 should be revised to eliminate the initials “R/W”.4.             

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Change the phone number for the Water and Sewer Dept. on the cover sheet to 407-957-7222.

2.                   Add an in-line gate valve on the reclaimed water main by lot no. 451.

3.                   Add an in-line gate valve on the water main next to the fire hydrant Tee by lot no. 462.

4.                   Add an additional gate valve at the Tee’s on the water and reclaimed water main by lot numbers 147 & 457.

5.                   Identify the location of the reclaimed water main on the profile sheets.

6.                   Add a gate valve w/ a jumper connection to the water main at lot no. 138.

7.                   Identify all water sample point locations.

8.                   Provide a water and reclaimed water Hydraulic Analysis Report. 

 

Ms. Bowling wanted to know if she could set up a meeting with Mr. Mauro before she turned in the plans.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that would be fine.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Cul-de sacs with no street parking shall be provided with a turnaround having an outside roadway diameter of at least one hundred feet (100’) and a street right of way diameter of one hundred twenty feet (120’). Cul-de-sacs shall have a maximum length of eight hundred feet (800’) including the turn around. (LDC 6.2.1L)

2.                   Move the hydrant located at lot 457 to the northeast corner of lot 475.

 

Ms. Bowling noted that the original plan had a smaller Cul-de-Sac and wanted to know if there was an exception to the rule.

 

Mr. Ennis indicated that this was done with a variance.

 

Ms. Bowling noted that they would go along with that.

 

Mr. Ennis indicted that the cut off is 150 feet.

 

Ms. Bowling wanted to know that if they redesign using a hundred feet and then did a variance how long would the variance take.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that a variance takes about 1 month.

 

Ms. Bowling wanted to know if that would help.

 

Mr. Ennis indicated that he would not support a variance because he had already accepted 2 feet too narrow.

 

There was discussion between Ms. Bowling and Mr. Ennis over the cul-de-sac.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         The owner shall install all the electric conduit, primary manholes or pullboxes, concrete switchgear pads, concrete transformer pads, secondary pullboxes what is required to install the electric within the project.  Please have all the conduit and pads installed and passed inspection by OUC three weeks before you need electric power.

2.         A 10’ wide utility easement will be required on all property line abutting a right-of-way.  Other easements may be required.  The plan shows the 10’ utility easement.

3.         OUC can provide street lights for this project please contact Development Services.

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

                        OUC Development Services

                        44 W. Jefferson Street

                        P.O. Box 3193

                        Orlando, FL 32802

                        407-236-9652 Fax 407-236-9628

                        Email: developmentservices@ouc.com

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

 

Ms. Bowling indicted that she has sent the plans to OUC.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A landscape plan for the 25 and 50 foot buffers must be provided.

2.                   All lots in MH-2 zoning must be a minimum 4,000 square feet.

 

Ms. Bowling wanted to know if Mr. Higgins had seen something or if he was just letting her know.

 

Mr. Higgins noted that this was a common comment.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Approval with conditions.

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. Please be advised that the number of plans required for submittal has increased to 15 sets.

2.         Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right-of-way permits and concurrency prior to Final Site Plan approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         A South Florida Water Management District permit is required for the following.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

CONDITIONS:

1.         Prior to submitting final; applicant shall clear all proposed street names with the 911 addressing department.  Please submit preliminary plat for review.

 

Ms. Bowling wanted to know once she makes her revision and provides the City with a landscape plan along Pinetree, which she noted the applicant indicated to her that it is already approved, she wanted to know if the City wanted a Copy.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that they do.

 

Ms. Bowling wanted to know the process for a date set.

 

Mr. Nearing discussed the submission deadline with Ms. Bowling.

 

FINDING:  The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

17.                    Case # 6-50.01 – Village Walk (Jeffrey Higgins, Planner)

Between Michigan Avenue and Missouri Avenue

Annex/LUA/Zoning/PMP, 116.15 acres; 382 Units

 

John Adams with R.J. Widden and Associates were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this annexation.

 

 

 

 

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         With the implementation of the Cyber Spot wireless system thru out the City of St. Cloud, Wifi fees will apply prior to development of said property.

This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         Both Michigan Ave. and Missouri Ave. are within the jurisdiction of Osceola County. The proposed entrances will require a letter of intent to issue a permit prior to the City of St. Cloud issuance of a notice to proceed to construction.           

2.         How will the gas transmission line be incorporated into the project?

 

Mr. Adams indicated that they will be dealing with that pipe.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that they may want to start looking at it now.

