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 3, 2003

 

LOCATION:                   Municipal Services Complex 1st Floor Conference Room

                                    2901 17th Street, St. Cloud

 

CALL TO ORDER:         2:00 P.M.

 

VICE CHAIRMAN:          Mark Luthie, Civil Engineering

 

SECRETARY:               Marty Hobbs, Development Officer

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Rick Mauro                    Mark Luthie                   Dave Ennis        John Groenendaal         

Eric Morgan                   Ron Trowell                   Angelo Perri      Major Faucett               

Todd Swingle

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.         Case #03-57.01 – Magnolia Square

SW Corner of U.S. 192 and Jaffa Drive

Site Plan

 

Mr. Roxy Howse and Mr. Charlie Robertson were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments at this time.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

CONDITIONS:

1.         Sheet #2 of 9:

a.                   Please provide the width and depth dimension for the proposed parking spaces. 

 

Mr. Howse noted that the dimensions were shown on Note #8 of page 1 and those dimensions included six compact car spaces.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that he had not seen the note and that Mr. Howse needed to make sure the contractor picks up on it.

 

b.                   The driveway entrances along Jaffa Drive show a pedestrian stripped area, which is part of the required 24-foot wide travel way.  The driveway width may need to be increased to allow for 24-feet for vehicular traffic in addition to the pedestrian clear zone.

 

Mr. Howse explained that this was a PUD subdivision that had no sidewalks.  He noted that this was different from Commerce Industrial Park because the City Council had expressly removed the sidewalks within the subdivision.  He further noted that the Building Official had required him to show a walkway that would provide access to the road right-of-way or future sidewalk.  He explained that this same argument had come up during the review of the Grafton and Constentine sites.  Mr. Howse explained that he was not looking to increase the driveway from 24 feet to 28 feet.

 

Mr. Trowell explained that providing the walkway for handicap access was a requirement of the accessibility codes.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that if the required walkway and driveway were to be shared, it could be left at 24 feet but if it were required to be separate, it would have to be shown at 28 feet.

 

Mr. Trowell explained that the code did not separate the driveway and accessibility routes.  He noted that it simply called for the route to be striped from the right-of-way to the building.

Page 2, DRC Comments – 04/03/03

 

 

Mr. Luthie noted that item “B” could be removed.

 

c.                   The inverted parking area will sheet flow directly across the proposed manhole in Phase III.  We recommend the manhole location be adjusted to prevent the possibility of inflow from storm water.

 

Mr. Luthie explained the problems inherent with utilizing the inverted pavement plan.  He noted that the manhole would not be flush with the pavement.

 

The issue of shifting the manhole three to four feet was discussed with Mr. Howse noting that he would but did not want to.

 

d.                   The proposed 20-foot drainage swale at the rear of the Phase III building directs drainage to the southwest corner of the property but does not provide any information as to the direction of flow beyond that corner.  Please clarify the intent of the conveyance system. 

 

Mr. Howse noted that he would show arrows indicating the drainage flows going into an existing swale.

 

Mr. Luthie asked if there was a sewer main ML sewer main in that area and Mr. Howse noted there was.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that it was something his department needed to look at.

 

Drainage for the site and the existing sewer main location were discussed at length.

 

e.                   The existing manhole top is indicated at an elevation of 72.78, yet the property grade is shown to be at 73.31 adjacent to the manhole.

 

Mr. Howse noted that there was about 6 inches difference and he had to uncover the manhole that was underground.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that comments C & D would need to remain for information purposes.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

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

2.                   A Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee in the amount of $1837.50, equal to 10% of the estimated sewer impact fee, shall be paid prior to receiving a Notice to Proceed.  This amount will be credited against final impact fees, which will be calculated at the time of building permit submittal based upon construction plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

3.                   Staff recommends approval with conditions as given herein.

INFORMATION:

4.                   The estimated sewer impact fee is based upon the ratio of $600 per 1,000 gross square feet of Industrial building area, and per the ratio of $1,000 per 1,000 gross square feet of Professional building area Resolution 98-27R.  As it applies to this project: 

9,000 gross square feet of manufacturing X $600.00÷ 1,000 gross square feet = $5,400.00 estimated sewer impact fee.

