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
LOCATION: 1300 9th Street - 1st Floor – DRC
Conference Room; St.
CHAIRMAN: David Nearing, Director of Planning and Zoning
SECRETARY: Pam Murray, Planning and Zoning Technician
Ken Peck Ron Trowell Mark Luthie Rick Mauro
Bisson Ted Kozak Jonathan Kutche David
Higgins John Groenendaal Don Lepic
Case #06-110.02 – Elementary School “I” (Jeff Higgins, Planner)
South of Neptune Road and East of the Turnpike
W/S Request & Construction Plans
Mr. Jay Klima of Klima Weeks and Eric Houston with the
School District of Osceola County were present to represent the application.
1. No comments on this request.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
1. No Comments on this case.
1. Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right
of way permits and concurrency prior
to Final Site Plan
approval for any development application that impacts a County Road.
I understand that this school site lies
primarily outside of St. Cloud City Limits, and is subject to review
by County Boards. I have comments which are based on a quick
review of preliminary plans which were
conceptual only in some elements.
My primary concern is that this is another very
large school, which has shown huge impacts to accessibility,
transportation and parking. The site is more
suited to a normal sized facility primarily serving Anthem Park and
perhaps a modest zone of other nearby
residential areas to the east and across Neptune. With the intended
facility, the following additional information is
required for engineering staff review:
* Provide the initial school zonal boundary, and
the distribution of student trips from the site. Provide
an anticipated zonal boundary for 2010 or full
occupancy date, with its expected student distribution.
* From this information, provide a distribution
of student access by walker / biker, auto and bus trips, and
provide a preliminary safe route to school plan.
Indicate student access under the Turnpike at the canal
crossing if there is a school zone to be served by
* Identify the parent loop and the bus /
employee loop, and indicate how these traffic flows are to be
maintained and enforced without comingling.
* Provide AM peak traffic flows at the parent
loop at its intersection with (assumed) Old Canoe Creek Road,
and at the bus / employee access at (assumed) Neptune Road for the full occupancy
date. Indicate primary vs.
pass-by trips. Access to Neptune will be determined for
a temporary connection, and also will be incorporated
into County plans for the Neptune Road widening project.
* Indicate adequate parking and queuing for
parent motorists who demand to loiter around the school rather
than help their children to walk home. Show
compatibility with school loitering vehicular demand at similar sites.
* Provide an analysis, with queue demand, and
design of entrance turning lanes per County Standards.
Identify traffic control devices needed for
student ped / bike needs.
(Other transportation related issues, such as
concurrency and reduction of capacity to adjacent arterials, firerescue,
effect to Anthem Park residential street ambience and pavement
structure, are not addressed.)
Donald E. Lepic, P.E.
Assistant County Engineer - Traffic
407 343-2600 - cell 407 873-1202
1. What is the status of the driveway
connection to Neptune Road? The driveway connection and lane
improvements at Neptune Rd. will improve traffic
circulation and minimize traffic impacts to Anthem
1. A Certificate of Capacity approved by City
Council shall be required prior to receiving City water service.
2. Per Resolution 2006-304R, applicant to pay $1,000
per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) prior to
approval of the Certificate of
Capacity by City Council.
potable water impact fee shall be due at time of application for a meter. If
the impact fee rate
increases after the balance of the
originally assessed impact fee has been paid, the applicant is
responsible to pay the difference at
time of application for a meter.
4. Water tap fees shall be due and payable at the
time of establishment of an account (meter permitting) at
the rate in effect at that time.
5. The City of St. Cloud Development Review Committee is authorized to review and approve all
construction plans for this
6. Staff recommends approval of the request for
extension of City water service outside the City limits,
subject to DRC conditions. The
certificate of capacity, annexation, or any other approvals necessary will
not be moved forward until all
issues are solved including transportation access to this site.
7. The water reservation fees and balance are
calculated at the County rate due to the subject property
not being located within the City
8. Certificate of Capacity to be valid for a period
of one (1) year.
