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




DATE OF MEETING:      July 17, 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



Dave Nearing                 Rick Mauro                    Kim Duffy                      Danny White                

Dave Ennis                    John Groenendaal          Eric Morgan                   Ron Trowell                  

Angelo Perri                  Comdr. Faucett




1.         Case # 03-50.02 – Holiday Chevrolet, St. Cloud

                                                1001 Long Avenue



Mr. John Ritch was present to represent the application.




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




1.         No comment.




1.                   Staff recommends approval.


2.                   Construction Plans submitted under case #3-50.03 Holiday Chevrolet.




1.         No comment.




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




1.         No comment.




1.                   Please correct the Development Review Process application to indicate the desired land use (instead of “Auto Dealership & Houses).


Page 2, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03



2.                   Please submit a scaled drawing with dimensions of the subject property to be annexed.  Then provide labels and a narrative indicating portions of the property are requested to be commercial use and highway business zoning (incorporated into the auto dealership site plan) and which portions are requested to be R-1B single family residential dwelling zoning.


Mr. Ritch noted that he was pushing to get this done as soon as possible.  He requested that the Committee provide him with at least a conditional approval so it could move forward.


Mr. Nearing noted that he had discussed the issue with Shawn Hindle and had advised him of the need for precision in the legal descriptions before things could be advertised.


The issue of what was needed to allow the case to proceed was discussed with Mr. Nearing noting that there also need to be a lot split done for the property.


3.                   Please submit a written response to each of the 16 required items of Section 3.4.3.C.2.a of the LDC.


4.                   Staff recommends continuing this item to the next scheduled DRC after the above items have been submitted.


5.                   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.

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

7.                   Section 3.4.3.C.2.a of the Land Development Code contains 16 items that must be addressed in the report to City Council regarding annexation, land use amendment and rezoning.  Staff's analysis has resulted in the following responses.  The applicant should provide written comments and support materials if the below comments are not considered correct/accurate by the applicant.

7.1.       The proposed change is contrary to the established land use pattern.  The proposed change is not contrary to the established land use pattern because the adjacent land use to the south is commercial use and the land use to the north, east and west is residential.

7.2.       The proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.  The proposed change would not create an isolated district with regard to the HB zoned portion,

but would create an isolated district of R-1B single family residential dwelling.  The isolated R-1B zoned district is only isolated because it is surrounded by property outside the City limits.  Therefore, any City residential zoning would be isolated.

7.3.       The proposed change would materially alter the population density population and thereby increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.  No comments have been received from the Lines Division, the Public Works Department, the school district, the Police Department nor Fire Safety Department regarding an overtaxing of the public facilities.

7.4.       Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for a change.  Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn for the desired purpose of incorporating the subject area into the City limits in order that it be incorporated into a site plan for an automobile dealership.

7.5.       The proposed change would be contrary to the land use plan and would have an adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan.  The proposed annexation and assignment of Commercial Use and Highway Business zoning to a portion and Medium Density Residential and R-1B Single Family Residential Dwelling to a portion would not have an adverse effect on the land use plan and Comprehensive Plan.  Annexation and assignment of land use and zoning designations would require an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.

7.6.       Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary.  The changing condition which requires the proposed amendment is the property owner's wish that the subject property be within the corporate boundaries of the City of St. Cloud so that the property may enjoy all the benefits and rights thereof.

7.7.       The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood.  No evidence to this effect has been presented to staff, nor does staff reasonably expect any adverse effect to the adjacent neighborhood by the proposed amendment.



Page 3, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03



7.8.       The proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety.  No evidence of such has been presented to staff, nor does staff reasonably expect traffic congestion to result from the proposed amendment.

7.9.       The proposed change will create a drainage problem.  Current City regulations and codes require drainage to be handled properly, therefore the proposed change will not create a drainage problem.

7.10.    The proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.  The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.  Single family dwellings have a maximum height of 35’ and the commercial portion of the subject property is proposed to contain a stormwater detention pond on it for an automobile dealership.

7.11.    The proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.  Staff does not reasonably expect this to happen based upon the proposed changes.

7.12.    The proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.  Staff does not reasonably expect any off-site impacts which would result in a deterrent to improve or develop adjacent property to the subject property.

7.13.    The proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.  The public welfare is in no way infringed by the granting of this request.

