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

CITY OF ST. CLOUD

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

DATE OF MEETING:      January 2, 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                  

John Groenendaal          Eric Morgan                   Ron Trowell                   Comdr. Faucett

Harry Fix                       Bill Johnston

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

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

 

1.         Approval of Consent agenda for January 2, 2003

 

The following items were approved by consensus of the committee.  That agenda consisted of the following items:

 

            1) DRC Minutes of October 31, 2002

                                        November 14, 21 & 27, 2002

                                        December 5 & 12, 2002

            2) Case #3-23.01 – Sword, Nanette – 2201 17th St. – annexation deferral

 

 

2.         Case #3-3.01 – Milt’s Car Care (continued from 10/21/02)

                                                803 13th Street

                                                Conditional Use (Vehicles for hire in HB zoning)

 

Mr. Milt Campbell and Mr. Schwieger were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         The proposed truck rental location along Illinois Avenue is not safe, because vehicles will back into the public rights-of-way.

 

Mr. Campbell noted that there had never been any such problems at his site.  He explained that he might be able to rearrange things so that the vehicles would be parked in the front.  He also noted that the City’s garbage truck currently access the site and backs out into the street with no problem.

 

Mr. Luthie explained that the comment had been made because of the novice drivers that would be backing the trucks up.  He noted that most of them would have little experience in driving a large vehicle or trailer.

 

Mr. Schwieger explained that the people renting the vehicles would not be backing them anywhere.  He noted that a staff member would bring the vehicle to the front of the building where the renter would exit the site onto U.S. 192.

 

 

Page 2, DRC Minutes 01/02/03

 

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he could modify the comment to state, “…no backing onto Illinois Avenue unless driven by someone affiliated with the business”.

 

Mr. Campbell explained that when the vehicles are returned, they are dropped off at the front of the building and then moved to the rear by a staff member.

 

Mr. Morgan noted that there was more traffic than usual near the site because of the convenience store and gas station and the traffic in the area was briefly discussed.

 

Mr. Groenendaal asked if the comment regarding backing onto the street should be made a condition and Mr. Luthie noted that it should.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

INFORMATION:

1.                   This case has no effect on concurrency as presented.  Additions of building structures to the subject property shall result in CONCURRENCY REVIEW.

 

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.

 

POLICE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No Comments

 

PLANNING

CONDITION:

1.                   The applicant provide landscaping in accordance with Sections 8.7.4, 8.7.5 and 8.7.6 of the Land Development Code (i.e. 10' along 13th Street and Illinois Avenue, 5' the other two sides) of sufficient height and opacity to disguise the negative off-site visual impacts of the existing garage and the requested rental business.  The existing subject property is devoid of landscaping and the area labeled as "GRASS" on the site plan appears to contain a tire rack, a fuel oil storage structure and various clutter.  There is concern with the general appearance of neglect to the property, with letters missing from the sign facing Illinois Avenue and sign panels missing from the free standing sign along 13th Street.  Intensification of the subject property would not be in the interest of the City without visual mitigation/relief.  The subject property is a legally nonconforming site with regard to landscaping and buffering requirements in the Highway Business (HB) zoning district.

 

Mr. Campbell noted that he was working on correcting some of these issues.  He explained that he was having trouble finding letters that match the ones on the existing sign.  He also noted that there was between 16 and 18 inches along the front of the building that could be dressed with sod or small shrubs.  He also explained that there was a place in the corner of the site where he could plant shrubs.  He noted that he had them there before but the City made him remove them because they were too tall.

 

The possible species of shrubs was discussed briefly.

 

Mr. Morgan noted that the area to which Mr. Campbell referred was in the right-of-way and he didn’t know what the City’s policy was on letting someone use it for plantings.

 

 

Page 3, DRC Minutes – 01/02/03

 

 

Mr. Nearing explained that the City would not allow any landscaping in the right-of-way and that all of the required landscaping would have to be on site.

 

Mr. Duffy noted that there was no room on the site for landscaping.

 

Mr. Campbell noted that he was willing to work with the City on this and that he would clean up the west end of the site and provide fill and sod for it.  He also noted that he would remove the vehicles stored on the site.

 

Mr. Nearing explained Mr. Campbell was going to have to submit a scaled site plan showing existing parking, proposed additional parking, landscaping, buffers, etc. before the application could be moved forward for Public Hearings.  He further explained that Mr. Campbell was going to have to show that he could meet all of the requirements for the existing business plus those needed to support the proposed new business.