1. The proposed water meters will not be set until
all easement documents have been signed by the
School Board and accepted by the
City of St. Cloud.
1. Fire Hydrants and Fire Protection Appliances
shall have clearances of 7.5 feet front and sides and 4
foot to the rear for hydrants.
(NFPA1 22.214.171.124) This includes driveways, mailboxes, trees and utilities.
2.. During construction, when combustibles are
brought on to the site in such quantities as deemed
hazardous by the fire official,
access roads and a suitable supply of water, acceptable to the fire
department, shall be provided and
maintained. Completion of the base installation, including the
appropriate tack coating and
sanding, shall be considered sufficient for vehicular access. The following
requirements must be met before
water is made available to the site: (LDC 16E)
a) A clearance letter from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (F.D.E.P.) to place a public drinking
water facility into service;
b) A fire flow test by the St. Cloud
Fire Department with results verifying minimum specifications
have been met.
3. Provide calculations for adequate fire flows to
4. Provide documentation for the party responsible
for maintaining the access off Neptune Road.
5. Provide documentation of access agreement from Neptune Road.
OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)
1. No comment as to Water/Sewer request
2. OUC does not need constructions plans for this
project. AN OUC Engineer already has plans.
1. The Police Department would like to require
applicant to provide an extended turn lane from both
directions to accommodate the amount
of traffic that this project will bring to an already congested area.
OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)
1. A temporary address has been issued for the
construction trailer. Please submit construction plans to
the 911 Addressing Department for
street name review and approval, if applicable, and issuance of
address for the school and vandal
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER
Mr. Klima noted that permanent access to Neptune Road was chosen prior to commencement of
construction of the Bettalia Property as construction access for site and
utilities. He also inquired if the County would consider the chosen access
Mr. Lepic indicated that the County would.
Mr. Nearing was concerned with the practicality of the
chosen drop-off point.
Mr. Klima pointed out that the flow of traffic is with the
two separate loops on the school site itself with signage for directing
Mr. Nearing noted that the current easement allows natural
Mr. Klima noted that the East and South will have to pass
the Anthem Park entrance.
Mr. Lepic indicated that the Macy group (Dave: &
Edgewater) would be rerouted to another school in the near future.
Mr. Klima wanted clarification on amount of crosswalks.
Mr. Lepic noted that more are necessary, otherwise, Neptune Road remains a barrier to pedestrians.
Mr. Klima mentioned that the other kids are already going to
other schools will begin to attend Elementary “I,” therefore when the project
is finished, there will be an increase in traffic.
Mr. Nearing was concerned with what will become of the
Mr. Groenendaal wondered whether an Encumbrance was being
Mr. Klima noted that so far, no. They talked with County and
City concerning Kissimmee Park, Neptune
Road and Commerce Center, and the property owner was willing to work with them.
Mr. Houston clarified that with good faith meetings, the
access road to Kissimmee Park (NW could better access school property) then Anthem would
be better served. Construction concerns were that if the access were moved 100
ft, then other problems may ensue. DR Horton was in agreement to allow access
through the Boulevard. Condemnation was never considered. Best place continues
to be Commerce Center
Mr. Nearing suggested bringing in a proposal for
Mr. Ennis suggested a second access through the neighborhood
as well. Also, there’s canal concerns for such intersection improvements.
Mr. Lepic noted that he now has traffic figures, and there
is a need for providing for the turning traffic.
Mr. Houston inquired whether there is to be an emergency
Mr. Nearing added that future residences need to be
considered as well.
Mr. Klima noted that the project will incur very low
traffic, i.e., 100 more busses.
Mr. Nearing noted that even so, with the project comes
future construction for other developments, which necessitates that specific
Mr. Klima wondered whether such concerns are in the hands of
County for deciding access.
Mr. Lepic is waiting for others to review. He’s looking at
diversifying traffic usage times with majority coming from the South, and
therefore Neptune makes the most sense as the parent
Mr. Nearing inquired about the mix of traffic, i.e.,
Mr. Klima noted there would not be walkers on Neptune.
