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: April 17,
Services Complex 1st Floor Conference Room
2901 17th Street, St. Cloud
CHAIRMAN: David Nearing, Planning/Zoning Director
Hobbs, Development Officer
Mauro Kim Duffy Mark Luthie
Johnson Eric Morgan Ron Trowell Angelo Perri
of DRC Consent Agenda for April 17, 2003
agenda of April 17,
2003 was approved as
Road/West of Palamar
Howse and Mr. Karl Theobald were present to represent the application.
Mr. Howse explained
that note #18 of the Engineer’s notes would be changed to reflect conventional
construction rather than a pre-engineered metal building. He explained that
the intent was to build a structure that would fit in better with the existing
comments at this time.
County Right-of-Way Permit for the driveway connection will be required prior
to site sign off.
noted that this comment was the same as comment #6 from the Planning
Department. He requested that the wording be amended to reflect “…County Right-of-Way entrance and utilization permit…”
noted that he would amend the comment.
noted that Planning’s comment #6 would be deleted.
2. In reference to Note-32,
applicant states that the sewer lateral was provided by the City, however, the
invert is not available. Be advised the building sewer elevation and grade
line is under the responsibility of the designer and therefore the City will be
held harmless for any potential problems with the design. In addition, Note-32,
states there may be a potential conflict with the storm sewer; however we could
not find any potential crossing of the storm pipe and the sewer service.
noted that he had been working with the Lines Division and that he would amend
note #2 as requested.
Page 2, DRC
Minutes – 04/17/03
A Certificate of
Capacity approved by City Council shall be required prior to receiving a Notice
A Sanitary Sewer
Capacity Reservation Fee in the amount of $506.00 shall be paid prior to
receiving a Notice to Proceed. Impact fees shall be calculated at the time of
Building Permit application based upon architectural plans. The Sanitary Sewer
Capacity Reservation Fee shall be credited towards the final sanitary sewer
impact fee at the time of Building Permit.
approval of the request with the above conditions.
Capacity Reservation Fee equals 10% of the estimated sanitary sewer impact
fee. In this case the sanitary sewer impact fee is $1,100 per 1,000 gross
square feet of building used for retail commercial, or $1,100 x 4,600 sf
building ÷ 1,000 = $5,060.00. Per Resolution 98-27R.
Impact and Tap
Fees that shall be due at the time of Building Permit: Sanitary Sewer tap fee,
Potable Water tap fee, Sanitary Sewer impact fee, Potable Water impact fee,
Transportation impact fee, Police Services impact fee, and Fire Services impact
conditions and recommendations will be addressed during the construction
1. The owner will install
all primary conduit and concrete transformer pad. The secondary conduit, wire,
and terminations are the responsibility of the owner.
is single phase power in the rear of the building.
3. There may be costs to
provide electric service to this project. Please contact Bill Ellwood.
can provide parking lot lights for this project. Please contact Bill Ellwood.
send all site and electric information to OUC Development Services.
Ellwood (407) 236-9652 – (407) 236-9628 (fax)
500 South Orange Avenue email:
P.O. Box 3193
Orlando, FL 32802
The survey does
not indicate the Flood Zone of the subject property as is required. Please
explained that this information was shown on Sheet #1 below the engineer’s
noted that the zone designated was no longer valid and that the correct
terminology needed to be reflected.
noted that the information was correct according to the County’s plan but he
would verify that fact and amend the note if necessary.
Engineer's Note # 24 regarding the height of the building as this information
is already contained in Engineer's Note # 18.
agreed to delete the note as requested.
Page 3, DRC
Minutes – 04/17/03
the site plan so that parking spaces 1 through 11 are 18' depth as is required
by Section 6.13.1 of the Land Development Code (LDC), or obtain a site plan
variance from City Council.
the site plan to show a 5' width sidewalk along the entire width of the subject
property's frontage along Neptune Road as is required by Section 6.14.1 of the
LDC, or obtain a site plan variance from City Council.
explained that this comment was included to make sure the City was covered in
the event there was a problem with the variance.
the site plan to show a '6 height block or brick wall or berm along the length
of the south property line separating nonresidential use from residential use
as required by Section 8.7.2.B of the LDC, or obtain site plan variance from
noted that he had met with the president of the Palamar HOA and would like to
discuss the issue of the wall.
noted that the issue could be discussion during the next case.
Please provide a
letter from Osceola County Engineering stating that no additional right-of-way
is required from the subject property for Neptune Road.
approval of the site plan with the above conditions.