 

2.                   A site plan and a landscaping plan for the site showing the required landscape buffers shall be provided prior to submitting this for the required public hearings.  If variances are required, said variances shall be obtained prior to the Conditional Use request going forward to the required public hearings.  Failure to produce a site plan and landscaping plan that complies with the Land Development Code shall result in a recommendation of denial from staff for this request.

RECOMMENDATION:

3.                   Staff recommends denial of the request for a "Vehicles for Hire (i.e. U-Haul, Ryder, etc.)" use Conditional Use at the current location because: a) staff concern for rental trucks being backed directly onto Illinois Avenue so close to 13th Street; b) lack of landscaping on the site and the general negative off-site visual impacts of the existing site, which would only be intensified by this request's approval; and, c) the applicant has not demonstrated that landscape buffering can be installed on the subject property and have the site comply with the LDC by submission of a proposed site plan and landscaping plan.

INFORMATION:

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.                   Land Development Code Section 3.4.3.C.5.b, Factual Matters regarding Conditional Use requests heard by the Planning Board, contain six items which the Planning Board addresses in its recommendation of approval, approval with conditions or denial to City Council.  As follows is staff's position on these six matters based upon the information presented:

            1)  Consistent with the general pattern of land development within the zoning district.

            "Vehicles for Hire (i.e. U-Haul, Ryder, etc.)" use is consistent with the general pattern of development of the HB zoning district and development along 13th Street.  There are numerous businesses of this kind along 13th Street currently, some of which actually have the rental trucks and equipment visible from the roadway.

      2)  Is the conditional use consistent with the trends of development in the area or neighborhood, as opposed to being detrimental to the area or neighborhood.

            Intensification of uses on the subject property as it currently exists would be detrimental to the area and neighborhood with regard to off-site visual impacts.

3)   Is the conditional use consistent with the patterns of development intensity in the area or   neighborhood.

            It is consistent with the pattern of development intensity in the area as many commercial uses existing along 13th Street.

4)   Does the conditional use have reasonable effect on existing traffic patterns, movements and intensities without adverse impacts.

            The additional automobile traffic generated would not have an adverse impact on traffic patterns, movements and intensities, but the proposed location of the rental trucks (up to 26' in length) and them backing directly onto Illinois Avenue and them backing so close to an intersection with 13th Street would have an adverse impact on traffic movements and safety.

5)   Is the conditional use consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.

            The proposed conditional use, a commercial use, is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.

6)  Can the conditional use development be designed to function effectively for its intended purpose without creating negative off-site impacts for adjoining parcels.

                 

Page 4, DRC Minutes – 01/02/03

 

 

            Staff recommends additional landscaping to mitigate the negative off-site visual impacts of the existing site.  If no site improvements are required/installed, it is questionable still whether the location of the rental trucks and their backing directly onto Illinois Avenue so close to 13th Street makes the site "function effectively."  If additional landscaping is required, the applicant has not demonstrated that the improvements can be installed, still comply with the Land Development Code and still have the site "function effectively."

 

PARKS & RECREATION

INFORMATION:

1.         The St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department shall inform the Committee that this site cannot hold the       intended use and have sufficient room for buffers and/or plantings.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         This case will require approval by the City’s Engineering Department only.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended continuance of this case until such time as the applicant can submit a scaled site plan showing existing parking, additional required parking, landscaping and buffers adequate to meet existing City codes for both businesses.

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 5, DRC Minutes –
01/02/03

 

 

3.         Case #2-82.04 – Publix @ Dylan Plaza

                                                U.S. Hwy 192 & Kissimmee Park Road

                                                Site Plan

 

Mr. Wayne Schoolfield and Mr. Kevin Schoolfield were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         This case has no effect on the building department at this time.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         A Certificate of Capacity will be processed through City Council at the next available meeting.  A sewer capacity reservation fee equal to 10% of the total sewer impact fee shall be required to be paid prior to Notice to Proceed.  The fee is calculated as: 2,400 sf x $1,100/ 1,000 sf = $2,640 x 10% = 264.00. This amount will be applied toward final calculated sewer impact fees.  Water and Sewer impact fees are calculated using fixture unit values per the Southern Plumbing Code.  All impact fees are due prior to Certificate of Occupancy.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.         The grease traps need to be moved to obtain a minimum separation of 10 feet from the water main.

 

The location of the grease traps was briefly discussed with Mr. Mauro explaining that the needed to be shifted back away from the building.