Mr. Lepic noted that the majority would use Commerce Center as it is conducive for walking.
Ms. Rose Kish noted that although the number will probably
be limited to not more than 700 students, they will be a younger crowd for the
older students tend to ride.
Mr. Nearing re-inquired about in which group the expected
increase would occur, and would like to have the numbers researched on whether
walking is a factor.
Mr. Klima expects that 50% will ride the bus.
Mr. Houston noted that the standard is a 2-mile walk radius.
Although in Salmon
Circle, the students
will still be bussed. Majority are coming from south—question is how many will
take the bus?
Mr. Nearing noted that after first day, with all the
construction they will have dealt with, they won’t drive again.
Mr. Houston mentioned that everyone concerned has the same
goal—consensus on what type of road it should be, and that February is the
ideal road install date. DR Horton commits to their road being completed. Now
the question is what needs to be put in place.
Mr. Lepic noted that more analysis is necessary.
Mr. Klima would like to move forward while the road concerns
are being worked out.
Mr. Nearing would prefer to leave the approval at no more
than Certificate of Capacity. The application will go on Council as an action
item due to discrepancies with County.
Mr. Klima mentioned that they may be able to work it if they
knew the deadline for going to Council.
Mr. Higgins indicated possibly February 8.
Mr. Nearing noted that until code is to County’s
satisfaction, the City won’t go forward in order to avoid confusion on
enforcement. Certificate will move forward regardless.
Mr. Klima brought up Impact fees and concurrent
management--DOT doesn’t want to build wall.
Mr. Nearing pointed out that insulation is preferred over
building a wall. DOT policy is they don’t build walls.
Mr. Houston noted that the increase of road noise will not
impact badly enough for necessitating a wall.
Mr. Nearing suggested emailing a resolution and attending
the Council meeting for future discussions on that topic.
FINDINGS: DRC recommended approval
2. Case #07-1.08 – Gospel Sing 2007 (Michelle Orton, Development Coordinator)
Ms. Olivia Roland was present to
represent the application.
1. Temporary electrical wiring shall comply with the
National Electrical Code (NEC) 2005 Article 525.
Note: Temporary wiring shall be
ground-fault protected. Multi-conductor cord shall originate in an
approved power outlet or panelboard
and be of the type identified in Table 400.4 for hard usage or extra
hard usage. Receptacles shall be the
Lamps shall be protected from
accidental contact or breakage. Electrical cords shall be protected from
damage and shall be placed so as to
prevent trip hazards.
When receptacles are installed on
flexible cords/cables and exposed to weather or in wet locations, they
shall be in a weatherproof
2. If tents over 300 sq. ft. are used they shall
comply with the Florida Building Code 2004 (FBC) Section
3103.1 and Chapter 10, Means of
Egress. Certification of flame resistance shall be filed with the
building department prior to a
permit being issued.
3. Tent exits, aisles, seating, etc. shall conform
to assembly occupancy. All exits shall be kept free of
obstructions while tent is occupied
by the public.
1. Please describe how the parking along the streets
adjacent to Veteran’s Park will be managed.
1. No comments.
1. All fire protection equipment; building exits and
other safety features shall remain accessible.
1. The applicant is to verify that all food vendors
are properly licensed and inspected.
2. As a DRC approved Special Event, the applicant is
authorized to utilize off-site signage to advertised
and/or direct traffic for the event.
Please be advised that all signage must be placed so as to prevent
visual obstruction to both
pedestrian and vehicular traffic, must be free standing and may be utilized
beginning one week prior to the
event. All signage must be removed the day following the final day of
PARKS & RECREATION
1. You must fill out a form at the Parks and
Recreation Department prior to any approval of using City
Facilities for events or functions.
