Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
CITY OF ST. CLOUD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES
MEETING: May 29,
Services Complex 1st Floor Conference Room
2901 17th Street, St. Cloud
CHAIRMAN: David Nearing, Planning/Zoning Director
SECRETARY: Marty Hobbs, Development Officer
Mauro Kim Duffy Mark Luthie
Dave Ennis John Groenendaal Ron Trowell Angelo Perri
Faucett Todd Swindle
of Consent Agenda
agenda of May 29, 2003 was approved as submitted.
#3-42.04 – Canoe Creek Lakes Addition
of Canoe Creek Road adjacent to Canoe Creek Lakes
Askey was present to represent the application.
case has no effect the building department.
#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.
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.
explained that he had to keep with the “A” grading plan because of the existing
Lots 4 thru 9
can remain modified since adequate drainage inlets are provided for the surface
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.
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.
noted that he would not have a problem granting an easement if it were needed.
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
was further discussed.
#8 of 15:
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.
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.
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.
noted that economics would not be considered a factor for the City.
noted that he would not be able to justify this requirement to his client.
noted that the only other option would be to somehow lower the elevation of the
noted that the pond could not be lowered without modifying the control
structures and the existing permit.
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.
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
asked if basing the houses on street level would help the situation.
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.
noted that Mr. Askey and Mr. Luthie would meet to discuss the matter outside
#8 of 15:
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.
noted that he would be renumbering the manholes.
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.
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
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.
Certificate of Capacity under separate application shall be required for any
common facilities located in the Park.
approval with the above conditions.
Page 3, DRC
Minutes – 05/29/03
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.
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.
A list of
current impact fees is available from the Planning & Zoning Department.
asked when the applicant needed his Certificate of Capacity.
noted that he was going to need it as soon as Mr. Veal paid the fees.
noted that the Certificate of Capacity would have to be approved before a
Notice to Proceed could be issued.
sewer manhole numbers are in-correct. Please use numbers 41-79 through 41-83.
Limit the amount
of sanitary sewer laterals to a maximum of two services per manhole structure.
noted that he was in agreement with comments 1 & 2.
Extend the water
main, reclaimed water main and sanitary sewer main along the entire frontage of
this parcel along Creek
asked if extension of the main was required by code and Mr. Mauro explained
that it was.
Move the hydrant
on lot one to the northeast corner.
noted that he would move the hydrant as requested.
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.
noted that he would prefer to have the cul-de-sac.
noted that the decision was up to the developer and he didn’t care as long as
one or the other was installed.
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.
Will there be a
subdivision sign for this development? If yes, provide an easement for the
noted that he did not know about signage but he would find out from his client.
noted that up to two signs would be allowed.
Page 4, DRC
Minutes – 05/29/03
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.
asked if this needed to be shown on the geometric plan and Mr. Morgan noted
that it did.
approval of the construction plans with the above conditions.
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.
noted that it had been added to allow for fencing and landscaping.
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.
plans must be folded at the time of submittal. Rolled plans will not be
PARKS & RECREATION
Sheet 2 of 15,
General Note #15 meets the conditions of the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation
Department. Recommend approval.
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
South Florida Water Management District permit is
required for this case.
OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)
Submit a site
plan to Osceola County Public Safety, Addressing Division, for approval of
asked if Mr. Askey wanted the Certificate to go to City Council now and he
noted that he did.
recommended approval with conditions. The applicant will resubmit revised
plans for sign-off within 60 days of this review.
SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF
meeting was adjourned at 2:25