Homepage -Family

Go To Search

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



FebrUARY 6, 2007


LOCATION:                              1300 9th Street, Building A; 3rd Floor; Council Chambers


CALL TO ORDER:                     6:30 P.M.





Kimberly Koile (Chair)                 David Peach                                    Jackie Walton                                             

Peter Vitelli                               Elaine Cardinal                                David Rinehart, Alt #1

Tony Maresco, Alt #2


STAFF REPRESENTATIVES:     Dan Mantzaris/Jack Morgeson, City Attorney; John Groenendaal, Senior Planner; Jeff Higgins, Planner; Ted Kozak, Planner; Jonathan Kutche, Planner; Michelle Orton, Development Coordinator


Welcome to the City of St. Cloud Planning Board Meeting. In the interest of time efficiency and ensuring that everyone who wishes to address the Board is given the opportunity to do so, the following will apply to all comments made by the public. Each speaker shall be allotted 3 minutes to address the Board, unless such time is extended by the Chairman or by questions from Board. Groups shall designate a spokesperson to avoid repetition of comments. Every effort will be made to avoid interrupting speakers.  Thank you for participating in your City Government.




Ms. Kimberly Koile made an announcement to the many residents in the audience.  They were under the assumption the St. Cloud Manor was being annexed into the City.  Ms. Koile indicated that was not being done and that they were welcome to stay but there would be no discussion on annexation for the Manor.  She also noted that there would be proper advertising if the Manor were to be annexed into the City.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that there was an error in posting of the sign and that he would answer any questions after the meeting and distribute his business cards for those that would like to call him.


1.         Case #06-108.01 - AmeraTrail

                                                South of US Hwy 192 and west of CR 15

A.                  Land Use Amendment (Industrial)

B.                  Zoning (Industrial 2)

Staff Recommendation               A & B – Approval

Public Comment


                                    Action:  A. Recommendation regarding Land Use to Industrial

                                                B. Recommendation regarding Zoning to Industrial 2

This item will appear before City Council for Public Hearing March 8, 2007.


Mr. Groenendaal presented the case on behalf of staff, he indicated that the property was annexed last year and that they were coming back for their Land Use and Zoning.  He noted that they are currently manufacturing trailers and would like to continue to do that so that the City has agreed to I-2 with 2 conditions.  He would not be limited to 10% use for retail sales and to prohibit adult entertainment.


Scott Locke, AmeraTrail was the applicant and indicated that he agrees with staff with the two conditions and that there will be no adult entertainment.


Delores Roder, St. Cloud Manor, she wanted to know if he could only sell 10% retail.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that I-2 prohibits retails to 10% of the property.


Mr. Maresco wanted to know if this was the only zoning he could have.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that there was I-3 or PUD, he could have chosen the PUD and it would have tightened up his development rights but staff chose I-2.


Mr. Maresco wanted to know what this allows.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that having a PUD he could have written it any way he wanted.  If he chooses to change the use then his rights are still vested and he will need to have it redeveloped. 


Mr. Maresco indicated that it was alright but he was concerned that in six months he decided he would like to have adult entertainment.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that the Deed restriction would prevent that.


Mr. Peach wanted to know if that was one of the conditions.


Mr. Morgeson noted that it was and that at this time they are at the recommendation stage.


Ms. Koile wanted to know with the Deed restrictions if they are able to come back and request adult entertainment.


Mr. Morgeson noted that the deed restriction stays with the property.


Ms. Koile questioned again that the deed restrictions will stay with the property.


Mr. Morgeson commended Mr. Maresco but noted that Mr. Groenendaal mentioned that they may get to the point where they will want to request an alternative to the land.  There are issues with the deed restrictions regarding zoning and Ordinance will need to be written and there are questions regarding the population and availability, there are many categories that this falls into.  Tonight is for a recommendation to go forward or an alternative.


Ms. Elaine Cardinal made a motion to approve the Land Use to Industrial for Case #06-108.01.  Ms. Jackie Walton provided a second.  The vote was 5-0 with all members voting “aye”.


Ms. Elaine Cardinal made a motion to approve the Zoning to I-2 with the 2 conditions for Case #06-108.01.  Ms. Jackie Walton provided a second.  The vote was 5-0 with all members voting “aye”.


2.         Case #06-115.03 – Old Hickory Right-of-Way

                                                South of New Nolte Extension and west of Old Hickory Tree Road

A.                  Right-of-Way Abandonment

Staff Recommendation               A – Approval with Conditions

Public Comment


                                    Action:  A. Recommendation regarding Right-of-Way Abandonment

This item will appear before City Council for Public Hearing March 8, 2007.