 

Mr. Schoolfield noted that he would advise the engineer.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.         Get the ROW vacated to avoid issues with ISR for the site.

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.

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

 

Mr. Nearing noted that there still needed to be an application made for the abandonment.  He noted that once the abandonment took place the space could be added to the impervious calculations and that would resolve the problem of the ISR.

 

Mr. Schoolfield noted that he thought the abandonment had been submitted and Ms. Hobbs explained that she had not received an application for any abandonment within Dylan Plaza.  She noted that she would verify that fact and notify the engineer if an application had been submitted.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

INFORMATION:

1.                   The St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department does not have a concern with changes to landscaping/irrigation section, submitted on Sheet C-3. However, it will be the responsibility of the Engineer of Record to notify the Landscape Architect.

 

Page 6, DRC Minutes – 01/02/03

 

 

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

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval with the applicant to submit and insert revised sheet showing grease trap relocation.

 

SEE DRC SIGN OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Page 7, DRC Minutes –
01/02/03

 

 

4.         Case # 03-18.01 – Chisholm Estates

                                                NE Corner of Chisholm Park Rd & Albany Ave

                                                Water/Sewer Request (Major)

 

Mr. Jimmy Askey was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

2.         No comment.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Extension of City water and sewer service outside the City limits shall required approval of the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning Board.

2.                   The Concurrency Management application was not filled out completely.  What is the Project Density (i.e. number of units ÷ total acreage)?  Is this project phased?  (If yes, which phase is this request for?)  Please provide written answers on a signed letter so that it might be attached to the Concurrency Management application in the project file.

 

Mr. Morgan asked if the project was to be phased.  He noted that the information had been left off of the Concurrency application.

 

Mr. Askey noted that it would be only one phase consisting of 35 lots.  He asked if he needed to submit a corrected Concurrency application.

 

Mr. Morgan noted that he could come by his office and complete the form that was submitted with the application.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

3.                   Staff recommends approval of the request for extension of City water and sewer service outside the City, subject to DRC conditions.

4.                   The subject property is not contiguous with the City limits, therefore a recommendation for "Deferral of Annexation" shall accompany the recommendation for approval of this request for extension of City water and sewer service outside the City.

INFORMATION:

5.                   Sufficient water and sewer capacity exists to serve this project without an adverse impact on meeting current demands.

6.                   See CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT comments for DRC case #3-18.02 Chisholm Estates Construction Plans for Certificate of Capacity information, impact fees, etc.

 

The issue of when reservation fees are paid and the Certificate of Capacity is issued was discussed.

 

Mr. Nearing recommended that Mr. Askey advise his client that impact fees are going up soon.

 

Mr. Askey asked by how much they were to be increased and Mr. Nearing noted that he would need to check with Mr. MacKichan since he was drafting the Ordinance.

 

7.                   Because the subject property does not abut the City limits, annexation would not comply with state statutes.  Therefore, a land use amendment and zoning will not be processed at this time.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.         Water and sewer are available to this parcel.

 

Page 8, DRC Minutes – 01/02/03

 

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

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

 

PARKS & RECREATION

INFORMATION:

1.         This request does not have an impact on the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department, at this time.

 

PLANNING

INFORMATION:

1.                   See CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT comments for this case, DRC #3-18.02 Chisholm Estates Water/Sewer Request.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         The District has no comment regarding this case.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval of the applicant’s request for connection to water and sewer.  They also recommended deferral of annexation for the subject parcel.

 

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 9, DRC Minutes –
01/02/03

 

 

5.         Case # 03-18.01 – Chisholm Estates

                                                NE Corner of Chisholm Park Rd & Albany Ave

                                                Water/Sewer Construction Plans

 

Mr. Jimmy Askey was 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

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A Certificate of Title, a Petition for Annexation, and an Encumbrance for Annexation into the City of St. Cloud shall be required to be submitted and accepted by the Planning & Zoning Department prior to receiving City water and sewer service.

2.                   A Certificate of Capacity approved by City Council shall be required prior to receiving City water and sewer service.  Because this project is outside the City limits, 1/3 of the sanitary sewer impact fee for this project ($25,608.33) shall be paid prior to scheduling the Certificate of Capacity before City Council.  The balance of the sanitary sewer impact fee ($51,216.67) shall be due and payable within 90 days of the City Council approval date of the Certificate of Capacity.  A potable water impact fee of $495.00 per unit, a potable water tap fee of $240.00 per unit, and a sanitary sewer tap fee of $125.00 per unit shall be due and payable at the time of water meter request.