1. All facilities and/or equipment are reserved on a
“first come, first serve” basis. Please contact the Parks
& Recreation Dept. at (407)
957-7243 as soon as possible to reserve what will be needed for your event
and availability. Equipment rental
and set-up fees may be applicable to your event. Contact Tommy
Howes at the Parks and Recreation
Dept. at (407) 957-7246 to coordinate cost of applicable rental and
set-up fees. A complete Facility
Reservation Form must be provided at the DRC Review Conference
prior to final approval of
2. On the map it indicates that you want
us to set up (2) 20’x40’ tents and (200) metal chairs no problem. I
will need someone at the
site by 7:30am on Friday February 2nd
to make sure we set up the tents and
chairs exactly where you
3. Make sure that you clean up the park.
4. The labor cost to set up and take
down tents and chairs will be $600.00 to in kind services.
1. Vendor must provide acceptable
Certificates of Insurance via ACORD form or sign waiver documents,
no later than 10 days prior to the event. If the vendor does not
carry Florida Worker’s Compensation
insurance, an Exemption
certificate must be attached to submitted insurance certificates.
2. For additional information contact
Risk Management at 407.957.7205 or go to 1300 Ninth Street (Bldg B
3. Information should be e mailed or
faxed to email@example.com
Ms. Roland mentioned she would be installing 2 to 4 sign
boards for designated parking areas; has permits for 2 banners and will be
setting up 200 chairs. She inquired about requesting tables and cable covers
for walking safely. Also, the times for set-up are: 7:00, and 5:00 for the big tents.
Mr. Nearing noted to make sure to remove the signs after the
FINDINGS: DRC recommended approval with conditions.
#04-93.04 – Deer Creek West (John Groenendaal, Senior Planner)
West of Bristol Cove & East of Florida Turnpike
Subdivision Construction Plans;
28.16 acres; 91 lots
Mr. Jeremy Kibbler was present to represent the application.
1. No comments on these construction plans.
These conditions will supersede the conditions form Case #
1. Effective immediately, all residential and
commercial developments approved (issuance of a “Notice to
Proceed” shall constitute approval)
after December 1, 2005 shall be assessed a “CyberSpot
Expansion” charge due and payable
prior to issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” for the development.
This fee shall be assessed as
Per Residential Unit: $118.46
Per square foot of Commercial
Please reference Resolution
#2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 126.96.36.199 of the
Land Development Code.
2. Poles that provide a minimum mounting height
of 25 feet, as recommended by the Radio
manufacture and a continuous, non-switched
power source, will be required, at the developer’s
expense, for mounting of the radios.
3. In instances of decorative light poles, matching
decorative poles, providing a minimum mounting
height of 25 feet, as recommended by
the Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched
power source, will be required, at the
developer’s expense, for mounting of the radios.
4. Please note that this is a combined effort with
OUC and the City of St.
Cloud for the
placement of the poles that needs to
be addressed by the developer during the street lighting design
5. A layout of the electric system showing
transformer locations and street lighting needs too be supplied
to the IT department as soon as
possible for determining the number of poles required and location of
6. Based on the plans submitted, 91 lots, the fees
will be $10,779.86.
1. Please eliminate the 1’-6” wide Miami curb detail on sheet 4 of 21. The
City minimum standard must be
2. We recommend the Flood Zone A area within the
proposed subdivision be filled and a LOMR be
processed. The Osceola County Gator Bay study will be utilized for the purpose of determining the 100
year flood elevation.
3. Please utilize the latest City of St. Cloud standard detail sheet for sheet 17
of 21. It can be obtained
from the City website.
1. Provide a water hydraulic analysis report.
1. During construction, when combustibles are
brought on to the site in such quantities as deemed
A. A clearance letter from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F.D.E.P.) to place
a public drinking water facility
B. A fire flow test by the St. Cloud
Fire Department with results verifying minimum specifications
2. Fire Hydrants and Fire Protection Appliances
shall have clearances of 7.5 feet front and sides and 4
1. ROW is vacated but survey still shows it, why?
Also the survey is not sealed, we need at least one.
2. Lot 66 does not
appear wide enough, in PSP it was larger
3. The cul-de-sac easement shall be handled in plat
documents. Will it even be needed with Bristol Cove
constructing the connecting roadway?
