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




DATE OF MEETING:      January 9, 2002


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

Harry Fix


Mr. Nearing noted that there were no members of the general public present for this meeting.  He also noted that Comdr. Faucett was excused from this meeting.




1.         Approval of DRC Minutes for December 19, 2002


The DRC minutes of December 19, 2002 were approved by consensus of the Committee as submitted.



2.         Case #3-10.01 – Kissimmee Park Road Retail

                                                U.S. 192 & Kissimmee Park Road

                                                Site Plan


Mr. Shawn Hindle was present to represent the application.




1.         No comments at this time.




1.                   Provide a cross access easement for the contiguous lot.


Mr. Hindle explained that his client did not have a problem granting this easement as long as the adjacent property owner agreed to reciprocate.  He asked if the easement could simply be reserved if the property owner didn’t want to cooperate.


Mr. Nearing noted that staff was going to require the easement and that simple reservation wouldn’t be acceptable.


2.                   The separation between the building foot print and the proposed underground drainage system should be at least 30 feet apart.


Mr. Hindle asked why this separation was necessary.


Mr. Luthie explained noting concerns with possible undermining of the building.  “Here” and “there” was used in reference to the plans to indicate location.


Mr. Hindle noted that he would do an analysis of the situation and see how the issue could best be resolved.



Page 2, DRC Minutes – 01/09/03



Mr. Luthie noted that he realized that there was going to have to be an easement inside the property and that was why he wasn’t asking for additional easements.  He explained that had he known about this during the review of Dylan Plaza, there might have been alternative options available.


3.         The proposed driveway on Kissimmee Park Road must be right in/right out only.  The removal of the concrete divider will seriously effect the free flow of traffic on Kissimmee Park Road.  By providing a cross access to the corner parcel, vehicles will be able to exit onto Neptune Road in the future.


Mr. Hindle described some problems that were going to occur regarding traffic flow in and out of the site as a result of completion of the Neptune Road project.


Mr. Luthie and Mr. Hindle discussed the issue.  It was determined that much was going to depend on the final configuration of Neptune Road and that the cut wouldn’t be completely open but might allow a left in and right our.


Mr. Nearing noted that it would be important for the access to be located as far North as possible. 




1.                   Please fill-in the project information requested under COMMERCIAL, PROFESSIONAL, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS on the CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT application form that were left blank.  (A representative may do so by stopping by the Planning & Zoning Dept. offices and accessing the project file.)

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

3.                   A Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee in the amount of $660.00 shall paid prior to receiving a Notice to Proceed.  This amount is equal to 10% of the estimated sanitary sewer impact fee, as estimated by Resolution 98-27R.

4.                   The Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee amount shall be credited toward final impact fees for this development.  Final impact fees shall be determined at the time of building permit using the submitted architectural plans.  The balance of the sewer impact fee, the water impact fee and transportation impact fee and water and sewer tap fees shall be due and payable at that time.  If the development is permitted on or after April 1, 2003, an additional Public Safety impact fee can be imposed.


5.                   Staff recommends approval subject to the above conditions.


6.                   Resolution 98-27R estimates the sanitary sewer impact fee at the rate of $1,100 per 1,000 gross square feet of building under the Commercial uses category.  For this development:  6,000 gsf of proposed building X $1,100 ÷ 1,000 gsf = $6,600.00 estimated sanitary sewer impact fee.


Mr. Hindle noted that he did not have any problems with the Concurrency Management comments.


Mr. Nearing explained that the water and sewer impact fees were going to be increased and that the applicant would have to pay the rate that was in effect at the time of payment.


Mr. Hindle asked when the increase would be going into affect and Mr. Nearing noted that it would probably be mid April.  The new Public Safety impact fees for the Fire and Police Departments were also discussed briefly.




1.                   Indicate an 8” x 6” reducer at the connection point to the sanitary sewer.


Mr. Hindle noted that he would show the installation of a reducer as requested.


2.                   The lay out of this building with only one sewer lateral will not provide for any business with food preparations requiring a grease trap.


Mr. Hindle noted that he would talk to his client but may just go ahead with installation of a grease trap.


Page 3, DRC Minutes – 01/09/03





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 provide a cross-access easement from the entrance of this property to the property line abutting the property to the south.  This easement shall be recorded, and proof of its recording shall be provided for the official file prior to receiving a Notice to Proceed.  Please show said easement on the site plan.  (A similar cross access easement will be required of the property to the south.  This is to facilitate traffic movements.)

2.                   Please correct "SITE LOCATION" map on the cover page to shade in the entire subject property.  (There is a white rectangle which gives the appearance that a portion of the site isn't included.)

3.                   Please correct the Flood Zone information on the survey.  Flood Zone "C" is not longer a valid designation.

4.                   Please indicate the Flood Zone on Site Plan, Sheet 3, instead of just saying it's not in the 100-year flood zone.

5.                   Please correct the Site Plan (Sheet 3) to indicate the dimensions of the Loading Zone, the minimum of which is 12' x 45' per Section 3.18.5.A of the Land Development Code (LDC).

6.                   Please correct the Site Plan (Sheet 3) to add the number of bicycle parking spaces required and provided in the notes section next to vehicular parking.


After a brief discussion, Mr. Morgan noted that Mr. Hindle simply needed to add the information to the parking calculations shown on the plans.


7.                   Please correct the Site Plan (Sheet 3) to indicate the location, number and dimensions of the bicycle parking required by Table III-8 of the LDC.


Mr. Hindle noted that it was shown next to the dumpster.


8.                   Please explain why the sidewalk along Kissimmee Park Road does not continue across the entire length of the front of the subject property.


Mr. Hindle noted that installation of a sidewalk was not going to be possible.  He explained that, without filling in the ditch, the guardrail’s location was not going to provide enough room.


Mr. Nearing asked if there was a chance that DOT could do anything about it.


Mr. Hindle noted that there probably was not and explained that the pipe belonged to the City.


Mr. Nearing explained that a site variance was going to be required if there was to be no sidewalk installation.  He warned Mr. Hindle that the City Council would probably want him to install a bridge.


Mr. Hindle noted that he would discuss it with his client but he would probably end up dedicating that portion of the site to the County.


9.                   Please indicate on the Site Plan (Sheet 3) whether the silt fence will be taken down after completion of construction.  Will there be a permanent fence replacing the silt fence?


Mr. Hindle explained that once the area was stabilized and sodded the fencing would be removed.  He further noted that there was no intent to install any type of permanent fencing to replace it.



10.               Staff recommends approval with conditions noted above.  Plans shall be corrected to reflect all conditions prior to sign-off.



Page 4, DRC Minutes 01/09/03




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.

13.               The indicated use of Retail is a use which is compatible with the zoning of Highway Business.

14.               The rows of parking stalls that are 18' length are permitted by Section 3.18.3.A.1 of the LDC, because the 2' deducted from the parking stall length is added to adjacent landscaping and open space.

15.               The following is a note on the survey:  "THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT MADE A SEARCH OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS FOR EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY RECORD."  Why not?  How was the easement information shown on the survey obtained?  This is precisely the kind of information that is desired when constructing buildings and infrastructure.  Please correct or explain.




1.         On December 27, 2002, the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department reviewed the submitted Landscaping Plans with representatives of Schoolfield Properties. At this time, changes to the plan are being proposed and variances may be required. Therefore, this department will enter comments after reviewing the new submittal.




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




1.                   Please submit final approved site plan showing tenant build-out for addressing.  We have no plat or site plan on file for review.



The applicant will submit application for variances for sidewalks and landscaping.  Once council has taken action on the variances, the applicant will resubmit revised plans for sign-off only.




ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.