7.14.    There are substantial reasons why a reasonable use of property cannot be accomplished under existing zoning.  Existing zoning is County zoning outside of the City limits, therefore the reasons why reasonable use of the property cannot be accomplished under existing zoning involve access to City water and sewer services, the costs of those services, and the enjoyment of rights and privileges of being within the corporate City limits of the City of St. Cloud.

7.15.    Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City.  The subject property is 2.5 acres of land abutting the City and site already approved for an automobile dealership and does not constitute a proposed change which is out of scale with the neighborhood or City.

7.16.    It is impossible to find other adequate site in the City for the proposed use in districts already zoned for such use.  Nothing’s impossible with enough money.  But...Adjacent areas inside the City limits are occupied and/or too small to hold the amount of stormwater required by the site plan for the automobile dealership or are too far away from the automobile dealership to cost

effectively pipe the water there, therefore it is unreasonable to expect the owner of the automobile dealership site to seek other lands already zoned for such a use.



1.                   The St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department recommends approval of this request.




1.         The District has no comment regarding this case.




The DRC recommended approval with the conditions as stated.  There can be no Notice to Proceed issued until the annexation and land use have been finalized.



Page 4, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03



2.         Case #3-50.03 – Holiday Chevrolet St. Cloud

                                                E. of Hickory Tree Road; N of U.S. 192

                                                Site Plan


Mr. Walt Smith and Mr. Mike Clapp were present to represent the application.




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




1.         We have not further comments regarding the revised site plan, however, the “Notice to Proceed” for construction for the water system, sanitary sewer system, and drainage system will not be given until all necessary permits have been obtained for the project.




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 of $3,485.57 shall be paid prior to receiving a Notice to Proceed, per Resolution 98-27R.  Said amount shall be credited towards the sewer impact fee as calculated at Building Permit.  Impact and tap fee rates shall be those in effect at the time of Building Permit.

3.                   Please correct the Concurrency Management application to reflect that the development will be completed in one phase, as is indicated on the construction plans cover sheet.


4.                   Staff recommends approval with the conditions above.


5.                   Resolution 98-27R estimates sanitary sewer impact fees at a rate of $1,100 per 1,000 gross square feet of building area used for commercial purposes; the Sanitary Sewer Reservation Fee equals 10% of the estimated sanitary sewer impact fee.  For this development:  31,687 of building ÷ 1,000 x $1,100 = $34,855.70 x 10% = $3,485.57.




1.         Permits must be obtained through the Osceola County Health Department for abandonment of the existing well and septic tank on lot number 430, with a copy submitted to the City of St. Cloud.


Mr. Smith asked why extension across the entire frontage of the property was required when it wasn’t needed to serve this site.  He noted that it would only be beneficial to anyone developing adjacent to this property.  He further noted that they should be required to bring the service across the road just like this project had to.


Mr. Mauro noted that Article 7 of the LDC required the extension across the entire frontage and that anything other than that would require a variance from City Council.


Mr. Clapp asked if the right-of-way was recognized as the property frontage and Mr. Mauro noted that was correct.


Mr. Clapp noted that he was sure Mr. Hindle would want to address the issue separately.  He noted that he felt it was excessive to require it.


Mr. Mauro noted that the City was working on a looping to Crawford and that Shawn was aware of the requirement from the beginning.


Mr. Nearing asked if this was going to affect fire flows and Mr. Ennis noted that it could if it were not looped.


Mr. Nearing noted that this was an issue that Mr. Mauro and Mr. Hindle needed to meet to discuss and resolve.


Page 5, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03





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

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




1.         Please send revised plans or email plans to Pete Glascock of OUC electric engineering, he is the designer who is assigned to the project.  Mail to 2903 17th Street, St. Cloud, Florida  34769 or email to




1.                   The site plan review fee due is $2,075.00, the applicant has paid $2,025.00.  The applicant shall pay the balance prior to final approval/denial of the plans by the Development Review Committee.

2.                   All parcels of land shall be unified into one parcel with one parcel identification number prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed.

3.                   Please correct the cover page, Site Information, # 4 Setbacks to indicate that the setbacks are as follows:  Front 25’, Side Street 25’, Side 10’ and 30’ and Rear 30’.  Any portion of the property abutting residential property has a 30’ setback, per Table III-6 of the Land Development Code (LDC).