12,975 gross square feet of office X $1,000.00 ÷ 1,000 gross square feet = $12,975.00 estimated sewer impact fee

10% of this total amount ($1,837.50) is the Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee.

5.                   The impact fees are scheduled to increase soon, the impact fees will be determined at the rate in effect at the time of building plan approval.

6.                   A public safety fees will implemented starting April 1, 2003

7.                   A copy of current impact fees and rates are available from the Planning & Zoning Department.

8.                   A Certificate of Capacity is valid for 1 year after the approval date by City Council, within which period construction must commence and be ongoing and continuous.  Otherwise, the Certificate of Capacity

 

Page 3, DRC Minutes – 04/03/03

 

 

expires and water and sewer service is denied until such time as another Certificate of Capacity is obtained.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Indicate the backflow preventers as reduced pressure type.

 

Mr. Howse noted that he had included a standard detail that shows the backflow but he would add it as a note on the plans for clarification.

 

2.                   Please change the City of St. Cloud Standard Detail Drawing no. D-12001 to the most current version.

 

Mr. Howse noted that he thought he was working with the latest drawings.

 

Mr. Mauro noted that there appeared to be only one sheet that was outdated.  He further noted that the latest revision was 5/22.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.         Fire hydrants in commercial, industrial, and high-density residential areas shall be spaced no greater than three hundred fifty (350) feet apart and shall be connected to mains no less than eight (8) inches in diameter.  In addition, hydrants shall be located so that the radius of one hundred seventy five (175) feet from the hydrant shall strike a portion of the structure, as well as strike the same radius of the next hydrant on the property. The required distance between all hydrants shall be 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. No individual hydrant shall be designed to deliver more than 1000 GPM of required fire flow.  (L.D.C. 7.9.2.b.1)

2.         Before and during construction, when combustibles are brought onto the site in such quantities as deemed hazardous by the fire official, paved roads to provide access for fire vehicles and a suitable water supply for fire protection acceptable to the fire department shall be provided and maintained.  (L.D.C. 6.1.21.3)

INFORMATION:

3.         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 if electric service is underground.  The secondary conduit, wire, and terminations are the responsibility of the owner for both overhead and underground.

2.         A utility easement will be required once the location of the transformer and primary run is determined if required.

3.         Please note electric service from the power pole to the building has to be underground per Dr. Phillips.

4.         There may be costs to provide electric service to this project.  Please contact Bill Ellwood.

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

6.         Please send all site and electric information to 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

Once all information is obtained by Development Services, an Engineer will be assigned to the job.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The Development Data in Note 10 does not add up right, I think there is an error in Phase 2 as there are two phase 2’s.

 

Mr. Howse noted that he would make the necessary corrections.

Page 4, DRC Minutes – 04/03/03

 

 

2.                   Provide a trip generation note.

 

Mr. Howse advised that he would add a note to the plans.

 

3.                   The Landscaping shall be contained on site.

 

Mr. Robertson noted that he was assuming it was in the right-of-way of Jaffa Road.  He noted that he had submitted the plan to Dr. Phillips and they had agreed with it.  He also noted that he agrees to provide the maintenance.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that as long as it was clearly understood by everyone, he had no problem with it.

 

Mr. Robertson explained that he was assuming it was OK with Dr. Phillips by virtue of the fact that they had not addressed it at all.

 

Mr. Morgan noted that he would recommend that the agreement, particularly for maintenance, be in a written form.

 

Mr. Robertson explained that Dr. Phillips would not give their final approval until the City had approved the plans.

 

Mr. Morgan again noted that if the documents did not specifically address this maintenance situation, he felt like the city needed to get something in writing.

 

Mr. Luthie asked if a note defining the maintenance responsibility could be added to the plan.

 

Mr. Groenendaal offered some suggestions for relocating the landscaping and they were discussed.  He noted that the trees would need to be kept out of the right-of-way with a note be added regarding maintenance of the secondary plantings located inside the right-of-way.