Mr. Groenendaal presented the following case on behalf of staff.  He noted that the original request was to vacate 10 segments along the Old Hickory Subdivision but they will now remove the request for those on the western side to address the western property owner, Mr. Tom Fertic.  Staff recommends approval with 1 condition for abandoning the right-of-way of the 8 segments.


Mr. Groenendaal showed the Board a map.


Ms. Koile wanted to discuss where the right-of-way was located.


Mr. James McNeil with Akerman, Senterfitt was present to represent the applicant.  Mr. McNeil showed the 8 segments on the overhead of what they were requesting for abandonment.  He indicated that they will create an easement through the property for the City and that will be recorded on the final plat.  He noted that he will get with the City Attorney to get all of that together before City Council.


Ms. Koile noted she was still confused and wanted them to show the right-of-way again on the overhead, highlighting what they were abandoning and what the city will have.



Mr. McNeil showed the right-of-way on the overhead and highlighted the areas as requested.

Mr. Thomas Fertic, 203 Fertic Road noted that he owns all the property surrounding Old Hickory as shown on the map.  He indicated that he has a problem with the abandoning the rights-of-way, they have been be bisecting his ranch and they will continue to do so and he doesn’t want anything closed on his property.  Soon he believes he won’t have any ingress or egress.  He noted that he is losing ground trying to get out of his property.  He also noted that he has hired an attorney and they will work with the City to get this straight but he wanted to come here tonight and represent himself.


Ms. Koile requested that he show on the overhead his property.


Mr. Fertic pointed out his property and which abandonment’s were of concern to him and his neighbors.


Ms. Koile had some concerns with continuing this case as there were items still unclear.


Mr. Fertic noted that he understands that they are in the preplanning process and that New Nolte Road needs to be complete in order for them to have ingress and egress but he would like to deal with this concern now.


Mr. Darrin Davis, 2757 Mercedes noted that his property is on the opposite side of Old Hickory.  He wanted to know what will happen to the property with they abandon the 20’ right-of-way.


Mr. Groenendaal indicated that it will revert back to the adjacent property owner because the right-of-way was annexed during the annexation process of Old Hickory.


Mr. Davis wanted to know if the County was aware of this because their property is in the County and then they will have this strip that is in the City.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that they are aware of the annexations, DRC packets are sent to them for comment.


Ms. Walton wanted to know if the only condition is the easement that will be recorded, because there is one of each side so that’s only 6 sections.  Since nothing can be done until New Nolte goes through then what is the urgency.


Mr. McNeil noted that there is no urgency but it does involve landscaping and it would be great if it all worked together.


Ms. Koile wanted to know when they expected construction to begin.


Mr. McNeil indicated that he wasn’t sure.


Ms. Koile noted that he has the documents and if they are working on the planning they should know when construction will begin.


Mr. McNeil indicated that they need to make sure they do this early enough to plan for additional right-of-way; the goal is to do everything early.


Ms. Walton noted that once earth is moved and the ingress and egress is changed then nothing can be done.


Mr. McNeil noted the connectivity issue is that you have this right-of-way to the north and south and then that’s not being touched and they are giving the City the additional right-of-way through the property.  There will also be an easement to get to the Fertic property.


Mr. Peach noted that he is finding this very confusing and that is looks as if other people are also confused with the drawings as to what is being abandoned.


Mr. Vitelli wanted to know if the line across the top through the property is for connectivity and if that is true what happens if they build their property and it’s no longer right-of-way.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that this will eventually becomes right-of-way.


Mr. Groenendaal once again showed on the map the abandoned right-of-way and the portion that will eventually become City right-of-way.


Mr. Vitelli wanted to know where Mr. Davis lived.


Mr. Davis located his property on the map.

There was discussion over Mr. Davis’ property and how they will have access to the 5 acre tract.


Mr. Davis indicated that he would like to see an easement with Gramercy done.


Ms. Cardinal noted that there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings with Mr. Fertic and others that are involved and suggested that they table this to make sure everyone is satisfied with the outcome.


Mr. Morgeson indicated that this case will go forward to City Council they can suggest and make a recommendation to consider the facts and the impact of the adjacent owners but they cannot table this unless the applicant wishes to withdraw it from the Board.


Ms. Koile wanted to know if it’s going to be a no couldn’t they table it for the next meeting and still have time to make it to the March City Council.


Mr. Peach noted that they are making a recommendation.


Mr. Morgeson noted that City Council will act according to the Boards recommendation and that they would consider the Board’s feedback but he recommended to the board that they make a recommendation.


Mr. McNeil indicated that if the Board feels they need to table this for 2 weeks they will be happy to do that.


Ms. Koile wanted to know if they were planning on withdrawing.


Mr. Groenendaal indicated that they would not be able to bring it back in 2 weeks and make the City Council deadline.  He noted that the board needs to make a recommendation.