4. Is the pond smaller? The pond appears to be, and
now there is a Tract “E” that is 10 foot that is not on
the PSP. This is a good thing but I
do want to be sure how it was created.
1. 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. Please be
advised that the number of plans
required for submittal has increased to 15 sets.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
1. Recommend approval.
Mr. Kibbler noted that most comments to be addressed were
with IT, but he would also like to meet with Civil Engineering due to concerns
with Lines approval. He was also concerned whether the Ordinance had been
Mr. Groenendaal will look for the recorded copies.
Mr. Kibbler noted that he have the Ordinance recorded at
plat approval, and will add easement requirements.
Applicant and Staff discussed Cul-de-sac.
FINDING: DRC recommended approval with conditions.
#05-36.07 – Gramercy Farms (John Groenendaal, Senior Planner)
3050 Old Hickory Tree Road
PUD Amendment; 298.5 acres; 978 lots
Mr. Rob Hare was present to represent the application.
Mr. Hare inquired whether there was an engineering review
Mr. Nearing indicated that approval is through the
Mr. Mauro noted that the Construction plan is fine.
Mr. Hare inquired about condition #2: Should the applicant
write it in?
Mr. Groenendaal noted that PUD amends have to be advertised.
Mr. Nearing noted that guidelines with picture re the PSP
would be advisable.
Mr. Hare noted that the applicant will reference overall maintenance.
Mr. Nearing noted that applicant should also look into documentation
to be signed concerning the signage.
Mr. Hare noted that the water mill will be deleted from
plans entirely, and will present renderings.
Mr. Groenendaal indicated he would suggest more in order to
convince who he needs to convince
Mr. Groenendaal indicated that the reason for the water mill
concern is that it is out of scale—too dominant.
Mr. Hare would like to know what would be needed to make it
Mr. Groenendaal noted that the applicant should consider
what it’ll look like coming into the community.
1. No comments on this PUD amendment.
1. The additional lot will require a certificate of
capacity. You can wait until it appears on a construction
drawing to apply.
1. Please be advised that the Certificate of
Capacity will not be moved forward to City Council for approval
until such time as the applicant
notifies the Planner that it is needed. Your planner will place the item on
the next available City Council
1. Any part of the entry archway base will not be
permitted over the water main.
2. Provide a revised Final Master Plan showing all
utility relocations & modifications.
3. Submit revised Construction Plan drawings with
4. Provide three gate valves at the Tee connections
on the water and reclaimed water mains by lot
numbers 290A & 351.
5. Change the additional manhole shown to manhole
no. 83-6A, rather than no. 83-142.
6. Extend the water main and reclaimed water main to
connect to the stub-outs located by lot no. 394 and
provide a Tee w/ a stub-out to the
west for future connection.
1. Access on Packard shall be for public use.
1. The interconnectivity between Gramercy Farms, Old
Hickory, Southern Pines is encouraged
2. The sign arch will require several sections of
the LDC to be waived; the PUD guidelines would be the
appropriate place and methodology to
start considering this being possible.
The PUD guidelines should supersede
the following LDC sections:
3.19.11. H. Subdivision and development
entranceway signs. These signs may not
exceed six (6) feet in height from
finished grade except when the sign is an integral part of
landscaping and then the height can
be no greater than eleven (11) feet from finished grade
with no visual obstruction to
motorists. Visual obstructions shall be defined in Section 3.20.1 B.
Visibility at Intersections. They must not exceed two (2) in
number at each entrance, and may
be erected at each entrance for
identification purposes reflecting only the name of the
subdivision. Such signs, however,
shall be erected only after compliance with zoning ordinance
regulations and approval of plans
and site locations by the City Manager or his designee. (Ord.
99-19; 4-22-99) (Ord. 2000-27, 08/09/00)
3.19.6. E. No sign shall be placed on any
public right-of-way, tree, pole, public
improvement, public utility
structure, any unapproved supporting structure or any place where
the City Manager or his designee
determines to be a danger to the health, safety, and welfare of
3. The sign arch shall be permitted through an
agreement made between the CDD and the City. The
agreement will absolve the City of
the maintenance of the arch, and shall require the arch be maintained
4. The windmill is out of scale, 50 feet is too
much. A windmill half that size with plantings in the round
about would be more appropriate.