 

Mr. Robertson explained that the landscaping had been located in the right-of-way in an attempt to make the property larger.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that there was no one present from Parks and Recreation and recommended that Mr. Roberts contact Kim Duffy to discuss

 

INFORMATION:

4.                   The proposed (6) six compact spaces are permitted in the PUD document.

5.                   The parking rates are as outlined in the PUD documents.

6.                   The PUD document prohibits the use of temporary signage.

7.                   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.

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

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   The survey or site plan does not show that there is an existing 6” Black Cherry tree (Prunus serotina). This native tree is not considered a harvest tree; therefore, is required to have replacement up to a two-for-one. Please show the replacements on the landscaping plan.

 

Mr. Robertson explained that he was adding more than the 2:1 ratio.  He went on to explain the number and type of trees to be installed.

 

Mr. Luthie noted that there was no one present from the Parks and Recreation Department and recommended that the applicant contact Ms. Duffy to work things out.

 

2.                   Most of the proposed landscaping outside of the property lines (with the exception of the Northeast corner), are above minimum standards of buffering. If allowed, the St. Cloud Parks & Recreation will

Page 5, DRC Minutes – 04/03/03

 

 

request an agreement between the Owner and Dr. Phillips Inc.; stating that this landscaping shall be maintained by the Owner.

 

This item was previously discussed.

 

3.                   Buffer plantings and one (1) tree is required at the Northeast corner of the site. Please revise.

 

Mr. Luthie again noted that there was no one present from Parks and Recreation and recommended that Mr. Howse contact Ms. Duffy for discussion.

 

4.                   Eleven (11) trees are required within the buffer adjacent to Highway 192/60’ Drainage. The proposed landscaping plan shows eighteen (18) that are grouped too close together. Please revise.

 

Mr. Robertson again noted that he would contact Ms. Duffy to discuss the landscaping issues.

 

5.                   The proposed Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia indica) within each interior median do not meet the requirements of Section 8.8.7.4 (f) unless the plant legend describes the Crape Myrtle to be a Standard and Cultivar. Please revise.

 

Mr. Robertson noted that he would make the necessary corrections.

 

6.                   Raised curbing is required along all areas of landscaping/green space in accordance with Section 8.8.7.4 (c) The interior medians show this; however, several other areas surrounding the dumpster locations, entrances to site, and adjacent to the West sides. Please revise.

 

Mr. Howse noted that he was assuming the curb would be located all the way up the driveway and back.

 

Mr. Luthie again noted that Mr. Howse needed to discuss the matter with Ms. Duffy to verify that was the case.

 

7.                   Parking areas #35 through #45 is confusing. If #45 is considered a parking space, Section 8.8.7.4 (e) has not been met. Please explain.

 

Mr. Howse noted that this issue was previously discussed.

 

Mr. Groenendaal noted that there were eleven spaces shown and that there needed to be a landscaped island after each ten spaces.

 

Mr. Howse noted that he the site had more than the required number of parking spaces and that he could remove #45 which would resolve the comment.

 

Mr. Luthie again recommended that the applicants discuss the matter with Ms. Duffy.

 

8.                   Buffer plantings are required along the West property line, where parking is proposed. Starting North moving South to the 20’ easement. Please revise.

 

Mr. Robertson noted that he agreed and would revise the plans accordingly.

 

Mr. Howse noted that it needed to be kept where it was presently shown because of the location of the main office.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         A South Florida Water Management District permit is required for this project.

 

OSCEOLA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY (911 ADDRESSING)

CONDITIONS:

1.         Provide tenant build-out for addressing multiple units.

 

Page 5, DRC Minutes – 04/03/03

 

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval of the site plan with the conditions as stated.  The applicant will meet with Kim Duffy to resolve the issues regarding buffers and plantings and resubmit corrected plans for sign-off only.

