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:      June 5, 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                    Eric Morgan                   Ron Trowell                   Major Faucett

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.         Case #03-78.01 – Fifth Street Development

                                                Brown Chapel Road

                                                Annexation/Land Use Amendment/Zoning

 

Mr. David Reid was present to represent the application.  He noted that the applicant was also present.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.    

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.                   None.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

2.                   Staff recommends approval of the request without conditions.

INFORMATION:

3.                   Impact fees and a Certificate of Capacity will be discussed at the time of site plan submittal.

4.                   A list of current impact fees can be obtained from the Planning & Zoning Department.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.         Water and sewer are available to this parcel. Extensions are required.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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.

3.         Is there enough access space to meet code requirements?

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment as to Annexation/LUA/Zoning.

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

            Bill Ellwood, OUC Development Services  (407) 236-9652 Fax (407) 236-9628

            500 South Orange Avenue                                  Email: developmentservices@ouc.com

            P.O. Box 3193

            Orlando, Florida  32802

Page 2, DRC Minutes – 06/05/03

 

 

3.         Once all the information is obtained by Development Services an Engineer will be assigned to the job.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Does the total existing development on the subject property exceed 10 dwelling units per acre density?  If not, please amend the Development Review application and the Concurrency Management application to request a zoning other than R-4.  Section 3.9.1 of the Land Development Code (LDC) prohibits rezoning any property to R-4 Multiple Family Dwelling District unless the existing structures exceed 10 dwelling units per acre.

 

Mr. Reid noted that he thought the application reflected the correct density.

 

Mr. Nearing explained that the LDC had been amended by the City Council and that no new R-4 zoning was allowed.

 

Mr. Morgan noted that the application requested an R-4 zoning with a High Density Residential land use designation.

 

The uses of surrounding properties were briefly discussed.

 

Mr. Reid noted that he would discuss the issue with his client but he thought the R-3 zoning would fit their needs.

 

2.                   Please provide a written narrative for the annexation, small scale land use amendment, and rezoning request which contains a stated desired maximum density of dwelling units per acre and why.

3.                   Please provide a written response to each of the 16 items under Section 3.4.3.C.2.a of the LDC with regard to the request for annexation, small scale land use amendment, and rezoning.

 

Mr. Morgan briefly explained what information needed to be included in the narrative needed to proceed with the case.

 

Mr. Reid noted that he would probably be asking for the maximum density allowed under the provisions for R-3 zoning.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

4.                   Staff recommends continuing this case pending receipt of the materials requested above.

5.                   Staff recommends that the applicant make application to the Development Review Committee for review of a CONCEPT PLAN for the proposed development on the subject property.  Issues regarding right-of-way access and traffic may affect dwelling densities and design consideration of future development on

the subject property.  Please contact the Planning & Zoning Department should the applicant wish to have a concept plan reviewed.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the concept plan was a recommendation only.

 

Mr. Morgan noted that the access to the site needed to be reviewed.  He explained that he did not want the applicant to find out later that additional right-of-way was going to be needed.

 

Mr. Nearing asked if the units were to be leased or fee simple.

 

Mr. Reid noted that he was not sure.

 

Mr. Scott Steward addressed the Committee noting that he was present to represent the buyer of the property.  He discussed the access for the property advising that it was a platted easement.

 

Mr. Morgan noted that he wasn’t saying it wouldn’t work, only that there could be problems that would need to be resolved before the project could be approved.

 

Mr. Steward noted that timing was an issue and he wanted the case to move forward.

Page 3, DRC Minutes – 06/05/03

 

 

Mr. Nearing recommended that Mr. Reid discuss the project with the Fire Marshall.  He noted that, given the number of units, he could probably let him know if the access was going to be acceptable.

 

The issue of continuance was briefly discussed.  Mr. Reid asked when the submittal needed to be made to keep the request moving forward.

 

Mr. Morgan noted that all of the information needed to be submitted as soon as possible but no later than next week.  He explained that the public hearing could be advertised and then pulled at the meeting if it wasn’t ready.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that if the advertising was done and then the case was pulled, the applicant would be responsible for the cost of that advertising.

 

INFORMATION:

6.                   Should the applicant request R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling District zoning (see PLANNING CONDITION # 1), a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre is allowed with the actual density set at the time of rezoning, per Section 3.9.2 of the LDC.

7.                   Per the Comprehensive Plan, the R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling District zoning is only allowed in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) future land use category.  The MDR density is 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre.

8.                   Adjacent Future Land Use:  N - City Public/Institutional & County High Density Residential; S - City Commercial; E - City Professional/Private; and, W - City Commercial.