4.                   Please correct the cover page, Site Information, parking calculations to indicate that 16,800 sf of storage @ 2 spaces per 1200 sf = 28 parking spaces and not 14.  Please correct the required total number of parking spaces to 113 or obtain a parking determination from the Planning Board.

5.                   Staff counts 98 non-handicapped and 4 handicapped parking spaces on Sheet 6.  Please correct the number of parking spaces, per Table III-8 of the LDC.  (Current Americans With Disabilities Act requires 5 handicapped parking spaces for 101 to 150 parking spaces.)


Mr. Clapp noted that the parking space counts originally had approval but it seemed that the requirements had changed.  He noted that he wanted to meet with staff to discuss the issue separately.


Mr. Morgan noted that there had been an error on the original plan and that 28 spaced should have been required for that review as well.


Mr. Smith noted that he would look at the counts again.


6.                   Please revise the building setback lines shown on the Site Dimension Plan, Sheet 6, per Table III-6 of the LDC to indicate the actual required setbacks.

7.                   Section 3.18.3.A.1 of the LDC allows parking spaces to be reduced by as much as 2’ feet in depth provided an equal amount is added to abutting landscaping, buffering or pedestrian walkways.  Many of the parking spaces along the East property line are shown as having an 18’ depth abutting less than 12’ of buffer.  Please correct or obtain a site variance from City Council.

8.                   Section 8.7.2.B of the LDC requires a 6’ height block or brick wall or berm separating non-residential uses from residential uses.  Chain link fencing is shown on Sheet 3 and none is shown on Sheet 8.  Please correct the site plan or obtain a site variance from City Council.

9.                   Per Section 3.20.2.C.1 of the LDC, the maximum wall height allowed in the Front Yard (that is, within 162 lineal feet of the south property line according to the placement of the building structure) is 3'.  Section 8.7.2.B of the LDC requires a 6' wall or berm separating residential and nonresidential uses.  These two regulations contradict for a 70' section of the west property line where the 6' height wall or berm is required to separate this nonresidential use from the abutting residential use but which is located in the Front Yard.  A site variance must be obtained from City Council for 8.7.2.B or a variance from the Board of Adjustment for 3.20.2.C.1.

10.               Please show the zoning of all adjacent parcels on Sheet 8.  Please change the page title from “Off Site Pond” to something that doesn’t imply that the pond is not part of the site.

11.               A minimum 10’ width buffer is required around the subject property perimeter shown on Sheet 8.  Please correct or obtain a site variance from City Council.

12.               Section 3.20.28.C.2 of the LDC requires 120 square feet of additional landscaping for every 2,000 square feet of paved display area, over and above the normal landscaping requirements.  Please provide a table on Sheet L1 Landscaping Plan that indicates: the total site area in square feet, the total

Page 6, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03



square footage of impervious surface, the total square footage of display area, and the total area required as additional landscaping.  Required buffers, landscape islands and parking row strips shall not be counted towards the "Additional Landscaping" required by Section 3.20.28.C.2.  Please indicate the "Additional Landscaping" areas by cross-hatching on Sheet L1 Landscaping Plan so that it is easily identifiable to staff.

13.               “Automobile: Frame repair”, “Automobile: Salvage and wrecking yard” and “Automobile: Tire recapping” are all prohibited uses within the Highway Business zoning district.

14.               The construction plans shall not be signed off as approved unless City Council approves annexation of the 2.5 acre detention pond area shown and assigns it a future land use of Commercial use and zoning of Highway Business.


15.               Staff recommends approval with the above conditions.  Plans shall not be signed off as approved until final action has been taken on the annexation, small scale land use amendment and zoning request.


16.               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.

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

18.               Staff is assuming that the additional 2.5 acre area where the stormwater pond is located (Sheet 8) will be annexed and assigned a future land use of Commercial and zoning of Highway Business (HB).  An application has been submitted for said purpose and has been assigned a City case #3-50.02 Holiday Chevrolet.

19.               The subject property has a Future Land Use of Commercial Use and a zoning of Highway Business.

20.               All areas shown with striping for parking stalls are considered parking for customers and employees to meet the parking requirements of the LDC.  Said spaces shall not be used to display or store merchandise.




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




The following comments were provided to the applicant and the Committee during the meeting.



1.                   Sheet 5 of 19 Demolition Plan shows the additional existing trees, within the added land. However, the trees are not identified on the plan. Please revise to justify removal and/or mitigation count.