5. If you do wish to proceed to Council with the 50
foot windmill, please provide artist renderings from
different perspectives. Mainly the
effect it will have on lot 1.
6. No comments were made on the water mill as It is
my understanding it is being removed.
1. A South Florida Water Management District
permit/modification is required.
#06-55.02 – Bentlee Park Villas (Jeff Higgins, Planner)
South of 17th & west
of Eastern Avenue
Annexation/PUD Amendment; 4.18
acres; 29 lots
Mr. Chris Drake was present to represent the application.
Mr. Drake noted that the Public Works: will be in next
package, and ROW needs clarification.
Mr. Luthie noted that ROW standards are not met. This needs
to be done at time of development, so in future the ROW changes will not impact
the neighborhood unduly.
Mr. Drake noted that the applicant prefers the iron fence to
a wall as well as vegetation.
Mr. Higgins noted that PUD should show more green space than
R2, i.e., type, age, calculations of open spaces.
Mr. Nearing concurred and noted the need to show aesthetics
as well as the functional, and to think about convincing people when asking for
Mr. Higgins would also like plans to show DRC. He indicated
that the annexation should go forward, but will require a continuance for the
Mr. Groenendaal suggested getting more information from Engineering.
Also, to play up the recreation center.
Mr. Nearing noted that: as soon as the new materials are
received, the applicant will be put on DRC.
1. No comments on this annexation/PUD amendment.
1. With the implementation of the Cyber Spot
wireless system thru out the City of St. Cloud, “Cyber Spot
Capital Expansion” charges will
apply prior to development of said property.
Please reference Resolution
#2005-418R, Ordinance #2005-168, and Section 188.8.131.52
of the Land Development Code.
2. Please note that all cases do not necessarily
require poles, but in the cases that do require poles, the
following guidelines will apply.
1. Poles that provide a minimum
mounting height of 25 feet, as recommended by the
Radio manufacture and a continuous, non-switched
power source, will be required, at the
developer’s expense, for mounting of
2. In instances of decorative light
poles, matching decorative poles, providing a minimum
mounting height of 25 feet, as
recommended by the Radio manufacture and a continuous, nonswitched
3. Please note that this is a
combined effort with OUC and the City of St. Cloud for the
acquisition and placement of the
poles that needs to be addressed by the developer during the street
lighting design phase.
4. A layout of the electric system
showing transformer locations and street lighting needs too
be supplied to the IT department as
soon as possible for determining the number of poles required and
location of the poles.
1. The proposed access to public R/W is along Eastern Avenue. This road is under jurisdiction of
County and therefore will require
approval and processing through the Osceola County Engineering
2. We recommend a R/W dedication be provided to
bring the half section of the road to a minimum of 25’.
3. The proposed typical roadway section will need to
meet all requirements of the City of St. Cloud LDC.
4. The Bentlee Park HOA declaration of covenants,
conditions and restrictions states throughout the text
that the water management
jurisdiction is with SJRWMD. Please revise the document since we are in
the South Florida Water Management
5. Where does the applicant plan to discharge the
stormwater from the proposed pond site?
1. Please provide an area with a min. 15’ utility
easement for the looping of a water main through the
proposed project to 17th St.
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, 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. Furthermore, any
future development will require
standards set forth according to the City of St. Cloud’s Land
1. Further conditions and recommendations will be addressed
during the construction process.
