Homepage -Family

Go To Search
TwitterFacebook
YouTube
 

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

CITY OF ST. CLOUD

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

DATE OF MEETING:      April 17, 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

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dave Nearing                 Rick Mauro                    Kim Duffy                      Mark Luthie                  

Bill Johnson                   Eric Morgan                   Ron Trowell                   Angelo Perri

Major Faucett

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.         Approval of DRC Consent Agenda for April 17, 2003

 

The consent agenda of April 17, 2003 was approved as submitted.

 

2.         Case #2-81.03 – Neptune Road Plaza

                                                Neptune Road/West of Palamar

                                                Site Plan

 

Mr. Roxy 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 buildings.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments at this time.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.                   An Osceola County Right-of-Way Permit for the driveway connection will be required prior to site sign off. 

 

Mr. Howse 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…”

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he would amend the comment.

 

Mr. Nearing 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.

 

Mr. Howse 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

 

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A Certificate of Capacity approved by City Council shall be required prior to receiving a Notice to Proceed.

2.                   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.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

3.                   Staff recommends approval of the request with the above conditions.

INFORMATION:

4.                   Sanitary Sewer 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.

5.                   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 fee.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.    

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         Further conditions and recommendations will be addressed during the construction process.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

CONDITIONS:

1.         The owner will install all primary conduit and concrete transformer pad.  The secondary conduit, wire, and terminations are the responsibility of the owner.

2.         There 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.

4.         OUC can provide parking lot lights for this project.  Please contact Bill Ellwood.

5.         Please send all site and electric information to OUC Development Services.

            OUC Development Services

            Bill Ellwood                               (407) 236-9652 – (407) 236-9628 (fax)

            500 South Orange Avenue          email: developmentservices@ouc.com

            P.O. Box 3193

            Orlando, FL  32802

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The survey does not indicate the Flood Zone of the subject property as is required.  Please amend.

 

Mr. Howse explained that this information was shown on Sheet #1 below the engineer’s notes.

 

Mr. Morgan noted that the zone designated was no longer valid and that the correct terminology needed to be reflected.

 

Mr. Howse noted that the information was correct according to the County’s plan but he would verify that fact and amend the note if necessary.

 

2.                   Please delete Engineer's Note # 24 regarding the height of the building as this information is already contained in Engineer's Note # 18.

 

Mr. Howse agreed to delete the note as requested.

 

 

Page 3, DRC Minutes – 04/17/03

 

 

3.                   Please correct 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.

4.                   Please correct 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.

 

Mr. Morgan explained that this comment was included to make sure the City was covered in the event there was a problem with the variance.

 

5.                   Please correct 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 City Council.

 

Mr. Howse noted that he had met with the president of the Palamar HOA and would like to discuss the issue of the wall.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that the issue could be discussion during the next case.

 

6.                   Please provide a letter from Osceola County Engineering stating that no additional right-of-way is required from the subject property for Neptune Road.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

7.                   Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the above conditions.

INFORMATION:

8.                   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.

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

10.               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.

11.               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.

12.               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.

13.               Future Land Use - Commercial.  Zoning - Neighborhood Business.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   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 8.8.7.4(c) Please revise.

2.                   The submitted survey, sheet 1 of 1, and the submitted landscaping plan do not match.

                                          A.            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.

                                          B.            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.

3.                   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.

4.                   The landscaping 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.

·         The removed trees are not specimens. The average size is around 8” at DBH.

·         The removed trees are native to Florida.

·         There is room on the site for the replacements.

 

Page 4, DRC Minutes – 04/17/03

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

5.                   It is recommended to bring in a tree company to raise the canopy of the existing trees prior to construction.

 

Mr. Howse noted that this was being worked out with the landscaper and that he had shown curbing on the landscaping plan.

 

Ms. Duffy noted that her comments had been faxed to the Landscape Architect.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         This case will require approval by the City Engineering Department only.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

CONDITIONS:

1.         Submit a site plan for review and tenant build-out for addressing.

 

Mr. Howse noted that the drawings would be amended to reflect the outcome of discussion regarding the variance issue.

 

FINDING:

The DRC 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.

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 5, DRC Minutes –
04/17/03

 

 

3.         Case #2-81.04 – Neptune Road Plaza

                                                Neptune Road/ West of Palamar

                                                Site Plan Variances

 

Mr. Roxy Howse and Mr. Karl Theobald were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments at this time.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Variance request #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.

 

Mr. Howse 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 18-feet depth.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he thought shortening the parking to 18 feet was allowed under the present codes.

 

Mr. Nearing 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 site.

 

Mr. Howse explained that he was attempting to match the adjacent property as much as possible.

 

Mr. Morgan 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.

 

The issue 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.

 

Mr. Clyde 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.

 

Mr. Nearing asked if the H.O.A. maintained the existing hedge and Mr. Jackson noted they did.

 

Mr. Howse asked if in light of Mr. Jackson’s comments, staff could amend their comments to reflect support of the variance.

 

Mr. Nearing noted that staff could support the variance but reminded the applicants that the final decision would be left up to the City Council.

 

Mr. Morgan noted concern over the fact that the City had never allowed buffers to be located off-site before.

 

Mr. Nearing 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

 

 

Ms. Duffy 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.

 

Mr. Mauro and Mr. Swingle both noted support for the variance citing utility access concerns if a wall were to be installed.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   No comments.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The Lines 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 accessibility.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         Approval of this case will not cause an adverse affect on fire rescue department operations.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Please respond 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.]

RECOMMENDATIONS:

2.                   Staff recommends 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 line.

INFORMATION:

3.                   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:

    1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structures, or required subdivision improvements involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or required subdivision improvements.

Page 7, DRC Minutes – 04/17/03

 

The 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 conditions.

The 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.

The 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.

4.                   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:

    1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structures, or required subdivision improvements involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or required subdivision improvements.

The 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 constructed now.

2.   That a literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of right commonly enjoyed by other properties with similar conditions.

Literal 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.

3.   That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

That 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.

5.                   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:

    1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structures, or required subdivision improvements involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or required subdivision improvements.

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.

2.   That a literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of right commonly enjoyed by other properties with similar conditions.

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.

3.   That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

The location of the utility easement and landscape barrier do not result from the actions of the applicant.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   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 approval.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         This request will require approval by the City’s Engineering Department only.

 

FINDING:

The DRC 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 utilities.

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Page 9, DRC Minutes –
04/17/03

 

 

4.         Case #03-4.15 – Parade of Homes

                                                Canoe Creek Rd/Kissimmee Park Rd/US 192/Old Canoe Creek Rd

                                                Special Event for the purpose of allowing off-site signage

 

There was no one present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         We 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.

 

Ms. Hobbs noted that the $200.00 refundable deposit had been submitted.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

OUC (ELECTRIC UTILITY)

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

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 only.

3.         Signs shall be spaced no less than ¼ mile apart except at the following intersections

a)                               U.S. 192 and Kissimmee Park Road

b)                               Kissimmee Park Road and Old Canoe Creek Road

c)                               Old Canoe Creek Road and Canoe Creek Road

d)                               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 applicant’s request.

 

Ms. Hobbs noted that the applicant had submitted the $50.00 review fee.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval with the conditions as stated.

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

 

ADJOURNMENT:           The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.