2.                   Sheet 6 of 19 Site Dimension Plan shows a maintenance access to the retention pond and Sheet 7 of 19 Paving, Grading, & Drainage Plan shows your proposed drainage system into the retention pond. Please indicate onto both of these construction plans that these two (2) areas will be the entrance/exit point throughout the development of the retention pond. All other perimeter areas shall be protected by tree barriers throughout development.

3.                   Note that once the tree survey has been revised, replacement numbers may be required to be change upon Sheet L1, Landscaping.

4.                   The St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department has received a letter from Wright’s Excavating, Inc. stating that they agree to donate 42 trees to the City of St. Cloud for public planting. However, the proposed site plan shows the additional 42 trees on site. Please clarify.


Ms. Duffy noted that she had received a letter from Wrights indicating mitigation and she was confused because one company shows the mitigated trees on the site and the other shows them as being donated.  She noted that she would prefer to have them remain on the site.


Mr. Clapp noted that the applicant would also prefer them to remain on the site and that was what would be shown on the plans.


Mr. Smith asked if he could get approval to install just the water line at least instead of holding up the entire project waiting for the annexation issue to be resolved.


Page 7, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03



Mr. Nearing explained that progress could continue as long as it met the requirements of the originally approved site plan.  He noted that until this plan was approved, the originally approved plan was valid.



The applicant will resubmit revised plans for sign-off once the annexation issue has been resolved.




Page 8, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03



3.         Case #3-96.01 – Crystal Creek

                                                W. of Michigan Ave; N. of Canoe Creek Woods

                                                Preliminary Subdivision Plan


Mr. Jeremy Kibbler was present to represent the application.




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




1.                   We would like you to consider merging the storm water pond serving Crystal Creek with the storm water pond serving Canoe Creek Woods Unit 5.  By creating one large storm water pond to serve both subdivisions the outfall point to control the pond levels could be created through Crystal Creek and thereby eliminate the existing outfall and conveyance ditch serving the storm water tract for Canoe Creek Woods Unit 5.  We will need to discuss this in further detail with SFWMD.


Mr. Kibbler noted that he was currently working with SFWMD to see if something could be worked out.


2.                   The typical road section details will need to be corrected to more accurately describe the base materials specifications and construction requirements.  The 6-inch soil cement base must be designed to meet a compressive strength of 300 PSI and the alternate base material of lime rock must be compacted to 98% ASHTO T-34 and a minimum LBR of 100.


Mr. Kibbler noted that he would show a corrected detail on the plans.


The minimum requirements were explained by Mr. Danny White.


3.         An Osceola County right-of-way utilization permit will be required for the connection of the proposed entrance to Michigan Ave. 


Mr. Kibbler agreed to provide the City with a copy of the permit once obtained.




1.                   A Certificate of Capacity will be processed through City Council.  For this project, the fee is calculated as follows: 50 lots x $2,358 per lot = $117,900.00.  Ten (10) percent of this amount, or $11,790.00. is due prior to Notice to Proceed.  The balance is due prior to Certificate of Occupancy for each lot.  This Certificate may be phased with the phases or paid at once. 

2.                   Any existing wells on the property must be abandoned or have a reduced pressure backflow preventer installed if the well is to be used for irrigation.  Any existing septic tanks on the property must be abandoned per Osceola County Health Department specifications.

3.                   This Certificate of Capacity shall remain valid as long as continuous construction activity is verified on this site.


Mr. Kibbler agreed with the comments from Concurrency Management.




1.                   All the existing utilities within the easement and right of way will be required to be shown on the plans.

2.                   The sanitary sewer will be required to be extended across the entire Michigan Ave. frontage.


Mr. Kibbler asked if there was anyway to workout something other than installation across the entire frontage of the property.


Mr. Mauro noted there wasn’t and that the requirement had to be met unless waived by Council.


Page 9, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03



3.                   The sanitary sewer depth will be required to be maintained from the invert elevation of the connecting manhole structure, for the portion along Michigan Ave.


Mr. Kibbler agreed to make the correction on the revised plans.


4.                   The sanitary sewer location will be reviewed and may be subjected for relocation, due to the installation of a 12” reclaimed water main currently under design.


Mr. Kibbler agreed with the comment.



5.         Water, sewer and reclaimed water are available.




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)


Mr. Kibbler noted that the intent was to request a variance.


Mr. Ennis noted that the applicant needed to be made aware that he would not be in support of any such variance.


