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




DATE OF MEETING:      January 30, 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                    Eric Holloway                Mark Luthie                  

Dave Ennis                    John Groenendaal          Eric Morgan                   Ron Trowell                  

Angelo Perri                  Comdr. Faucett              Harry Fix




Mr. Nearing noted that there were no members of the public present for this meeting.


1.         Approval of DRC Consent Agenda for January 30, 2003.


The following items were approved by consensus of the Committee by way of the consent agenda:

1.         Deferral of Annexation for the following:

                      Case #3-33.01 – Cruz, Julio – 901 Fertic Road

                      Case #3-34.01 – Marion, Fred & Annie – 2725 Canoe Creek Road

                      Case #3-36.01 – Hanafi, Moheidin – 3605 Lakeshore Blvd.

                      Case #3-37.01 – Jones, Randy & Chris – 2311 Underwood Avenue

2.         Approval of DRC Minutes for January 9, 2003



2.         Case # 3-30.01 – Whitfield, James

                                                NE Corner of Eastern Avenue & 10th Street



Mr. James Whitfield was present to represent the application




1.         This case has no effect on the building department




1.         No comment.




1.         The approval of this request for rezoning will not cause an adverse effect with the Line Systems Divisions operations.




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




1.         No comment.


Page 2, DRC Minutes 01/30/03





1.         No Comments




1.                   Provide a letter of authorization from the property owners to authorize the agent to act for them.


Mr. Whitfield asked if it would be OK to send it via fax.


Ms. Hobbs noted that she could accept a fax for now but that an original must be submitted before any final approval could be granted.


2.                   When I visited the site I noticed a portion of the parcel was cleared, was an arbor permit obtained if not correct this issue and cease clearing.



3.         The rezoning should be approved, as the zoning is compatible with both the Future Land Use Designation and with the surrounding area.


4.         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.

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

6.         The Future land Use designation for these parcel are is Medium Density Residential

7.         The proposed zoning of R-2 is permitted in the MDR FLU designation.

8.         The surrounding land uses include a church, vacant land and single-family residents.




1.         This request should not have an impact on the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department, at this time. Note: Trees have been removed from the site; however, residential properties are exempt from Tree Removal Permitting. All trees exiting upon the City rights-of-way are the responsibility of this department.


Mr. Nearing explained that the comments from Parks & Recreation indicate that this project would be exempt from permitting.




1.                   The District has no comment regarding this project.



The DRC recommended approval of the request to rezone the subject property to R-2.


Page 3, DRC Minutes –



3.         Case #2-69.03 – Cypress Preserve

                                                W side of Canoe Creek R/N of Canoe Creek Woods Sub entrance

                                                Preliminary Plat/Subdivision Construction Plans


Mr. Sam Sebaali and Mr. Tom Rider were present to represent the application.




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




1.         An Osceola County Driveway Connection Permit for the entrance to Canoe Creek Road will need to be obtained prior to a pre-construction meeting and notice to proceed.

2.         The project will need to receive approval from Osceola County for the storm water discharge to the receiving ditches and County approval of the drainage structures for the roadway crossings of the County maintained ditches.

3.         A SFWMD Drainage Permit will need to be obtained prior to the pre-construction meeting and notice to proceed.

3.                   A general requirement for the width of the drainage easements for maintenance purposes is approximately two feet horizontal to each vertical foot of depth of the storm drain.  Please review the proposed storm drain inverts to determine the depth of the storm system and adjust all easements as necessary.  As an example between Lots 41 & 42, the pipe invert is approximately nine feet deep at the street and therefore the drainage easement should be twenty feet in width.


Mr. Sebaali noted that he would like to alter the depth of the pipe to resolve the problem.


Mr. Luthie noted that staff would prefer that solution.


4.                   The proposed culvert crossing on Sheet C-17 will need special attention to the footing design to ensure that the weight does not transfer directly to the ductile iron eight-inch sanitary sewer main.  We recommend shop drawings be submitted as soon as possible so that we can further evaluate the drainage structure.


Mr. Sebaali noted that he was aware of the situation.  He explained that he was focusing on Phase 1 only at this time and that he would address the issue during Phase 2.


6.         It appears that a conflict will exist between the storm drain and reclaim water main on Sheet C-18 in front of Lots 113 & 114. 

7.         We recommend a sidewalk be placed along the Canoe Creek Road right-of-way for connectivity purposes to other subdivisions and commercial areas along Canoe Creek Road.


Mr. Sebaali noted that he did not have an issue with the concept of installing a sidewalk, however, the sidewalk would cut through much of the wetland and that would be problematic.  He then asked if there were other options available to him.


Mr. Luthie noted that a variance would be required if the sidewalks were not installed but that he didn’t think that was something that staff could support.  He then asked what the County had to say about the matter.


Mr. Sebaali noted that plans had been submitted to the County but there had been no response from them as yet.


Mr. Luthie asked if installation of some type of boardwalk might be an option and how much encroachment there would be.