 

3.         How do you plan to enforce the “no overnight parking” requirement?

4.         The 100 year BFE will need to be determined in order to set the minimum finish floor elevation for the flood prone areas which are located in zone A. It appears from the FIRM map that only a small portion of the project may be in zone A.  The majority of the flood prone area is in zone AE (elevation established).

5.         A sizable area along the western section of the project is within a 100 year “floodway” which may limit the construction of dwellings.

 

Mr. Adams noted that they are aware of the 100 year flood zone and that they will re-route and put the ditches through the project.  They will do whatever they need in order for permitting purposes.

 

6.         A SFWMD permit will be required prior to the issuance of a notice to proceed.       

7.         Numerous ditches and drainage conveyance systems exist within or adjacent to this proposed project. Osceola County will need to be involved in the review of the project with respect to the hydraulic requirements of the existing conveyance systems since lands upstream and downstream are in Osceola County’s jurisdiction.

8.         It appears from the plan that Fertic Road will not be extended between Missouri Ave. and Michigan Ave.  This road is under Osceola County jurisdiction and will need to be reviewed and approved by the County prior to the project moving forward into the design phase.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The Sewer Impact Reservation Fee $90,075.60 amount equal to 10% of required sewer impact fee is required prior to issuance of Notice to Proceed. 

2.                   The Sewer Impact Reservation Fee shall be credited towards the sewer impact fee for each residential dwelling unit at the time of building permit at the rate of $235.80 per lot.  The balance of the sewer impact fee and all other impact and tap fees are due and payable at the time of Building Permit on a lot by lot basis.

INFORMATION:

3.                   Please be advised that the Certificate of Capacity will not be moved forward to City Council for approval until such time as the applicant notifies the Planner that it is needed.  Your planner will place the item on the next available City Council agenda.

4.                   The Sewer Impact Reservation Fee is calculated as 10% of the estimated sewer impact fee for the development, according to Resolution 98-27R.  The estimated sewer impact fee for the project is $2,358 per dwelling unit.  382 dwelling units x $2,358 = $900,756.00 x 10% = $90,075.60

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         Water, sewer and reclaimed water are available with extensions.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.                   The Fire Rescue Department will locate hydrants for this development. Call David Ennis 407-957-8484 for details.

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                         Parcel ID #11-26-30-4950-0001-0654 should be included with this annexation request to not leave a very small enclave.

 

Mr. Adams noted that this small parcel is owned by the Church of the Nazarene and has no authority to approach them.

 

Mr. Higgins wanted to know if he was willing to approach them and see if they are willing to annex.

 

Mr. Adams noted that he will approach them if this will approve his annexation.  He understood that this is an enclave but that they are closing in a large portion of an existing enclave.  He also noted that he will approach them but he can’t guarantee they will be willing to annex.

 

2.                         A concurrency review fee ($500) must be paid for the review that is underway.

3.                         The petition for annexation form is not complete and must be amended.

4.                         A residential land use application for a fiscal impact analysis must be completed prior to the Planning Board hearing.

5.                         Fertic Road is a transportation corridor to be preserved according to the Comp. Plan. This will be a major issue based on the proposed subdivision design.

 

Mr. Adams noted that they did allow for a connection through their network and they are allowing for a re-route.

 

Mr. Nearing wanted to know that if someone goes into their project can they go straight through or will they need to know to turn through.

 

There was discussion between Mr. Adams and Mr. Nearing regarding Fertic Road.

 

Mr. Adams noted that they can make it straight.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that it is the Comp Plan and that they would like for it to function as a collector that they can go straight through Fertic going from Point A to Point B.

 

Mr. Adams then wanted to know if the connector they are putting in won’t work because they need a collector.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that was true but that they are not looking for an 80’ ROW collector but that he can put in a 60’ ROW collector.

 

Mr. Luthie also suggested that he take that to the County for them to take a look at it since Fertic is under their jurisdiction.

 

Mr. Adams noted that the City is requesting a 60’ minor.

 

Mr. Luthie again noted that he would need to double check with the County because it is under their jurisdiction.

 

Mr. Adams noted that it does fall under their Comp Plan.  He then wanted to know if the City staff would consider the adjustment of Fertic Road if the county approved what I’ve used for a connector, if they would he asked that the City see what he can revise with the County.

 

 

6.                         PMP must contain all the information required by the Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.11.6.

7.                         Clarify the legal description and boundary survey compared to what the property appraiser shows.