Mr. Peter Vitelli made a motion that the Board recommend denial of the abandonment based on a couple of parcels being landlocked and concern over Mr. Davis’ parcel and concern for that area per Case #06-115.03.  Ms. Jackie Walton provided a second to the motion.  The vote was 5-0 with all members voting “aye”.


3.         Case #07-34.01 – Patty Utz’s Doggie Daycare, Inc

                                                301 Commerce Center Boulevard

A.                  Conditions Use in Highway Business

Staff Recommendation               A – Approval with Conditions

Public Comment


                                    Action:  A. Recommendation regarding Conditional Use in Highway Business

                                                This item will appear before City Council for Public Hearing February 22, 2007


Mr. Groenendaal presented the case on behalf of staff.  The applicant is requesting dog day care and the closes thing in the zoning is a kennel which requires a conditional use.   The following six conditions will address the animal situation and staff is recommending approval.


Mr. Morgeson noted to the Board that there are 6 criteria set up in the staff report and that the questions as listed in the Land Development Code must be answered in the affirmative to approve the conditional use.


Delores Roder, St. Cloud Manor wanted to know why there wouldn’t be overnight boarding for the animals.


Ms. Patty Utz was present to represent the application.  She indicated that she was under the impression that she would be able to have overnight boarding.


Mr. Groenendaal indicated that this was to be a dog daycare where you could drop your dog off on the way to work and then pick them up at night.


Ms. Cardinal wanted to know what the difference would be between a kennel and daycare.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that it was his understanding that it would be a daycare only for day use.


Ms. Koile indicated that was what she assumed.


Mr. Peach wanted to know if they were to change the condition if they would need to notify the homeowners.  He wanted to know about the noise at night and what the applicant planned to do if they were to bark all night.


Ms. Utz indicated that they will have staff there until around 11 pm.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that they would only take out that condition.


Ms. Utz noted that this would be a kennel and that they would have someone there at night to see what the dogs were doing and also the dog owners could monitor them on the computer.


Ms. Cardinal wanted to know if there are any overnight facilities or kennels existing.


Mr. Groenendaal noted that they do.


Mr. Rinehart wanted to know if the dogs will be kept in the building.


Ms. Utz noted that all the dogs would have their own apartment and then would take them for walks outside.


Ms. Koile wanted to know if they have an entrance to the outside.


Ms. Walton indicated that there was a misconception from the owner and that she is for dropping condition #4 requesting that staff rewrite the report and drop #4.


Mr. Rinehart noted that this is an industrial sight and that there is a fairly large gap between this building and the town homes.


Mr. Morgeson indicated that the Board will need to make a distinction on the six factors to make sure they meet with satisfaction.  They can include or delete from the staff’s recommendation.


Mr. Rinehart noted that if this is her business and the dogs are inside that they should be able to take out #4 and let her keep the dogs overnight.


Ms. Walton agreed that it was a good idea.


Ms. Jackie Walton made a motion to approve the Conditional Use with the 5 conditions and removing #4 for Case #07-34.01.  Ms. Elaine Cardinal provided a second to the motion.  The vote was 4-1 with Mr. David Peach voting Nay.




4.         Case #05-62.04 – Benjamin Estates

                                                East of Orange Avenue and North of 19th Street

A.      Final Plat

                                                Staff Recommendation               A – Approval


                                    Action:  A. Recommendation regarding Final Plat

                                                This item will appear before City Council February 22, 2007


Mr. Higgins presented the case on behalf of staff for Benjamin Estates Final Plat.  The applicant is subdividing into 16 conforming lots and is seeking approval.  Staff recommends approval.


Patty McCurdy from Johnston’s Survey was present to represent the application.


Ms. Walton noted that when this came through that the driveways would be in the interior of the lot.


Mr. Higgins noted per the Final Plat that there would be 7 driveways on 19th street and the others would come off of Orange Avenue.  They will need to get permits to access


Ms. Walton wanted to know if they were going to do anything with the corner.


Mr. Higgins indicated that they had donated right-of-way to the County so that they could choose to widen the road if they felt the need.


Ms. Walton again noted that she thought they would be internal driveways.


Mr. Higgins indicated the reason was the storm water so that it could be diverted away from traffic.


            Mr. David Peach made a motion to approve the Final Plat of Case #05-62.04.  Mr. Peter Vitelli provided a second to the motion.  The vote was 4-1 with Ms. Jackie Walton voting Nay.




If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Committee/Board, with respect to any matter considered at such hearing/meeting, such person will need a record of the proceedings and that, for this purpose, such person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, and which record is not provided by the City of St. Cloud. (FS 286.0105) In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the secretary/Clerk of the Committee/Board listed below, prior to the meeting (FS286.26) Michelle Orton, Development Coordinator; 1300 9th  Street; St. Cloud, FL 34769; (407) 957-8428 or morton@stcloud.org