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:      July 24, 2003

 

LOCATION:                   Municipal Services Complex 1st Floor Conference Room

                                    2901 17th Street, St. Cloud

 

CALL TO ORDER:         2:00 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN:                  David Nearing, Planning/Zoning Director

 

SECRETARY:               Marty Hobbs, Development Officer

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dave Nearing                 Rick Mauro                    Kim Duffy                      Mark Luthie                  

Dave Ennis                    John Groenendaal          Eric Morgan                   Ron Trowell                  

Angelo Perri                  Comdr. Faucett

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.         Case # 03-97.01 – Ashton Commerce Center

                                                N. of U.S. 192 – East of Hickory Tree Road

                                                Site Plan (PUD)

 

Mr. Jeremy Camp was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         An Osceola County Right-of-Way Utilization Permit for the driveway connection to Hickory Tree Rd. will need to be obtained prior to issuance of the “Notice to Proceed” for the project.

2.         An FDOT Right-of-Way Utilization Permit will need to be obtained prior to issuance of the “Notice to Proceed” for the project.

3.         The drainage system on Sheet #5 of 15 which is beneath the roadway in front of the building does not appear to connect to an outfall pipe.  Please explain?

4.         The drainage ditch along Dean St. appears to be the receiving point for the stormwater run-off from the proposed project.  However, no water quality or attenuation for additional run-off has been provided.

5.         An FDOT Drainage Connection Permit will need to be obtained prior to issuance of the “Notice to Proceed” for the project.           

6.         The proposed dumpster location will need approval from the Solid Waste Division of the City of St. Cloud

7.         Please provide a typical cross section of the slope transition of the area north of the proposed building.

 

Mr. Camp provided an update on the progress of each of the permits listed in the comments.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The existing tee, gate valve and blow off will be required to be removed from the existing water main if not to be utilized.

2.                   6” sanitary sewer laterals will be required along the existing sewer main along the front of the building, therefore, eliminating the proposed main extensions.

 

Mr. Camp asked if this could be looked at as a lateral with a manhole rather than a main extension.  He explained that he did not know how the plumbing was going to need to be configured in the front of the project and that if a grease trap was ever needed, installation in the front would be a problem.

 

Mr. Mauro noted that he did not like the idea of wrapping it around to the rear but he would look at it further.

Page 2, DRC Minutes – 0724/03

 

 

3.                   A minimum separation between the discharge side of the water meter and the sidewalk shall be 3 feet to allow for the installation of a backflow preventer.

4.                   Change the note “EX. FM.” on the gravity sewer main.

5.                   A 15 foot min. easement will be required centered over the water main, meters, fire hydrants and sewer laterals.

6.                   A D.E.P. permit is required for the water main.

7.                   An in-line gate valve is required every 500 feet on the water main.

8.                   Add note to all water meter banks of three meters to refer to the “multiple service installation detail”. 

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Move hydrants to south side parking area islands.

 

Mr. Camp noted that he had discussed this issue with Mr. Ennis and he would comply with movement of the hydrant.

 

INFORMATION:

2.         Before and during construction, when combustibles are brought onto the site in such quantities as deemed hazardous by the fire official, paved roads to provide access for fire vehicles and a suitable water supply for fire protection acceptable to the fire department shall be provided and maintained.  (L.D.C. 6

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Provide a sealed survey

2.                   Provide a Trip generation estimate in the PM peak hour based on Floor Area.

3.                   The parking spaces in the front are substandard. A 18 foot stall is permitted if two feet is added to the landscape buffer. Currently the buffer is 7 feet as outlined in the PUD documents, Revise the parking lot to meet this requirement.

4.                   Show all dimensions of buildings setback.

5.                   The buildings encroach into the stormwater tracts. Abandoned them or reconfigure the building.

6.                   If the stormwater tracts vacated where will stormwater go. Currently, I am unable to follow where stormwater is going. Is this exfiltration?

7.                   There appears to be a utility easement along the front of the property that will be paved over for parking. Are there utilities in the ground now?  Those service provider shall be notified and if work is needed in the future replacing the paving may be the property owners responsibility

 

Mr. Camp noted that the property owner was aware of the easement.

 

8.                   Provide the location of any freestanding signs proposed on the site plan and landscape plan.

9.                   The cross access easement should be examined, enlarge if needed It does not appear to service the drive aisle.

 

Mr. Camp noted that it was shown on the driveway.

 

10.               Please show how Tract E and Tract D align.

 

Mr. Camp noted that there would be a replat processed that would include a cross access agreement.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that if a replat was done the project could go straight to final.

 

 

 

Page 3, DRC Minutes – 07/24/03

 

 

11.               The site plan shows a curb cut onto US Hwy 192 from Tract C. However the Plat for Ashton Commerce Center general note 2 Denies (assumed direct) Access to US. 192 for Lots A-D. Replat or remove the curb cut.