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
A site plan
variance application to Section 6.13.1 of the LDC for parking stall depths to
be 18' instead of 20' as required has been received. See DRC case # 02-81.04 Neptune Road Plaza - Site Variance.
A site plan
variance application to Section 6.14.1 of the LDC for paying into the City
sidewalk fund in lieu of constructing a sidewalk along Neptune Road across the property frontage has
been received. See DRC case # 02-81.04 Neptune Road Plaza - Site Variance.
A site plan
variance application to Section 8.7.2.B of the LDC requiring a 6' height brick
or block wall or berm along the south property line separating nonresidential
use from residential use, has been received. See DRC case # 02-81.04 Neptune Road Plaza - Site Variance.
Future Land Use - Commercial. Zoning - Neighborhood Business.
PARKS & RECREATION
Sheet 1of 1,
Note #22 states that all parking stalls will have wheelstops; however, there
are several areas within the parking lot that are required to have raised
curbing in accordance with Section 18.104.22.168(c) Please revise.
survey, sheet 1 of 1, and the submitted landscaping plan do not match.
The 10” Magnolia
tree shown on the survey and sheet 1 of 1(South of the site) is a 10” Loquat,
which has been shown on the landscaping plan. Please revise on survey and sheet
1 of 1.
The 24” Cherry
Laurel shown on the survey and sheet 1 of 1(East property line) has been shown
as a 24” Laurel Oak on the landscaping plan. Please
revise on landscaping plan. NOTE: The SCPR does not understand why the
applicant would like to save this tree? On June 12, 2002 this tree was evaluated to be in
poor condition and was recommended for removal with replacement. This
evaluation still stands.
Sheet 4 of 6
shows a detail of the required tree barriers in accordance with Section 8.3.2;
however, it is not legible. Please revise.
plan shows nine (9) trees proposed for removal. All of the trees are required
to be of a 2 to 1 replacement ratio. Please revise.
trees are not specimens. The average size is around 8” at DBH.
trees are native to Florida.
There is room on
the site for the replacements.
Page 4, DRC
Minutes – 04/17/03
recommended to bring in a tree company to raise the canopy of the existing
trees prior to construction.
noted that this was being worked out with the landscaper and that he had shown
curbing on the landscaping plan.
noted that her comments had been faxed to the Landscape Architect.
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
case will require approval by the City Engineering Department only.
OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)
a site plan for review and tenant build-out for addressing.
Howse noted that the drawings would be amended to reflect the outcome of
discussion regarding the variance issue.
recommended approval of the Site Plan for Neptune Road Plaza with the conditions as stated. The applicant will resubmit
revised plans within 60 days of this review for the purpose of sign-off only.
SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 5, DRC Minutes – 04/17/03
Neptune Road/ West of Palamar
#1 is for the elimination of sidewalks and in lieu of the construction of the
sidewalks, an equivalent amount of funds will be placed in the City’s Sidewalk
Escrow Fund. We support the applicants’ request.
noted that he agreed with comment #1.
2. Variance request #2 is
for 18-foot depth parking stalls; however it is unclear as to whether the
18-foot request is for all parking stalls or only the portion abutting Neptune Rd. We recommend that a note be placed
on site development plan numbering the lots which are being requested at
Mr. Luthie noted that he thought
shortening the parking to 18 feet was allowed under the present codes.
explained that the 18 foot parking stalls were allowed only when the additional
2 feet could be added to the buffer. He noted that was not possible on this
Mr. Howse explained that he was
attempting to match the adjacent property as much as possible.
explained that this would affect only those spaces on the north side. He noted
that those located on the south side were shown as 20 feet.
3. Variance request #3
pertains to the buffer requirements since the parcel is adjacent to a
residential use. We have no comment pertaining to this variance request.
of the buffer was discussed at length with Mr. Nearing noting that staff was
recommending the use of a wood fence. He further noted that staff was
concerned that there could be access problems if a wall were to be constructed.
Jackson, president of the Palamar Oaks H.O.A., addressed the Committee. He
explained that the H.O.A. had originally requested the wall based on the
previous plan to utilize a metal building and the concern over vehicle access
through the alley. He noted that since Mr. Howse had agreed on conventional
construction and there was to be no vehicular access through the alley, the
H.O.A. no longer had that concern. Mr. Jackson also noted that with the large
hedge that exists along the property line, the H.O.A. saw no reason for any
kind of buffer other than the hedge. He noted that it would keep this building
consistent with those that exist.
asked if the H.O.A. maintained the existing hedge and Mr. Jackson noted they
asked if in light of Mr. Jackson’s comments, staff could amend their comments
to reflect support of the variance.
noted that staff could support the variance but reminded the applicants that
the final decision would be left up to the City Council.
noted concern over the fact that the City had never allowed buffers to be
located off-site before.
noted that he did not see a problem as long as there was an agreement with the
H.O.A. guaranteeing maintenance of the hedge.