 

Mr. Askey asked if he could move forward with a pre-construction conference and construction prior to any of this being done.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that he could not.

 

Mr. Askey then asked if this would hold up the DEP permits and Mr. Nearing noted that it would.

 

Mr. Morgan explained that Mr. Askey’s client needed to understand that when the final fees are paid at the request for meter installation, the increased impact fees will be in place.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that again that Mr. MacKichan could be contacted regarding the new fees and when they would go into effect.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

3.                   Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Capacity for 35 single family detached dwellings with the conditions as required by the DRC.

INFORMATION:

4.                   No phasing of the project was indicated in the plans nor the application materials.

5.                   The sanitary sewer impact fee currently is $2,195.00 per singe family dwelling.  $2,195.00 x 35 lots = $76,825.00 sanitary sewer impact fee total at current rates.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The sanitary sewer lift station and manholes are required to be listed with the City approved numbering system. Please show the lift station as number 72 and the manholes in sequence starting with 72-01. 

2.                   The location of the sanitary sewer main within the easement between lot numbers 26 and 27 will have to be re-located to a different location. The current location is not accessible for maintenance.

3.                   Replace sheet numbers 16 through 20 with the most current version of the Standard Detail Drawings.  

 

Mr. Askey noted that he would make sure the plans were corrected.

 

Page 10, DRC Minutes – 01/02/03

 

 

Mr. Askey asked what the problem was with the easement between lots 26 and 27.

 

Mr. Mauro noted that he did not think the City could get in for maintenance.

 

Mr. Askey asked if he could simply add more footage to the easement.

 

Mr. Mauro noted that it would help but he still had concerns over drivability.

 

Assist. Fire Marshall Johnston noted that the Fire Department has this type of problem from time to time.  He explained that they resolve the problem by requiring a stabilized surface that the owner can then sod over.

 

Mr. Askey asked Mr. Mauro if it was a problem with inadequate width or stabilization.

 

Mr. Mauro noted that it was both but most importantly the issue of stabilization.

 

Mr. Askey asked if he could meet with Mr. Mauro after the meeting to see if the problem could be resolved and Mr. Mauro noted that he could.

 

Mr. Mauro also noted that he wanted to see service provided to that parcel containing the bait shop.  He noted that he did not want to have to cut the road later to provide the service.

 

Mr. Askey noted that he would discuss it with his client.

 

In reference to the issue standard detail sheets, Mr. Askey noted that he thought the latest sheets had been provided.

 

Mr. Mauro noted that some minor changes had been made recently.

 

Mr. Luthie advised Mr. Askey to contact Wendy in Public Works for the newest details.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         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)

2.                   An Approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where an access road is a dead end and is in excess of 150 foot (46m) in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum center line radius of 50 foot (15m). The grade, surface and location shall be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. NFPA1 3-5.3.

 

Mr. Askey noted concern with this comment and the issue of required cul-de-sac width was discussed along with the difference in County and City requirements.

 

Mr. Johnston noted that he would discuss the issue with Mr. Ennis when he returned next week.

 

Mr. Askey noted that he did not think it was going to be possible to give the City what they were asking.

 

Mr. Johnston recommended that Mr. Askey contact Mr. Ennis on Monday.

 

Mr. Luthie asked if there had been problems in the past with inadequate cul-de-sac widths or with emergency services vehicles being able to navigate in existing cul-de-sacs.

 

Mr. Johnston noted that there had been problems but more so with vehicles parking in the cul-de-sac than inadequate room.

 

Page 10, DRC Minutes – 01/02/03

 

 

3.         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. 6.1.21.3)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

4.         Move the following hydrants: lot 4 to lot5, lot7 to the corner, and lot 9 to 11.

5.         Delete the hydrant at lot 31.

 

Bill Johnston explained the recommended changes.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   See CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT comments for this case, DRC #3-18.01 Chisholm Estates (W/S) Construction Plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

2.                   Staff recommends approval of the request with conditions as required by the DRC.

INFORMATION:

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.

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

PARKS & RECREATION

INFORMATION:

1.         This department did not have any Landscaping Plans included within the Construction Plans packet. Since the application states that the property is not within the City limits, the tree protection and landscaping requirements shall follow guidelines with Osceola County.

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         This project will require approval by the City Engineering Department only.

 

FINDING:

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

 

 

ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.