9.                   Adjacent Zoning:  N - City Highway Business & County RS-2; S - City Highway Business; E - City Professional; and, W - City Highway Business.

10.               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.

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

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.         If this request is approved, the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department requires that all common areas (such as: ditches, ponds, trees/landscaping, etc.) be dedicated to an active Home Owners Association. This department cannot accept additional maintenance responsibilities, at this time.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

1.         The District has no comment regarding annexation.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment regarding annexation.

 

FINDING:

The DRC approved the applicant’s request with the conditions that the application is to be amended to reflect a request for R-3 zoning and that a narrative be submitted addressing the 16 items as outlined in the LDC.

 

SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS


Page 4, DRC Minutes – 06/05/03

 

 

2          Case #3-79.01 – Sandhill Cove

Brown Chapel Road

Rezoning to PUD

 

Mr. John Kipp of RHPA 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.    

 

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

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Staff has accepted the application for processing, however, prior to proceeding to public hearings, the following materials will be required:

A    Current Certificate of Title;

B    Letter of authorization permitting the applicant to process the application;

C    A survey of the property; and

D    A preliminary master plan identifying the layout of the project.

 

Mr. Kipp noted that he would provide the necessary documents.

 

2.                   Does the legal description provided include the westernmost 50 feet of the site which is not located within the City limits?  Staff would appreciate it if the applicant could provide an electronic copy of the legal, if available.

 

Mr. Kipp noted that he would make application for the annexation.

 

3.                   The narrative indicates that the site is 22 acres in size.  After subtracting out the westernmost 50 feet which is not located within the City, does the site continue to meet the 20 acre minimum required to process a PUD?  If not, the applicant will need to file for a waiver from Section 3.11.12.B of the LDC.  Staff will support a waiver should one be required.

 

Mr. Kipp noted that the site was over the required 20 acres.

 

4.                   The application seems to indicate that the property is actually divided into 2 different parcels, however, the two numbers on the application are identical.  Please clarify.

 

Mr. Kipp noted that this was a clerical error and he would make the changes needed to clarify the parcels.

 

5.                   Will carports be a mandatory improvement?  If so, they should be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line to ensure that 2 parking spaces can be accommodated on the site.

 

Page 5, DRC Minutes – 06/05/03

 

 

Mr. Kipp noted that the five foot (5’) setbacks were needed to make the project work and Mr. Nearing noted that staff could probably support that.

 

6.                   Because the property must be platted prior to the sale of individual lots, setbacks from unit to unit will not be required, as all setbacks will need to be from the property lines.

7.                   The narrative indicates that rear setbacks will vary on a lot-by-lot basis, with 8 units having a minimum rear setback of 10 feet.  Is this due to current siting of existing units?  It is more desirable to have 1 setback for all lots.  If the lots in question can accommodate a unit in the future meeting rear setbacks greater than 10 feet, it may be more desirable to cause these 8 units to become nonconforming structures at this time which may be replaced in the future by units meeting setbacks.  If the lots in question can not accommodate a standard size unit, and meet more stringent setbacks, we will use different standards for them.  One section of the narrative indicates that 5 foot rear setbacks are being requested.  This will not be acceptable.  A 5 foot rear setback would not permit placement of any accessory structures in the rear yard, which is where such structures are traditionally located.  With the exception of the 8 units discussed above, a general rear yard setback of 15 feet appears to be sufficient to accommodate the majority of the lots.

8.                   Staff is in agreement with the following setbacks:

a.                   Front                          20 feet

b.                   Sides                         5 feet

c.                   Side Street Yard         15 feet

d.                   Accessory structures  5 feet

9.                   According to a sketch provided for the planned development, there will ultimately be 139 units.  What rear setback will be applied to lots beyond Lot 57?  Also, please provide a revised sketch outlining the lot numbers to date.  This will assist with determining which lots are being discussed.

10.               Do you intend to limit detached accessory structures to rear yards only?

 

Mr. Kipp noted that they would be limited and explained where they were to be allowed.

 

11.               If carports are to be mandatory, will the proposed setbacks accommodate the carports?

 

Mr. Kipp explained that it would all be the same setback.

 

12.               Please identify a minimum living space for the units.

13.               What will the minimum lot area be?

 

Mr. Kipp explained that it would be a minimum of 4,000 square feet.

 

14.               What is the proposed minimum lot width?

 

Mr. Kipp noted that it would be fifty feet (50’).

 

15.               Given the compact nature of the proposed layout, will 50% lot coverage for structures be sufficient?

 

Mr. Kipp noted that it would be sufficient.

 

16.               In general, maximum impervious surface permitted on a lot is 80%.  Can the site be developed under this guideline, or will an alternate standard be needed?