 

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION

 


Page 7, DRC Minutes – 04/03/03

 

 

2.         Case # 03-56.02 – Starling Auto Dealership

                                                East of Partin Settlement Rd. – West of Turnpike

                                                W/S Construction Plans

 

 

Mr. Jim Mackey and Mr. Curtis Arrington were present to represent the application.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS:

1.                   A Certificate of Capacity approved by City Council shall be required prior to receiving City water and sewer service.  A Sanitary Sewer Capacity Reservation Fee in the amount of 1/3 of the estimated sanitary sewer impact fee as given by Resolution 98-27R, or $10,428.00, shall be paid prior to the Certificate of Capacity being scheduled before City Council.  If the Certificate of Capacity is approved by City Council, the balance of the estimated sanitary sewer impact fee, or $20,856.00, shall be paid within 90 days of the approval date of the Certificate of Capacity.

 

Mr. Mackey asked when the reservation fees needed to be paid.

 

Mr. Morgan explained that it was up to the applicant and that the Certificate of Capacity would not move forward until the fee was submitted.

 

Mr. Mackey asked if the fee could be paid at any time and Mr. Morgan noted that it could.

 

2.                   Architectural building plans for this development complete with plumbing plans and riser diagrams shall be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Department.  These plans shall be used by staff to calculate the exact sanitary sewer and potable water impact fee due.  Monies paid for the Certificate of Capacity shall be credited towards the final City water and sewer impact fees due.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

3.                   Staff recommends approval of construction plans for this development with the above conditions.

INFORMATION:

4.                   Resolution 98-27R estimates the sanitary sewer impact fee at a rate of $1,100 per 1,000 gross square feet of building with a Commercial use.  For this request, this calculates as $1,100 x 28,440 sf of building ÷ 1,000 = $31,284.00.

 

LINES DIVISION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Please submit a full set of plans including the most current City of St. Cloud Standard Detail Drawings.

 

Mr. Mackey asked if there was anything else that needed to be submitted and Mr. Mauro explained that his concern was getting a complete set of plans that included current details.

 

INFORMATION:

2.         Additional comments may be addressed at time of re-submittal of the full set of plans.

 

FIRE DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         Since this project is not in the city limits, it will not receive fire rescue services from the St. Cloud Fire Rescue Department.  Therefore, approval of this case will not have a significant affect on fire rescue department operations.

 

Page 8, DRC Minutes – 04/03/03

 

 

PLANNING

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   Staff recommends approval of the construction plans for this project receiving City water and sewer service outside the City limits.

INFORMATION:

2.                   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.

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

4.                   The subject property is outside the corporate limits of the City, does not abut the corporate limits of the City, and therefore is not immediately annexable.

5.                   See PLANNING COMMENTS and CONCURRENCY COMMENTS for DRC case #03-56.01 Starling Auto Dealership (Water/Sewer Request)

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

INFORMATION:

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

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval with the conditions stated.  This case will move forward to Planning Board and City Council for review and approval.

 

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS


Page 9, DRC Minutes – 04/03/03

 

 

 

3.         Case #02-71.03 – Walgreen’s

                                                4501 13th Street

                                                Site Plan

 

Mr. Bill Myers of CCL Consultants was present to represent the application.  He explained that the previous Engineer had left the firm and that he did not know much about the project.

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION:

1.         No comments on this revision.

 

PUBLIC WORKS

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the site plan.

INFORMATION:

2.                   No impacts to the Concurrency Management system are noted.

 

LINES DIVISION

INFORMATION:

1.         No comment.

 

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 comments as to site plan modifications.

 

PLANNING

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Please identify the proposed changes of the approved site plan on Sheet 5 (preferably with clouds, as referenced in the letter accompanying the application).

2.                   Please note the width of all 90-degree angle and 45-degree angle parking stalls on Sheet 5.

3.                   Please change "87 Spaces" to "85 Spaces" note printed over the building structure diagram on Sheet 5.

 

Mr. Meyer noted that he did not have a problem and would make the revisions as needed.

 

4.                   Per Section 3.18.5.A of the Land Development Code (LDC), loading zone minimum dimensions are 12 feet by 45 feet.  Please correct the loading zone shown on Sheet 5 or obtain a site variance from City Council.