Mr. Kibbler noted that he would look at the plan again and try to work something out.


Mr. Nearing recommended that Mr. Kibbler look at the possibility of redesigning the pond.  He noted that attempting to obtain a variance without staff support was difficult at best.


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.

3.         Distance from or spacing for hydrants located within single family residential subdivisions shall not exceed five hundred (500) feet and shall be connected to water mains no less than eight (8) inches in diameter. The required distance between all hydrants shall be 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. No individual hydrant shall be designed to deliver more than 1000 GPM of required fire flow. (L.D.C. 7.9.2.b.1)


4.         Move hydrant located near lot 1 to the entrance.




1.         Please note there is an underground electric duct line with energized electric that runs along the entire frontage of the proposed project.  The existing overhead power poles will be removed in the near future.

2.         The installation of all the electric conduit, concrete transformer pads, and secondary pullboxes are the responsibility of the owner.

3.         Please have all electric conduit, pads, and boxes in place and passed inspection by OUC inspectors 4 weeks before you need electric service.

4.         Please provide a 10 foot wide utility easement on all property lines abutting a right-of-way.  Other easements may be required.

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

            OUC Development Services                    (407) 236-9652

            Bill Ellwood                                           email:

            500 South Orange Avenue

            P.O. Box 3193                                       Orlando, Florida  32802

Page 10, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03





1.                   Need a survey of the property that shows the old SLIC Right of Ways and elevations 

2.                   Vacate any ROW that will be platted over.


Mr. Kibbler noted that he would take care of these issues with the submittal of construction plans.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that the City Attorney wants the right-of-way vacated and that there may be a problem with the trees.


3.                   Remove the easement on 37 and 38 and make it part of the pond tract.

4.                   Lot 33 is not wide enough. The lot width will be measured from the front façade of the home. The rear property line is 62.5 feet.

5.                   Provide a PM peak traffic generation calculation.


6.                   The location of the pond appears to be placed in the most treed portion of the property. The City of St. Cloud values trees as a resource to be protected.  Please provide a tree survey and location trees deemed necessary for removal.


Mr. Kibbler noted that he was in the process of getting an updated aerial and that he might be able to work something out during the SFWMD process.


Mr. Groenendaal advised Mr. Kibbler that there had been some problems previously with some of the property owners adjacent to the project over tree removal.


Mr. Nearing asked if there had been anyone at the site to discuss drainage.  He noted that one of the Council members had been told that there were plans to drain into the ponds of Canoe Creek Woods.


Mr. Kibbler noted that he did not know about someone being on the site but that drainage into those ponds was a possibility.


Mr. White also noted that it was a possibility and explained how the entire area’s drainage was tied together.


Mr. Nearing noted that the ponds in Canoe Creek Woods had been a source of concern for their HOA.


Mr. White noted that he wasn’t sure that the piping was going to be large enough.


7.                   Because there are two comments that will require some redesign please consider moving the pond to the less wooded area working with the City Arborist is strongly encouraged to aid in devising a tree friendly plan.

8.                   The Staff along with the neighbors in Canoe Creek Woods may not favor vacating some of the ROW with trees in them if the plan is not revised to be more green with mature canopy trees.


Mr. Kibbler noted that he would look at it and intended to save everything that could be saved.



9.                   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.

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




1.         Aerial Sheet 2 of 5 is required to be marked up.

·                     Please show amount of trees proposed for removal and/or mitigation.

·                     Identify what types of trees exist upon this property.

2.                   Submit a landscaping plan.


Mr. Kibbler noted that he would work out these issues with Ms. Duffy.

Page 11, DRC Minutes – 07/17/03




3.         This department will not move forward with this site until the aerial has been corrected. The City Arborist will then compare the corrected aerial with the site. After an evaluation has been completed, additional conditions may be submitted.




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




1.                   Applicant shall clear all proposed street names with the 9-1-1 addressing department prior to submitting a final.  Please submit a preliminary subdivision plan for review.


Mr. Nearing explained that the cul-de-sac issue would require a variance and that to the best of his knowledge, it had never before been approved.


Mr. Ennis noted that he could recall only one such variance that had been approved and that was for Magnolia Terrace in the 1980s.



The DRC continued the case until some of the outstanding issues could be resolved.  Once revised plans are submitted, the case will be taken back to the DRC for final recommendation.




ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 P.M.