 

Mr. Nearing noted that this would include anything “under roof” and Mr. Kipp noted that he was not sure but would check the plans to verify.

 

17.               Ownership shall be fee-simple.

18.               All parking shall be on paved surfaces.

 

Mr. Kipp noted that he would indicate paved surfaces as a note on the plans.

 

19.               How will recreation equipment, such as boats, rv’s, trailers, etc, be dealt with?

Page 6, DRC Minutes – 06/05/03

 

 

Mr. Kipp noted that a separate space would be provided.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that if the area being considered was part of the open space calculations, it could not be used.  He explained that parking such as that was allowed only on pavement and the space could not longer be considered “open”.

 

20.               Please provide a physical description of the buffer between the units and Brown Chapel Road, e.g., berm x feet in height with side slopes of n topped with ?? plantings.  This description will be included as the required buffer in the ordinance to avoid the need for any other buffering requirements through the platting process.

 

Mr. Kipp noted that he would make sure there was a legal description provided with the next submittal.

 

21.               It is strongly suggested that fencing standards be developed, including such factors as materials, height, locations, etc.

 

Mr. Kipp explained that there were no fences allowed now but it was being considered if there was some type of architectural review done.

 

22.               Ground mounted satellite antennas shall not be located in a front or side street yard.  They shall only be located in a side yard if it can be verified that a usable signal can not be obtained in the rear yard.

 

Mr. Kipp noted that only wall mounted satellite antennas were going to be allowed.

 

23.               A final survey shall be provided prior to obtaining a final inspection on each unit.

 

Mr. Nearing explained that the final surveys would need to be sealed and would be treated like any other lot in a platted subdivision.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

24.               Since this is to be a gated community, the City will not accept the street rights-of-way.

25.               The minimum right-of-way for any street in the City, public or private, is 50 feet.  A subdivision variance will be required in conjunction with the platting process.

26.               While the City can not annex the portion of Brown Chapel Road abutting the subject property, the westernmost 50 feet could be annexed and incorporated into the project, thereby increasing the open space calculations, and other aspects of the site.

27.               Since a preliminary master plan will be required with the rezoning, you may wish to also submit a Preliminary Plat for review simultaneously.

28.               Since there will be common areas and recreational facilities, a Homeowners’ Association will be needed to maintain those improvements.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department recommends the rezoning request with the following conditions:

a.       Keep the easement clear from any obstructions (such as: trees, sheds, plantings, etc.), located to the South side of the existing ditch/canal that runs East and West of this property. This department is partly responsible for maintenance of this ditch/canal and will remove anything that becomes an obstruction of such maintenance, without further notice.

 

Ms. Duffy explained that there had been problems in the past with people encroaching easements with trees and other plantings.  She noted that the Parks Department would remove the plantings without notice if it became a problem.

 

b.       Keep all common areas (such as: ponds, ditches, berms, trees, landscaping, etc.) dedicated to an active Home Owners Association.

 

 

Page 7, DRC Minutes – 06/05/03

 

 

Ms. Duffy noted that there was a fence located between this subdivision and Sugarmill.  She noted that it had been constructed as a part of a past agreement and she wanted to make sure it was included as a part of this approval.

 

FINDING:

This request was approved with conditions.  The case will move forward to the Planning Board and City Council for public hearings.

 

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS


Page 8, DRC Minutes – 06/05/03

 

 

3.         Case #03-80.01 – AmSouth Bank

                                                Lot #1, Dylan Plaza (4359 13th Street)

                                                Site Plan

 

Mr. Bill Tamala was present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No additional comments at this time.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

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 in the amount of $420.20 shall be paid prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, per Resolution 98-27R.  The Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee shall be credited towards the sewer impact fee at the time of building permit.  The balance of all impact and tap fees shall be at the rate in effect at the time of building permit.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

3.                   Staff recommends approval with the above conditions.

INFORMATION:

4.                   The Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee equal 10% of the estimated sanitary sewer impact fee.  For this development, this is:  3,820 sf of building x $1,100 ÷ 1,000 = $4,202.00 x 10% = $420.20.  Per Resolution 98-27R.

5.                   A list of all impact fees is available from the Planning & Zoning Department upon request.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A sanitary sewer cleanout is required every 75 feet and every change in direction. Please add two additional cleanouts.

2.                   On sheet no. C2, under the Utility Data Information, change the size of the reducer to a 6” x 2”.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

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.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The owner will install all primary conduit and the concrete transformer pad.  The secondary conduit, wire, and terminations are the responsibility of the owner.

2.                   A utility easement will be required once the location of the transformer and primary run is determined.