Page 6, DRC
Minutes – 04/17/03
noted that Parks & Recreation had to maintain the hedge at one time but it
had since been turned over to the Palamar H.O.A. and it had been neat and well
kept ever since. She further explained that her concerns had all been
addressed and that she would be in support of the variance.
and Mr. Swingle both noted support for the variance citing utility access
concerns if a wall were to be installed.
Division does support the variance request on the buffer requirements. There is
an existing hedge which parallels the alley way and also encroaches six feet
into the alley. Any type of structure placed along this alley would block all
access for our existing utilities as well as the other existing utilities. The
trees and shrubbery along Monroe Ave.
would also be required to be moved.
The building adjacent to this project does not have any type
of buffer, besides the shrubs along the subdivision side. If buffering is
required, I recommend it be placed at least five feet back onto this site and
the hedge on the south side be cut back to the alley way line, for
1. Approval of
this case will not cause an adverse affect on fire rescue department
in writing to the concerns expressed in the correspondence received from the
Palamar Oaks Village Homeowners' Association Inc. dated March 26, 2003 through
March 31, 2003, with regard to the aesthetics of a "pre-engineered metal
building" as compared to the brick buildings to the west and the Eckerds
to the east. How does the proposed building fit into the character of Neptune Road and the neighborhood area? It
appears that the neighborhood's concerns would argue against a variance to
Section 8.7.2.B (installation of the 6' height visual barrier). [The Palamar
Oaks Village Homeowners' Association Inc. letters incorrectly cites Section
3.13.3 of the LDC, uses and structures "…not in keeping with the character
of the district", as regulatory justification to keep a pre-engineered
metal building out. In fact, Section 3.13.3 of the LDC refers to accessory
uses and structures, and the "district" referred to is the
Neighborhood Business zoning district, not the neighborhood area.]
approval of the variance request to Section 6.13.1 to allow the north row of
parking spaces to be 18' in depth instead of 20', and to Section 6.14.1 to
allow payment of monies into the City sidewalk fund in lieu of constructing a
sidewalk across the property front along Neptune Road. Staff recommends denial of the variance request to
Section 8.7.2.B because the visual barrier cited as justification is not
located on the subject property and therefore there is no guarantee that it
would continue to exist. Staff would support a variance to place a 6' height
wood fence in lieu of the wall or berm, provided that something could be worked
out to ensure utility provider access to the alleyway along the south property
As follows is
staff's analysis of the site variance request to Section 6.13.1 of the Land
Development Code (LDC) to allow parking stalls of 18' depth instead of the
required 20' depth for all parking along the north property line, with regard
to the three criteria of Section 4.3.1 STAND SITE VARIANCES of the LDC:
Page 7, DRC Minutes – 04/17/03
special circumstance which exists that is peculiar to the subject property is
that the abutting property to the west has a drive aisle which will connect to
this property in a location such that the parking spaces along the north
property line have to be 18' depth in stead of 20', otherwise this would cause
a person driving along this aisle to have to make a 2' deviation in order to
continue through to the adjacent property and parked vehicles would stick 2'
further into the connecting drive aisle.
2. That a literal
interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the
applicant of right commonly enjoyed by other properties with similar
literal interpretation of this regulation would deprive the applicant of a
right commonly enjoyed by the abutting property to the west because of the
location of its drive aisle, and with regard to other properties that have been
granted site variances to reduce parking stall lengths to 18'.
3. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.
location of the driveway aisle access between this property and the abutting
property to the west, and consequently the need for reduced 18' parking stalls,
does not result from the actions of the applicant.
As follows is
staff's analysis of the site variance request to Section 6.14.1 of the LDC to
allow payment of finds into the City sidewalk fund in lieu of construction of a
5' wide sidewalk across the frontage of the property along Neptune Road, with regard to the three criteria
of Section 4.3.1 STAND SITE VARIANCES of the LDC:
special circumstance peculiar to this property is that no other properties
along Neptune Road have sidewalks, and therefore the
sidewalk if constructed here would be an isolate. In addition, Neptune Road is scheduled for widening by the
County and it is unclear how this will affect any sidewalk that would be
interpretation of this regulation would require the applicant to construct
sidewalks un-connected to any other sidewalks because there are not sidewalks
along Neptune Road.
no sidewalks exist along Neptune
Road and that Neptune Road is scheduled for widening by the
County are circumstances that do not result from the actions of the applicant.