Mr. Sebaali noted that there was approximately 600 feet involved. 



Page 4, DRC Minutes – 01/30/03



Mr. Luthie noted that the final call would belong to the County but any time there is pedestrian traffic generated like that is to come for the shopping center, the City wants sidewalks provided.


Mr. Nearing briefly discussed an alternative going through Settler’s Trail.


Mr. Luthie noted that he understood the problem but he intended to leave the comment until the County had a chance to review the plans and render an opinion.




1.                   Reduce to a minimum of two sanitary sewer laterals per manhole structure.

2.                   Re-locate the sanitary sewer laterals on lot numbers 46 & 47 to the front of the property, for maintenance purposes.

3.                   The reclaimed water main stub-out from Canoe Creek Estates was installed for looping purposes. Provide a main to connect this portion to the end shown on plans.


Mr. Sebaali noted that it was going to be very expensive to provide the loop.


Mr. Mauro noted that he understood that but it had to be done because there was only one feed into Canoe Creek Estates.


Mr. Sebaali asked what size pipe would be required and Mr. Mauro noted that a 6” would be adequate.


4.                   Provide an air release valve on the water main and reclaimed water main at the high point of the canal crossing.

5.                   Change the City’s Standard Detail sheets with the most recent version.     




1.         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.


2.         Secure a second means of ingress/egress.


The issue of a second ingress/egress point was briefly discussed.



1.         No Comments




1.         There are a couple areas where the wetland buffer will need to be revised.  The first is along the road adjacent to Tract B, the second is on lot 94. This comment may also apply to lots 4 and 5.

2.                   Note 8 on page C-5 states a 15 foot utility easement centered on all side lot line. Yet the proposed building pads are set to only meet the side setback. Which is correct?


Mr. Sebaali noted that he understood the conflict and asked if a 10’ easement would be enough.


Mr. Nearing explained that any easements that are not expressly needed could be removed and Mr. Sebaali noted that he would remove those that were not needed.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that the plans would still need to show a 10’ easement along all road rights-of-way.


3.                   The landscape island at the entrance needs to be dedicated to the HOA.

4.                   There is a note that a FEMA map amendment has been processed have the surveyor show the new flood plain contours.

Page 5, DRC Minutes – 01/30/03



Mr. Sebaali noted that there had been a map amendment done and he would submit it to the Planning Department.


5.                   Provide a list of all road improvements required by Osceola County for Canoe Creek Rd.

6.                   The proposed building pads for pie shaped lot shall be redrawn so that the front façade is at the 75 feet width as noted in the typical lot standard. In R-1B you may have a 62.5 width revise the typical or building pads. I noticed lots 28, 29, 106, 107, 108, 94 and 95, other may exist


Mr. Sebaali noted that he understood the comment and would be using the 62.5 as a typical.



7.                   Check that lots 34 and 103 are adequate in size for your housing product, both lots are/will be corner lots.


Mr. Sebaali asked if the purpose was to provide a 15’ setback on the corner lots.


Mr. Nearing noted that was correct.  He also noted that the setbacks are to be from the ultimate row.


8.         Verify with 911 all street names

9.         Once the plat is completed Staff recommends that subdivision be rezone to R-1B to prevent inappropriate development from occurring.


10.        The Subdivision sign is to be permitted under a separate permit

11.        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.

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


Mr. Nearing noted that if there were changes to be done to the plans, they would need to be submitted right away if the project was going to make the February 16th agenda.  He also noted that the sidewalk issued needed to be resolved as soon as possible.


Mr. Luthie noted that the entrance way needed to be shown as a separate tract and Mr. Sebaali agreed.



13.               What is proposed for Tract F?


Mr. Sebaali explained that this was intended for a possible daycare facility or some light commercial use.  He noted that it could possibly be donated to the City for a possible fire substation to be given to the city in exchange for some assessment credits.


Fire Marshall Ennis advised Mr. Sebaali that this would not be a viable option since there was no need for a substation on Canoe Creek Road.


14.        How are the canals protected?


Mr. Sebaali explained that the site would be graded to make everything fit and that there would be erosion control provided once the grading was completed.




1.         On the May 15, 2002 Development Review Comments, the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department requested a landscaping plan. At this time, a landscaping plan has not been submitted. The area of interest is the entrance to the subdivision.

*Use the Land Development code, Article VIII, as a guideline for the required screening, buffers, interior medians, and plantings on rights-of-way and/or signage.

2.         On the May 15, 2002 Development Review Comments, the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department requested an aerial or tree survey for the City file. At this time, this site has an active Arbor Permit #00-671 (through JBK Investments, William Karp). One of the conditions was the submittal of an aerial or

Page 6, DRC Minutes – 01/30/03



            tree survey…and…replacement of a minimum of two (2) trees per lot, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Sheet C-5, Note #2 will not be accepted.




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



The DRC recommended approval with the conditions as stated.  The applicant will resubmit plans for sign-off only.





ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.