2008-01-23MINUTES OF THE
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2008,10:00 A. M.
CITY OF OKEECHOBEE
55 Southeast 3rd Avenue
Okeechobee, Florida 34974
I. CALL TO ORDER - Chairperson
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brian Whitehall.
11. STAFF ATTENDANCE - Secretary
PRESENT:
Administrator Whitehall
Building Official Schaub
Engineer Bermudez
Public Works Director Robertson
Chief Davis
Chief Smith
******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Non - Voting Ex- Officio Member
******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
PRESENT:
County Health Department Trent
OUA Hayford
Planner Brisson
Secretary Clement
ABSENT:
Attorney Cook
School Representative (no representation)
III. Minutes — Secretary
Chief Davis moved to dispense with the reading and approve the December 19, 2007 Technical Review Committee Minutes
regular meeting; seconded by Public Works Director Robertson. Motion carried (6 -0).
IV. New Business — Chairperson
A. The Lakehouse 08- 001 -TRC. The application was submitted by John Cassels, Jr. on behalf of applicant Jose
Rasco, CFO for owners 15th Street Homes LLC /Montebello 13 LLC, Joint Venture. This is the final site plan review
for a residential planned unit development encompassing 136 single - family units on a variety of lot sizes on
approximately 50.8 acres in the southern part of the City. Development to be developed in a single phase. Brief
legal: All that part of Section 21, Township 37 South, Range 35 East — Senior Planning Consultant.
1
IV. New Business Continued.
Mr. Bill Brisson presented the LaRue Planning Staff recommendation of approval, assuming the applicant provides
acceptable explanations and /or provides the required information for lighting the local roadways and shows off street
parking area to serve the clubhouse and pool area, including the landscape plans.
Marcos Monts de Oca, Boyle Engineering stated he was working with Florida Power and Light (FPL) on the lighting plan.
Chief Smith requested the applicant to put in writing attesting to the analysis for the turning radius for the fire trucks.
Administrator Whitehall also stated there is within the City, in the subdivisions, problems with the turning radius for the
garbage trucks.
Chief Smith also stated, there does appear to be sufficient hydrants. Mr. Monts de Oca explained the hydrant placement is
more visible on the utility sheet of plans. Chief Smith and Mr. Monts de Oca will meet on the hydrant issues.
Administrator Whitehall asked whether there were further comments from the citizens or the Committee. Engineer
Bermudez inquired whether South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) had issued the applicable permits? Mr.
Monts de Oca replied yes. Administrator Whitehall questioned Mr. Monts de Oca on the drainage issues. Will the lake be
kept full for aesthetics? Mr. Jeff Sumner, Boyle Engineering, replied, not entirely. There should be two feet available in the
lake due to being able to regulate. Mr. Monts de Oca reported site drainage is a pre -post discharge. There is a certain
amount that the site is allowed to discharge and we have reduced that amount, actually meter the discharge out. Public
Works Director Robertson asked what the amount of discharge would be? Mr. Sumner stated there is a discharge formula.
The bleeder for the site is at 3 -4 inches coming out of the lake, fairly small. Mr. Robertson asked if this was automatic or
manual? Mr. Sumner answered, automatic. Concrete inlet with a hole set at our control elevation, and once the water gets
above that control you are stuck with a bleeder until the water quality is met, then there is a weir on top of the box which
once the water builds up will be discharged at a higher rate, but it is still metered . Mr. Robertson asked where the water
was being discharged to? It goes the existing route to 7th stated Mr. Sumner. Mr. Whitehall again interjected as to the
height of the lake. Mr. Sumner replied they are required to set the control elevation at the normal water table during the wet
season would be. There are a couple of feet available in the lake and that is where we are capturing the excess volume
from the imperious area.
Jose Rasco, 15th Street Homes, thanked the committee for patience with the project. It has been a long and fun road. Want
to make sure we have addressed all the concerns of the City. Want nothing to be decided later. Mr. Brisson stated there
would be a separate site plan for the clubhouse. In reality there is nothing for the approval of the clubhouse, other than the
general location. In the forthcoming site plan for the clubhouse you will then provide adequate parking, lighting and
landscaping. Mr. Rasco agreed.