1. A vicinity map showing the location of the
proposed planned unit development, relationship to
surrounding streets and
thoroughfares, existing zoning on the site and surrounding areas, existing land
use on the site and surrounding
areas within five hundred (500) feet;
2. A boundary survey and legal description of the
3. A topographic survey including flood-prone
delineations; the most recent USGS Topographical Survey
and USGS Flood Prone Mapping may be
4. soils survey, which may be based on the most
recent Osceola County Soils Survey, drawn to the
same scale as the preliminary land
use plan, clearly identifying all soil types especially those areas
which are apparently not suitable
for buildings or major structures due to soils limitations;
5. A proposed utility service concept plan,
including existing electric gas utilities on and around the
perimeter, sanitary sewers, storm
drainage, potable water supply, and water supplies for fire protection,
including a definitive statement
regarding the disposal of sewage effluent and storm water drainage;
6. Landscape buffer widths are 25 feet adjacent to
Medium Density Residential Land Use to the North,
West & Industrial Land Use to
the East and 30 feet adjacent to Low Density Land Use to the South.
7. Calculate minimum open space and how much it will
increase with PUD zoning.
8. A masonry wall six feet in height must screen the
northern property boundary from 17th Street.
9. Landscaping adjacent public rights-of-way require
one tree planted every twenty-five linear feet.
10. A continuous hedge screen at least eighteen
inches in height upon planting must buffer the perimeter
11. Landscaping should go well above the minimum
12. Additional right-of-way for Eastern Avenue should be dedicated to the public.
Please consult with
Osceola County regarding the right-of-way needs.
13. Approval of annexation of the western portion of
14. Continue PUD zoning request for more information
to be submitted.
15. A substantial benefit to the City must be
achieved in order to support PUD zoning. A generous
contribution to the parks and
recreation department for their needed improvements is a consideration.
16. Revised plans must be submitted within sixty (60)
days of this review. Revised plans submitted after the
17. Applicant shall confer with Osceola County regarding access, right-of-way permits and concurrency
prior to Final Site Plan approval
for any development application that impacts a County Road.
18. Please be advised that no model homes or centers
will be permitted prior to recording of the final plat.
Any such structures shall also
require approval of a “Mini Site Plan”.
FINDING: DRC recommended approval of the annexation with
conditions, but the PUD to be continued.
#07-37.01 – Miriam De Jesus (Ted Kozak, Planner)
2908 Jebidiah Loop
Abandonment of Easement
Ms. Miriam De Jesus, owner, was present to represent the
Ms. De Jesus noted that she is not used to HOAs, and has had
problems with them in the past concerning her dogs. Now she is required to have
a permit for property improvements. She complied, but still got a letter from the
HOA saying they hadn’t been informed. Then they told her that her improvement was
encroaching. She is not blaming, should have better read their notice to her.
The regulations changed by amendment, and that was the problem. She is still
waiting on the HOA for final determination.
Mr. Luthie says he’s not concerned with HOA requirements,
but is concerned with whether she is building on her property or not, that is, easement
Ms. De Jesus explained what she believed to be her property
and responsibility (6 inches).
Mr. Nearing suggested getting documentation from HOA for
agreement of fence installation/easement.
Mr. Luthie concurred noting that an agreement is necessary
before going ahead. Also, whether the area is going to be developed—he is
concerned with compatibility.
Mr. Nearing noted that the shared property line will probably
be Townhomes, and a wall is required for that density. Also, it needs to be
accessible ergo the easement problems with Ms. De Jesus’s proposed fence.
1. No comments on this abandonment.
1. The 20’ unobstructed access easement is for the
benefit of providing access for maintenance of the
berm, wall and landscape easement
which is dedicated to the HOA. We will need input from the HOA
as to whether this abandonment
request should be processed.
1. Approval of this case will not cause an adverse
affect on fire rescue department operations.
1. Clarify and expand the justification of the
request for abandonment, detailing the purpose of the existing
2. Indicate on the survey which easement is proposed
to be abandoned.
3. Submit to Planning staff written approval of the
abandonment by the neighborhood Homeowner’s
1. APPROVAL, subject to conditions.
1. Will require review by the City Engineering
FINDING: DRC recommended approval.
Case #07-200.13 – Cobra Construction – 450 Orange Avenue
Case #07-200.14 – Szasz, James and Amber – 1382 East Lakeshore Boulevard
Meeting Adjourned: 3:12