As follows is
staff's analysis of the site variance request to Section 8.7.2.B of the LDC to
not require a 6' height brick or block wall or berm along the south property
line separating nonresidential and residential uses, with regard to the three
criteria of Section 4.3.1 STAND SITE VARIANCES of the LDC:
The applicant's representative cites as a special
circumstance the existence of a landscape barrier/hedge and a utility
easement/alleyway as justification for not constructing a 6' height wall or
berm to separate the nonresidential use of the subject property from the
residential use of Palamar Oaks Village abutting to the south. The
existing landscape barrier would provide an opaque visual barrier; therefore
the wall or berm would be redundant. And a wall or berm would
interfere with access and use of the utility
easement. Staff's position is that the existence of a visual buffer on a
different piece of property should not serve to satisfy the requirements for a
visual buffer, in this case a wall or berm, on the subject property which is
being developed commercially. Staff does recognize the need for continued
access to the utility easement along the south property line, and therefore
would support a variance to erect a 6' height wood fence in lieu of the wall or
berm, provided said fence would not interfere with the utility easement access.
Staff is not aware of a variance being granted to
Section 8.7.2.B, which requires a '6 height wall or berm to separate nonresidential
from residential uses, because a landscape buffer exists on an adjacent piece
of property. Requiring the wall or berm on the subject property as part of the
Page 8, DRC Minutes – 04/17/03
approved site plan for the site would guarantee that said
visual buffer would always exist and be maintained, in contrast to landscape
barrier on the adjacent property which could be modified or removed at will by
the owner(s) of that property. Variances to Section 8.7.2.B have been granted
in the past when an opaque fence with landscaping have been substituted in lieu
of the wall or berm, usually for consideration of preserving existing trees or
other public concerns. But the fence with landscaping has always been located
on the subject property.
The location of the utility easement and landscape barrier
do not result from the actions of the applicant.
The St. Cloud
Parks & Recreation Department has a concern with the #3 Variance Request of
Section 8.7.2.B. This department would like a copy of the agreement between
Neptune Road Plaza, Public Works Department and Palamar Oaks; easing any
misunderstandings for future maintenance. This department has maintained this
hedge in the past, allowing the City Sewer/Water Department to access; and
would not like to be a part of any maintenance, should the variance receive
request will require approval by the City’s Engineering Department only.
recommended approval with the stated conditions. The recommendation included
an added condition stating that if the hedge is ever removed, the owner will be
required to install a fence that is 100% opaque and a condition that the
structure must match the character of existing buildings. Mr. Mauro asked that
another condition be added stating that if the variance is not granted, the
existing hedge will need to be trimmed enough to allow access of the existing
SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF
Page 9, DRC Minutes – 04/17/03
#03-4.15 – Parade of Homes
Creek Rd/Kissimmee Park Rd/US 192/Old Canoe Creek Rd
Event for the purpose of allowing off-site signage
no one present to represent the application.
have had trouble in the past with the signs not being picked up; therefore a
$200.00 refundable deposit will be required. If all the
signs are not removed within the specified time, then the $200.00 deposit will
not be refunded.
noted that the $200.00 refundable deposit had been submitted.
1. Signs shall not obstruct the vision of
motorists and/or pedestrians.
2. Signs shall be placed along U.S. 192, Kissimmee Park Road, Canoe Creek Road and Old
Canoe Creek Road
3. Signs shall be spaced no less than ¼ mile
apart except at the following intersections
U.S. 192 and Kissimmee Park Road
Road and Old Canoe Creek Road
Old Canoe Creek
Road and Canoe Creek Road
Canoe Creek Road and U.S. 192
4. No signs shall be posted prior to April 24, 2003 and shall be removed no later than May 12, 2003. Failure to remove the signs
shall result in a denial of future requests.
5. No signs shall be posted on trees, utility
structures/poles, street signs, etc.
6. The applicant was advised at the time of
submittal that a review fee of $50 was required. As of this date no fees have
been submitted. Therefore, unless fees are received prior to the meeting at 2:00 p.m., Thursday, April 17, 2003, the Planning Department recommends denial of the
Ms. Hobbs noted that the applicant had submitted the
$50.00 review fee.
The DRC recommended approval with the conditions as
SEE DRC SIGN-OFF
SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.