3.                   The existing power poles along US-192 will be relocated to the rear of the property in conjunction with the new Publix Supermarket.

 

Mr. Tamala asked if this was just a statement or if he needed to do something to satisfy the comment.

 

Mr. Perri explained that it was an informational note only.

 

4.                   There may be costs to provide electric service to this project, please contact Bill Ellwood.

5.                   OUC can provide parking lot lights for this project.  Please contact Bill Ellwood.

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

Bill Ellwood, OUC Development Services  (407) 236-9652   Fax (407) 236-9628

500 South Orange Avenue                                  Email:  developmentservices@ouc.com

Page 9, DRC Minutes 06/05/03

 

 

P.O. Box 2193

Orlando, Florida  32802

7.         Once all the information is obtained by Development Services, an Engineer will be assigned to the job.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   It appears from the survey provided that the building site is in the “AE” Flood Zone.  No building permit shall be issued until a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) has been processed and granted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  At such time that a LOMA has been issued, a revised survey of the site shall be provided to the Planning & Zoning Department for the official file.

2.                   A Certificate of Flood Elevation shall be required as spelled out in Section 3.20.21.C.2.b of the LDC at Foundation Survey.

3.                   Please correct either the Development Review application and Concurrency Management Review application OR the Sheet C0 of the site plan to indicate the correct area of the site (80,992 sf or 80,474 sf).

4.                   Please add Bicycle Parking requirements and data to Sheet C0 under SITE DATA as is required by Table III-8 of the LDC, or obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment.  Please indicate the bicycle parking location and dimensions on Sheet C1 or a note that a variance is granted along with the date and case number.

5.                   Per Section 6.13.1 of the LDC, the minimum parking stall length for 60-degree angle parking is 21’.  Please correct the parking stall dimensions for the southern most 4 parking spaces, or obtain a site variance from the City Council.

6.                   Per Section 6.13.1 of the LDC, the minimum travelway width is 16’ (excluding drive-thru aisles).  Please correct the travelway widths of the drive-thru by-pass lane and the southern most site egress to meet the minimum width, or obtain a site variance from City Council.

 

Mr. Tamala asked if this referenced a by pass lane.

 

Mr. Morgan and Mr. Tamala, utilizing a copy of the plans, discussed the location of the travelway and the width needed.  Nothing was verbalized for inclusion in these minutes.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the landscaping needed to keep in mind view of the sign.  He explained that there had been problems in the past with some sights wanting to remove plantings because they obstructed the view of the signs.

 

7.                   Section 6.14.1 of the LDC requires a minimum 5’ width sidewalk across the frontage of this site.  Please indicate on Sheet C1 whether one exists or show where one will be provided, or obtain a site variance from City Council.

8.                   Per Section 8.8.7.4(b) of the LDC, no more than 10 parking spaces in a row is permitted without a parking island.  Please correct the necessary sheets for the 11 parking spaces adjacent to the bank building, or obtain a site variance from City Council.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

9.                   Staff recommends approval with the above conditions.

INFORMATION:

10.               “Banks and financial institutions” is a permitted use within the HB zoning district.

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.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

INFORMATION:

The St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department was part of the Pre-Development meeting on April 14, 2003. Many items were addressed using a conceptual plan as the guideline.

CONDITIONS:

1.                    Please change the proposed four (4) Live Oaks (Quercus virginiana), located along Highway 192 (in-between the entrance and the first interior median), to another type of tree. These trees, when mature will block signage; causing a concern with our department. Please revise.

 

Page 10, DRC Minutes – 06/05/03

 

 

2.                    In accordance with Section 8.8.7.3 (b) a tree is required to be planted for every twenty five (25) feet or a fraction thereof. Please revise.

 

Ms. Duffy explained where the 25’ planting requirement was.

 

3.                    Please change ½ of the proposed ten (10) Live Oaks (Quercus virginiana), located along the East/Southeast side of the site, to another type of tree. The green space provided will not allow all of the Live Oaks to mature without causing structural damage to surrounding areas and/or impact the accesses. Please revise. NOTE: tree diversity is highly recommended by this department.

4.                    If Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia indica) are proposed, they shall be changed to standards. This department has continual code enforcement issues with sites that use multi-trunk Crape Myrtles and maintain them below minimum requirements of the code. Please revise.

 

Ms. Duffy noted that she wanted the Myrtles to be single trunks because they were less likely to be topped.  She explained that they were currently shown with multiple trunks.

 

5.                    All required green space calculations shall be added to Sheet L1. This department will not accept attachments. Please revise.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval with conditions.  The applicant will submit revised plans for sign-off only.

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

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