8.                         Please provide justification of 50 foot lot widths for the single-family detached dwellings proposed.

 

Mr. Adams wanted to know what type of justification the City is looking for.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that he was requesting 50’ lots he wanted to know what his intent was to increase the open space with the community, provide extra landscaping, opportunities for recreation, architectural features, there needs to be a justification in requesting 50’ lots.

 

Ms. Witol also suggested perhaps donating to the Park and Recreation Department.

 

9.                         A 40 foot maximum building height exceeds the City’s standard 35 feet for residential dwellings. Refer to LDC Section 3.9.6 if the 40 foot height is necessary.

10.                     The maximum impervious surface coverage is 80%. The narrative proposes 85% for SFR and 100% for Townhomes.

11.                     Side and rear yard setbacks for the pool waters edge should be 8 feet for an interior lot and 18 feet for a corner lot street side.

12.                     Residential driveways are to maintain a 5 foot side setback (LDC 6.11.1.C).

13.                     The maximum height of a fence in the front yard is 3 feet.

14.                     Single-family attached dwellings require parking of 2.2 spaces per dwelling unit.

15.                     A detailed landscape plan must include buffer areas for the perimeter of the subdivision as well as, the interior landscape plan.

16.                     Townhomes shall include the following established criteria:

a.       Apartment style multifamily development shall be prohibited.      

b.       Any residential development shall be of fee simple ownership.

c.       The community will have landscaping maintained by the community.

d.       A 6-foot opaque screen will buffer any adjacent Low Density Residential neighborhoods.

e.       All units shall be a minimum of 20 ft in width.

f.         A uniform six foot tall and wide fence panel will be erected perpendicular to the rear of units to provide an outdoor privacy area.

g.       Any criteria or standards not addressed by the above conditions shall comply with the applicable regulations of the R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling District, contained in the City of St. Cloud Land Development Code.

h.       Architectural elevations shall be provided with the submittal of the PSP.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Continuance

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. Please be advised that the number of plans required for submittal has increased to 15 sets.

2.         Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right-of-way permits and concurrency prior to Final Site Plan approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.

3.         Please be advised that no model homes or centers will be permitted prior to recording of the final plat.  Any such structures shall also require approval of a “Mini Site Plan”.

 

Mr. Higgins noted that he would like to move this forward with annexation because of the large scale land use.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         A South Florida Water Management District permit is required for the following.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

 

I.          Proposed # Residential Units:                 270 SF              112 MF/TH        0 MH

            Resort Residential:                                 0 SF                 0 MF/TH

            Resort Res. to be guaranteed by Deed Restriction?            X    Not Applicable       Yes        No      

 

 

II.          Estimated Number of New Students Generated by Proposed Development:

            88 Elementary (grades K-5   38 Middle (grades 6-8)          53 High School (grades 9-12)

 

III.         Current Status of Schools with Proposed Development within School’s Attendance Boundary

 

           

 

 

School

Permanent

Student Station

(02/05)

Proposed

Enrollment

(SY 05-06)

 

Proposed

Utilization

# Portables

on Campus

(SY 05/06)

St. Cloud Elem.

1088

794

73%

0

St. Cloud Middle

1505

1250

83%

11

St. Cloud High

1758

1743

99%

37

 

IV.        Impact of New Students on Schools to Serve this Proposed Residential Development.

 

 

 

 

 

School

Estimated # New

Students in Other

Previously Approved

Development (3 yrs)

Estimated

Total

Future (3 yrs)

Enrollment

 

 

Future

Utilization

St. Cloud Elem.

466

1260

116%

St. Cloud Middle

758

2008

133%

St. Cloud High

1089

2832

161%

 

VI.                School District of Osceola County, Florida Prototype School Sizes.

 

School Type                              Elementary                    Middle School                High School

# Student Station                           1088                                     1324                        2151

 

VI.        Notes

4.       The estimated number of new students generated by residential development is calculated using the student generation rates listed in the “Impact Fees for Educational Facilities in Osceola County, Florida” study dated November 11, 2003.  Deed restricted, resort residential units are NOT included in the calculation.

5.       Permanent Student Station numbers includes Voter Mandated Class Size Reduction Amendment.

6.       “# New Students in Other Previously Approved Development” includes an estimate of new students that will reside in new developments (other than this proposed project) that are already approved, located within the attendance boundary of the listed school, and to be constructed within approximately 3 years.