 

Mr. Camp noted that it would be shown on the replat.

 

12.               Address the two substandard drive aisles that service dumpsters. The minimum for two-way traffic is 22 feet as outlined in PUD documents. Possibly sign the drive aisle to limit access to the garbage trucks and deliveries.

 

Mr. Camp noted that he would rectify the situation with the next submittal.

 

13.               Show all exterior lights to meet Section N of the PUD documents

14.               All electrical equipment on the roof shall be screened.  Provided a proposed finished elevation of all sides.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

15.               This will be one of the gateway businesses coming into the City from the East. It would be encouraging to provide a better front façade other than metal building.

16.               The landscape plan indicates that only two or three trees will be lost with the erecting of a masonry wall. The City Arborist is to consulted and shall be present for work in existing root systems for the creation of the walls footer

INFORMATION:

17.               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.

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

 

Mr. Nearing asked if Mr. Camp had an idea where the sign was going to go and Mr. Camp explained that he did not know at this time.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the original plan showed one sign for the entire parcel and that would probably be what staff would stick with.  He noted that if the intention was to have a sign for each parcel, only monument type signs would be allowed.  He noted that multiple pole signs would not be allowed.

 

Mr. Nearing directed Mr. Groenendaal to check the PUD documents to see if the ordinance needed to be redone.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The Landscaping Sheets L-1, L-2, L-3 and L-4 show a 6’ tall opaque fence along to the North property line. However, Construction Sheet 4 of 15 shows a 6’ masonry wall. Which is proposed? A wall is required. Be advised that if a 6’ masonry wall is installed; it will be required to bend similar to the existing wall, located to the east of this PUD section (Rocker Mini Warehouses). Please revise.

2.                   The St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department will not accept Note #5 on Sheet L-1, L-2, L-3 and/or L-4. Maintenance and/or Code Enforcement issues surface when the plans do not match the site. Please show what is to be planted there. This may require the Plant Legends to be changed.

3.                   The Boundary & Topographic survey is not complete. Some of the trees have been identified wrong and the survey does not show five (5) additional trees, existing within the interior of the site. Please revise.

4.                   The Landscaping Sheet L-1 show a 12” Oak to be removed and Sheet L-2 shows a 10” Oak to be removed. Note: the 12” Oak is Camphor (Cinnamomum camphora). Please compare the revised tree survey to the proposed landscaping and show mitigation for all of the trees proposed for removal, at a two-to-one ratio.

 

Mr. Camp noted that he would have the surveyor go back out to take another look at it.

 

INFORMATION:

5.                   Be aware that if the tree survey is accurate, the proposed Master Underground Utility Plan shows a 6” PVC sanitary installation just fewer than ten (10’) south of existing trees. This kind of construction will cause as much of an impact to the existing trees as a masonry wall.

Page 4, DRC Minutes – 07/24.03

 

 

6.                   All of the tree canopies, located along the North property line, should be lifted prior to construction. This will be addressed at the time of the Pre-Construction meeting.

 

Mr. Camp asked if the staff would support use of a masonry fence instead of the required masonry wall.  He provided a brochure describing the fencing material.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that staff could agree and would, in fact, prefer that fencing to a wall because of the impact of a wall on the existing trees.  He noted that he thought it was a fair compromise.

 

Mr. Luthie asked what kind of soil load would be needed for the fencing and noted that he would need to take a look at a cross section of the footers needed.

 

The issue of the sewer laterals and their location relative to the building was discussed further.

 

Ms. Duffy noted that her concern was with the existing trees and their root integrity.

 

Mr. Camp noted that he would look at moving the lines as close to the building as possible.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         A South Florida Water Management District Permit is required for this case.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

CONDITIONS:

1.         Please provide site plan for review and addressing.

 

FINDING:

 

The DRC approved the site plan with conditions.  The applicant will resubmit revised plans for sign-off within 60 days of this review.

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 


Page 5, DRC Minutes – 07/24/03

 

 

2.         Case # 03-98.01 – Jowers Commercial PUD

                                                Michigan Avenue – North of Jowers Residential PUD

                                                Abandon Right-of-Way

 

There was no one present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         This case has no effect on the building department

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   Staff recommends approval of this request.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         The abandonment of the Right-of-Way within this project does not affect now or in the future the operations of The Orlando Utilities Commission.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Please provide an electronic format copy in MS Word of the legal description of Parcel A, Parcel B, and the portion of the right-of-way being abandoned.  It may be provided by floppy disk or via email to: emorgan@stcloud.org.

