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




DATE OF MEETING:      May 29, 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                      Mark Luthie                  

Dave Ennis                    John Groenendaal          Ron Trowell                   Angelo Perri                 

Major Faucett                Todd Swindle




1.         Approval of Consent Agenda


The consent agenda of May 29, 2003 was approved as submitted.



2.         Case #3-42.04 – Canoe Creek Lakes Addition

                                                W of Canoe Creek Road adjacent to Canoe Creek Lakes

                                                Subdivision Construction Plans


Mr. Jim Askey was present to represent the application.




1.         This case has no effect the building department.




1.         Sheet #7 of 15, lot grading plan will need to be revised per the following comments.

a.         Please revise the lot grading plan for Lots 10 thru 14 by removing the modified designation and requiring the lots to meet the “A” grading plan.  The slope transition for the rear lot can be placed within the rights-of-way. 

b.                   Also, Lots 1 thru 3 can be changed to an “A” grading plan if additional fill is placed between Lots 22 thru 25 abutting Zion Drive.


Mr. Askey explained that he had to keep with the “A” grading plan because of the existing conditions.


c.                   Lots 4 thru 9 can remain modified since adequate drainage inlets are provided for the surface run-off.


The vacated ½ of the right of way was briefly discussed as were lots 39 & 42.  Mr. Nearing explained that the City could only abandon that portion that was actually inside the City at that time.


Mr. Luthie noted that the application needed to find out if the County ever intends to develop the right-of-way.  If not, that would resolve the entire issue.


Mr. Askey noted that he would not have a problem granting an easement if it were needed.


Mr. Nearing noted that he would prefer it not to be an easement but if that was the only resolution, at least do not make it an unobstructed easement.


Page 2, DRC Minutes – 05/29/03



The issue was further discussed.


2.         Sheet #8 of 15:

a.                   Based on the topographic survey it would appear that the majority of the undeveloped property is above the 100-year elevation of the storm water pond and therefore reducing the proposed roadway below natural grade is not recommended.


Mr. Askey asked Mr. Luthie if the intent was to keep the road above the 100 year elevation of the pond and Mr. Luthie noted that was correct.


Mr. Askey noted that it had to be this way because of the amount of money it was going to cost to provide the fill needed to bring the elevation up.


Mr. Luthie noted that economics would not be considered a factor for the City.


Mr. Askey noted that he would not be able to justify this requirement to his client.


Mr. Luthie noted that the only other option would be to somehow lower the elevation of the pond.


Mr. Askey noted that the pond could not be lowered without modifying the control structures and the existing permit.


Mr. Luthie noted that he was concerned about the road creating a sump effect during a 10 year event that would allow water to cover the road.


After further discussion, Mr. Luthie noted that he would leave the comment as stated and discuss the problem with the engineer to see if it could be resolved in another way.


Mr. Trowell asked if basing the houses on street level would help the situation.


Mr. Askey noted that was not an issue because they were discussing the 100 year FEMA elevation.  He noted that 3-4 feet above that was needed.


Mr. Nearing noted that Mr. Askey and Mr. Luthie would meet to discuss the matter outside this meeting.


3.         Sheet #8 of 15:

a.                   It appears that the “Court A” manhole designation SS-41-65 does not match up with the Creek Woods Drive extension manhole SS-41-62.


Mr. Askey noted that he would be renumbering the manholes.


4.                   On Sheet #3 of 15, the typical section for the 80-foot right-of-way must be revised to meet the minimum requirements of the Land Development Code.  Specifically the base material must be 8-inches thick and sub grade must be a minimum 10-inches.


Mr. Luthie noted that the plan was based on County standards.  He explained that if it was built to meet the City’s minimum standards it would also meet the County’s minimums.




1.                   A Certificate of Capacity approved by City Council shall be required prior to receiving a Notice to Proceed.  A Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee shall be required in the amount of $3,301.20 for 14 dwelling units prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed.

2.                   A separate Certificate of Capacity under separate application shall be required for any common facilities located in the Park.


3.                   Staff recommends approval with the above conditions.


Page 3, DRC Minutes – 05/29/03




4.                   The Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee equals 10% of the estimated sanitary sewer impact fee.  The estimated sanitary sewer impact fee is $2,358.000 per dwelling unit x 14 dwelling units x 10% = $3,301.20.  Per Resolution 98-27R.

5.                   The Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee shall be credited towards the final sewer impact fee at the time of building permit at a $235.80 per lot basis.  Impact fees shall be paid at the rate in effect at the time of building permit.

6.                   A list of current impact fees is available from the Planning & Zoning Department.


Mr. Nearing asked when the applicant needed his Certificate of Capacity.


Mr. Askey noted that he was going to need it as soon as Mr. Veal paid the fees.


Mr. Nearing noted that the Certificate of Capacity would have to be approved before a Notice to Proceed could be issued.




1.                   The sanitary sewer manhole numbers are in-correct. Please use numbers 41-79 through 41-83.

2.                   Limit the amount of sanitary sewer laterals to a maximum of two services per manhole structure.


Mr. Askey noted that he was in agreement with comments 1 & 2.


3.                   Extend the water main, reclaimed water main and sanitary sewer main along the entire frontage of this parcel along Creek Woods Drive.  


Mr. Askey asked if extension of the main was required by code and Mr. Mauro explained that it was.




1.                   Move the hydrant on lot one to the northeast corner.


Mr. Askey noted that he would move the hydrant as requested.


2.                   A hammer head-t turn around could be used instead of planned turn around. This could make connection to Creek Woods extension easier in the future.


Mr. Askey noted that he would prefer to have the cul-de-sac.


Mr. Ennis noted that the decision was up to the developer and he didn’t care as long as one or the other was installed.




1.                   Section 8.7.2.B of the Land Development Code (LDC) requires a 6’ height block or brick wall or berm separating residential properties from arterial or collector roads.  A 10’ Wall and Landscape Easement dedicated to the Home Owners Association shall be required along the north portion of Lot 1 and Lots 11 through 14 and the Park, but a wall or berm shall not be required to be installed until such time as a collector or arterial roadway way is constructed adjacent.

2.                   Will there be a subdivision sign for this development?  If yes, provide an easement for the sign(s) location.


Mr. Askey noted that he did not know about signage but he would find out from his client.


Mr. Morgan noted that up to two signs would be allowed.




Page 4, DRC Minutes – 05/29/03



3.                   Please provide in writing that all lots, except Lots 1 and 14, are at least 7,500 square feet in area and have a minimum lot width of 62.5 feet, and that Lots 1 and 14 are a minimum of 8,625 square feet in area and 71.875’ in width.  As is required by Table III-4 and Section 6.5.1.A.1 of the LDC.


Mr. Askey asked if this needed to be shown on the geometric plan and Mr. Morgan noted that it did.



4.                   Staff recommends approval of the construction plans with the above conditions.


5.                   The 5’ width Fence/Landscape Easement along the East side of the subject property (Lots 9, 10 and 11) is not required.  Half of the right-of-way was abandoned by Ordinance 2003-26, leaving only 17.5’ of right-of-way left.


Mr. Askey noted that it had been added to allow for fencing and landscaping.


6.                   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.

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




1.                   Sheet 2 of 15, General Note #15 meets the conditions of the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation Department. Recommend approval.




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




1.                   Submit a site plan to Osceola County Public Safety, Addressing Division, for approval of street names.


Mr. Morgan asked if Mr. Askey wanted the Certificate to go to City Council now and he noted that he did.




The DRC recommended approval with conditions.  The applicant will resubmit revised plans for sign-off within 60 days of this review.




ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 P.M.