 

FINDING:  The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

18.                    Case # 6-51.01 – The Oaks Shopping Center (Veronica Witol, Planner)

North of US 192 and East of Kissimmee Park Road

PUD Amendment/Major, 14.03 Acres

 

Tom Bailey with Hanson, Walter and Associates, Stan Sandefur and Joe Sandefur as property owners were all present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this PUD amendment.

 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         With the implementation of the Cyber Spot wireless system thru out the City of St. Cloud, Wifi fees will apply prior to development of said property.

This fee shall be assessed as follows:

Per Residential Unit: $118.46

Per square foot of Commercial property: $0.0068

Please reference Resolution #2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 6.1.10.1 of the Land Development Code. 

In this particular case, the fees would apply to the new outparcels that are being proposed.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comments.  

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         The owner will be responsible for all relocation costs and providing utilities to the proposed out parcels.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         Please provide legal description in Microsoft Word format.

2.         Please provide the information that you wish in the Ordinance in more of an ordinance fashion.

Please provide this in Microsoft Word.

Ex. Signage: One 96 sf freestanding sign shall be allowed at the entrance along 192 and

one 48sf sign shall be allowed at the entrance along 5th St.

Bank:

All other signage shall be per the St. Cloud LDC.

Max Square footage: Parcel 4 – 6,825 sf

3.         Please remember that the original PUD required HB zoning regulations and the regular LDC.

Items such as allowing more than 10 parking spaces in a row, and head to head parking need

to be called out in #2’s condition. A copy of the original PUD is available in the P&Z office.

Please use this as a model for any info to be included for any new outparcels that are created.

4.         Please include statement that all items that are not specifically addressed by the PUD

documents shall be governed by the City of St. Cloud Land Development Code.

5.         The final master plan should also show the lot lines if these are going to be outparcels. They

should not all be labeled the same parcel number as shown on the landscaping plan.

6.         Also, the original PUD said that parcels 1, 3, and 4 did not have setbacks. If these are going to

be outparcels the PUD language for #2 needs to reflect what their setback will be for everything.

7.         Do you want to set parking at 1:247 sf? Recommend that parking shall be set at current LDC

standards. Shopping Centers require 1:200 sf gross floor area and 3% bicycle parking.

8.         Include in the revisions, what benefits you are adding for justification. Ex. Increased

landscaping and describe the landscaping requirements.

9.         The landscaping plans show the landscaping along the perimeter of the church and 5th street

being omitted. These should not be omitted. The landscaping plans should be attached to the

final master plan.

10.        Specific types of trees and shrubs etc should be included in the write up. Otherwise will be

required to follow the LDC.

11.        The cover sheet info does not match the original PUD requirements or even the PUD narrative.

Please ensure all match. ie. Setbacks, required parking ratio and phasing

12.        Coversheet indicates this will be developed in one phase. But narrative says 3.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.         Recommend that the applicant resubmit with planning Conditions. After the applicant has satisfied the Planning Department they will be placed on the next available Planning Board agenda.

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. Please be

advised that the number of plans required for submittal has increased to 15 sets.

2.         Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right-of-way permits and concurrency

prior to Final Site Plan approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.

Mr. Bailey noted that everything was okay except for the parking.  He indicated that he wasn’t sure how he could do it with 1 space per every 200 feet.

 

Mr. Nearing indicated that he could have 1 space for every 300 feet as the retail facility grows and they will have more square footage.

 

Mr. Bailey noted that he could go 1 space for every 300 feet.  He also noted that he was pretty good with everything else.  He did note that Ms. Witol has asked about the set backs and that there will be some on the outside but that everything else has been rewritten and redrawn, he then wanted to know if he can keep his end going if the department could keep their end going.

 

Mr. Nearing wanted to know if he has heard anything regarding Sidelines, because they will be starting a conditional use within the PUD and standards will be set.

 

Ms. Witol noted that Mr. Bailey could add it as a conditional use and then after she talks to the City attorney, if he says, “No” then it can be deleted.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that they will attach it to the permanent conditions.

 

Mr. Stan Sandefur wanted to know if this was going to hold him up.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that it would not because they will just delete it and that use will not be on the final.

 

Mr. Bailey wanted to know when they would need to submit it for a review so they don’t have to wait.

 

Ms. Witol indicated that she had a meeting the next Tuesday with Ruby Tuesday but that he could submit when he was ready.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         The District has no comment.

2.         Modify existing District permit for any additional construction.

 

FINDING: The DRC recommended approval with conditions.

 

MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT:  5:05 P.M.