2.                   Please provide a written narrative describing the expected impacts to the following: the City; the immediate neighborhood and/or adjacent area; the property owners immediately adjacent to the affected right-of-way; and, any utility providers or governmental agencies having a possible need for the right-of-way (and what alternative they might now have), per Section 5.6.4 of the Land Development Code.

3.                   Letters will be sent by staff to the utility providers in the area describing the request for abandonment of the right-of-way.  Said letter will give the utility providers 30 days in which to object in writing.  Any objection to the abandonment shall require the applicant and the objecting utility provider to make arrangements for a compromise prior to the item being scheduled before City Council.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

4.                   Staff recommends approval with the above conditions.

5.                   The ordinance of abandonment will not be heard by City Council until the elapse of the 30 days for the utility notification letters.  The ordinance of abandonment will require a hearing and recommendation from the Planning Board prior to hearing before City Council.

6.                   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.

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

 

PARKS & RECREATION

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

Page 6, DRC Minutes – 07/24/03

 

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         The District has no comment regarding this case.

 

FINDING:

 

The DRC recommended approval of the abandonment as requested.  The case will be moved forward to the Planning Board and City Council for public hearings.

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS


Page 7, DRC Minutes – 07/24/03

 

 

3.         Case # 03-99.01 – Design Ventures Property

                                                1433 10th Street

                                                Re-Zoning From CBD-1 to CBD-2

 

Mr. Nearing noted that this case had been withdrawn at the request of the applicant.  Therefore, no action is required.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

PLANNING

1.                   The proposed change is contrary to the established land use pattern

The established land use pattern is a mix of commercial and residential.  The proposed change will allow a more intense commercial use.  However, the applicant has no plans beyond using his building beyond their current commercial uses.

2.                   The proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts

Currently, the subject property is surrounded by CBD-II and CBD-I.  The proposed CBD-I is compatible with both of these districts.  In addition, this is one of the City’s historical structures, which may need the relaxed guidelines of the CBD-I district so that its entire first floor may be used.

                        DIRECTION                   ZONING                        EXISTING USE

                        North                            CBD-1                           Residence

                        South                            CBD-II                           Residence

                        East                             DBC-II                           Residence/Commercial

                        West                            CBD-11/R-3                   Vacant 

3.                   The proposed change would materially alter the population density pattern and thereby increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.

            The proposed change would not alter the population density.

4.         Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change

            The existing district boundaries could be considered to be illogically drawn in relation to current conditions, considering that many of the current structures (homes, apartments, or established businesses) are constrained for parking as well.  The CBD-I zone aids existing property by waiving parking requirements. The surrounding properties have a future land use designation of Commercial and are zoned CBD-I, CBD-II or R-3.

4.                   The proposed change would be contrary to the land use plan and would have an adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan

            The proposed request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

5.                   Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary

 

 

Page 8, DRC Minutes – 0724/03

 

 

            The structure currently contains 1,400 s.f. of floor area.  A portion of that is currently used for retail on the ground floor with 2 apartments on the second floor.  In order for the applicant to make full use of his current structure, he needs the CBD-I zoning in order to meet the parking requirements.

6.                   The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood

            The staff’s position is that the proposed change may result in parking on the street after the onsite parking is full, but the increase in traffic will be minimal creating little to no adverse effect on the living conditions in the neighborhood.

7.                   The proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety

            The difference in the amount of traffic generated is insignificant.

8.                   The proposed change will create a drainage problem

            This is a pre-existing site, but any expansion will require the approval of a site plan with drainage review.

9.                   The proposed change will seriously reduce light or air to adjacent areas

            The maximum building height regulations are the same for all surrounding properties.  The possibility of seriously reducing light or air to adjacent areas is not anticipated.

10.               The proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area

            An adverse affect to property values in adjacent areas is not anticipated.

11.               The proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvements or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations

            The proposed change will not be a deterrent to development of adjacent property.  Much of downtown is zoned CBD-I, or CBD-II, and it has not had a negative impact on adjacent properties’ improvements or development.  Rezoning this parcel to CBD-I would actually help to protect the historic building by creating an advantage to leveling and rebuilding.

12.               The proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare

            The proposed change will not contrast with the public welfare.

13.               There are substantial reasons why a reasonable use of property cannot be accomplished under existing zoning

            The applicant has noted that he cannot technically meet the parking requirements for his structure under CBD-II.  The more flexible regulations for CBD-I will allow the applicant to efficiently use the space.

14.               Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City

            The subject property is a small area and is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City.

15.               It is impossible to find other adequate sites in the City for the proposed use in districts already zoned for such use

There are other areas with CBD-I but this site needs the zone to make his historic structure viable under today’s regulations.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.         No comment at this time.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         The District has no comment regarding this case.

 

FINDING:

 

This case was withdrawn by application.  No action taken by the Committee

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET

 

ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 P.M.