5.                   Per Section 6.13.1 of the LDC, the minimum drive aisle width adjacent to 45-degree angle parking is 16 feet.  Please correct as shown on Sheet 5 or obtain a site variance from City Council.  (Resolution 2002-129R specified drive aisle width reductions from 24 feet to 22 feet, not 16 feet to 12.4 feet.)

 

Mr. Meyer noted that the plans had been approved in July of last year and he was confused as to how to proceed since this was something that had been approved as a part of the original plan.  He also noted that the site was near completion and that such major changes now would not be possible.

 

6.                   Per Section 8.8.7.2(b) of the LDC, one tree is required for each 25 lineal feet of required landscaping along a public right-of-way.  Please correct Sheet 8 for the tree plantings along 13th Street to comply or obtain a site plan variance from City Council.  (Staff encourages the clustering idea proposed by the

 

Page 9, DRC Minutes – 04/03/03

 

 

applicant, but minimum separation distances still must be met.  The addition of more trees would accomplish both.)

 

Mr. Meyers explained that they wanted to cluster the trees in a different way.  He asked if this would require a variance and if staff could support such a variance.

 

Mr. Luthie asked if it was workable and Mr. Meyers noted he was new to the project and couldn’t say for sure.  He noted that the site was tight but functional.

 

The issue of the plantings and possible variance was discussed with Mr. Luthie noting that the applicant would need to contact Mr. Nearing on Monday to discuss the matter.

 

Mr. Luthie again noted that there was no representative present from Parks & Recreation and asked Mr. Meyer to contact Ms. Duffy to discuss the matter.  He noted that she would need to agree to any staff recommendations made regarding the variance.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

7.                   Staff recommends approval subject to 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.               Resolution 2002-129R, approved June 13, 2002 by City Council, granted a site plan variance for the following sections of the LDC: 8.8.7.4 eliminating 10% interior landscaping and 4-width strip between rows of parking; 8.7.5 eliminating the 5-foot width buffer along the west boundary between Walgreen’s and Ryan's Steak House; and, 6.13.1 reducing parking stall lengths to 18 feet and reducing some parking lot drive aisles to 22 feet width.

 

PARKS & RECREATION

CONDITIONS:

1.                   Additional access/zoning space has been added to the front interior parking. What is the access for? Section 8.8.7.4 (e) states that parking islands shall be provided for every ten (10) parking spaces in a row. Said islands shall be a minimum width of six (6), measured from the backs of all required curbing. Please explain. NOTE: The landscaping graphics shows this as additional Viburnum suspensum.

2.                    All required replacements and buffer trees have been shown on the proposed plan. However, spacing does not meet Section 8.8.7.2 (b) One (1) tree planted every twenty-five (25) linear feet, or fraction thereof. The June 19, 2002 approved plan meets this requirement. Please explain.

INFORMATION:

3.         On the June 19, 2002 approved plan, one of the required interior medians (located adjacent to Ryan’s Steakhouse – Southwest side) is shown to be eight (8’) feet in width, measured from the backs of the raised curbing. The proposed plan shows this median a minimum width of six (6’) feet in width, measured from the backs of the raised curbing. The proposal continues to meet Section 8.8 7.4 (e) of the Land Development Code.

 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CONDITIONS:

1.         If revisions affect the permitted water management system or increase impervious coverage, a South Florida Water Management District permit will be required.

 

Timing for the variance was briefly discussed with a date of May 8th designated for the variance review and approval by City Council.

 

Relocation of the handicap parking spaces and accessible route was discussed.

 

Mr. Meyer noted that he would contact Ms. Duffy regarding the trees and buffers.

 

The issue of the loading zone was discussed briefly.

 

Page 11, Planning Board Minutes – 04/03/03

 

 

Mr. Morgan explained that the process was different for issue regarding buffers and drive isles as opposed to loading zone issues.  He noted that the buffer and drive isle variances would be reviewed and approved by City Council but the issues regarding the Loading Zone would have to go before the Board of Adjustments & Appeals.

 

FINDING:

The DRC recommended approval of the revisions to the site plan.  The applicant will resubmit plans for sign-off if the plan varies from that which is approved during the variance processes.

 

 

SEE DRC SIGN-OFF SHEET FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

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