Mr. Monts de Oca stated the community would be a walkable community, so we feel many of the people will walk to the
clubhouse, not drive. Would like to use the area as recreation area and green purposes. Mr. Brisson expressed the feeling
that this is what the applicant was seeking, but in past experiences, people at the far end of the community do not walk to
the clubhouse. The parking ratio should be figured on the requirements for indoor recreation which may be higher than
needed, but certainly it is not going to be a minimal amount of parking. No one likes excess parking, but typically you drive
to the clubhouse to have dinner or go to the pool. The clubhouse looks to be 9,000 square feet of space, and the parking
standard for that area is one space for 150 square feet or so. Currently you show 14 parking spaces on street and in the
vicinity, and there are lot of areas that on street parking can be increased. Mr. Monts de Oca replied he thinks we can
provide about 20 spaces on the main street in front of the clubhouse.
Mr. Jeff Sumner requested the committee approve the site plan subject to the minor revisions that have been discussed.
2
IV. New Business Continued.
Mr. Whitehall asked Mr. Hayford about the hydrant issue The fire hydrant issue is predicated on the life safety codes, and
the main sizes would have to be adjusted accordingly.
Chief Smith made a motion to approve final site plan review for The Lakehouse, a residential planned unit
development encompassing 136 single - family units on a variety of lot sizes on approximately 50.8 acres in the
Southern part of the City to be developed in a single phase, based on the following contingencies: 1. A lighting plan
will be submitted prior to permitting. 2. Applicant will submit to TRC a separate site plan for the clubhouse /pool area
showing parking, light and landscaping. 3. Applicant will provide the Fire Chief with a written explanation how the
roadway configuration will provide adequate access for firefighting equipment to serve the development. 4. The
Applicant will meet with the Fire Chief to identify proper locations needed additional fire hydrants; seconded by
Engineer Bermudez. Motion carried (6 -0).
B. Park Place — Hampton Inn 08- 002 -TRC. The application was submitted by Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. on
behalf of Okeechobee SR 70 Holdings, LLC. This site plan is to develop a 85 room hotel, retail uses and
associated drainage and parking on 6.28 acres in a single phase for property located at 1108 Highway 70 East —
Senior Planning Consultant.
Mr. Brisson presented the LaRue Planning Staff recommendation of approval stating a special exception was granted by the
Planning Board at their January 17, 2008 regular meeting to allow added height beyond 45 feet to the entrance and
stairwells for the hotel. Mr. Brisson also reported a need for 2 loading zones and lighting plan.
Chris Goetzfried of Kimley Horn and Associates, representing the applicant addressed the committee. The loading zone
identified on the plan is near the dumpster location. This will handle all the large deliveries to the hotel. We assume more
of the daily deliveries will be going to the front entrance. There is quite a bit of room in the portico share area, where you
could pull up a Fed X or delivery truck. We could identify any one of those areas in the curb area as a loading zone. The
dimensions of a loading zone is 10 X 30 feet, is that correct? Mr. Brisson answered "correct, with 14 feet vertical
clearance. We have 13 feet 6 inches vertical clearance in the portico share. Will talk to the architect to bring that up to 14
feet. We are not proposing the loading zone be under the portico share, but just that it can facilitate driving through.
Mr. Goetzfried stated he requested a photometric lighting plan from the architect. The lighting is basically along the
perimeter on the islands that surround the hotel. The hotel has building lights also. The architect will be able to put together
a photometric plan that includes parking lot location lighting and also the building location lighting. Mr. Goetzfried asked
whether the half horizontal foot candle was a minimum that needs to be met, or is it an average? Mr. Brisson replied,
"average ".
Mr. Whitehall confirmed, there are four residences along the east side of the property, where the six foot high decorative
wall is being erected. Are there any provisions, where the lamps are located around the perimeter of the property, to
alleviate complaints from the residents wherein their backyard's are going to have significant light shining on them? Mr.
Goetzfried explained there is a non - exposed lamp, a downward directing light. Would not spread out excessively. Mr.
Whitehall asked the applicant, if he had the opportunity to go to the residents to defuse any issues that might arise with the
six foot wall, since this seemed to be a subject for discussion, when we were talking about the general zoning when
addressing the City Council.
Kelly Kite, 3055 Cardinal Drive, Vero Beach addressed Mr. Whitehall's question. He stated there have been discussions
with the residents, Mr. Burnett in particular. Mr. Burnett wanted an eight foot wall, which we would be happy to do for his
section of property, if approved by the TRC. Dura Tech is working on several different wall designs for the hotel.
3
IV. New Business Continued.
As they come back, they will be presented to Mr. Burnett and any other neighbors that want to comment on them to see
what suits them best as well as our budget.
Engineer Bermudez stated for clarification, any and all additional building(s) erected on this parcel, will have to be
presented to the TRC for approval. This approval is only for the hotel. The applicant understood.
Mr. Schaub stated a concern for the noise the garbage truck would generate while picking up the dumpsters for the
neighboring residents. Mr. Goetzfried said he would look at relocating.
Mr. Whitehall inquired as to whether the agreement had been reached with the Post Office regarding the access to 10th
Avenue? Mr. Kite reported it is in the hands of the attorneys for the Post Office.
Chief Davis encouraged the applicant to install security cameras in the parking lot. While we have no provisions of
mandating the request, we would urge you to consider the request.
Mr. Whitehall asked if there were further questions, there were none.
Chief Davis made a motion to approve site plan review for Park Place — Hampton Inn to develop a 85
room hotel and associated drainage and parking on 6.28 acres in a single phase with contingencies:
1. Applicant will provide an additional loading zone, of adequate size and vertical clearance, in an area in
front of the hotel with the location to be approved by the City Engineer. 2. Applicant will relocate the
dumpster westward to a location to be approved by the Building Official in order to reduce noise impacts
upon neighbors to the east. 3. Approval of the site plan is dependent upon execution of the joint access
agreement between the Post Office and the Applicant. 4. A lighting plan will be submitted prior to
permitting. 5. Applicant will continue to work with property owners to east to ensure the buffer wall is
adequate to ameliorate resident concerns, within the limits imposed by the LDC. 6. No parking signs will
be posted along the driveways sufficient to ensure accessibility for firefighting equipment; seconded by
Engineer Bermudez. Motion carried (6 -0).
C. Park Street Business Center 08- 004 -TRC. The application for Pre - application Plat Review was
submitted by William Orazi, Rudd Jones, P.E. on behalf of property owner William Grigsby, Jr. for
development of a 6 lot commercial subdivision with on -site dry detention areas and lakes to be
developed in a single phase for property located adjacent to SR70 between Northeast 12th and 13th
Avenues — Senior Planning Consultant.
Mr. Brisson presented the LaRue Planning Staff report with the following comments: The subject property is within the
Commercial Land Future Land Use category and is within the Heavy Commercial (CHV) Zoning District, both appropriate for
a commercial division.
Although Chapter 6 permits a cul -de -sac up to twelve hundred feet, Staff questions the appropriateness of a roadway,
serving commercial businesses, accessing the property from SR70 via only a 50 -foot right -of -way and a 20 -foot paved road
which is 1,000 feet long ending in a cul -de -sac. Further, one would also expect a sidewalk along such a roadway.
All other aspects of the Preliminary Plat submittal seem to meet the requirements.
Bill Orazi, Rudd Jones & Associates, representing the applicant reported the South Florida Water Management District
permits have been applied for. Should have within the next two months. Okay with putting a sidewalk on the side, the
right -a -way issue, this is a local street, not looking for anything to go through here other than the commercial 6 lot center.
4
IV. New Business Continued.
We feel 20 feet, with two foot curb on either side, which gives 24 feet in case of emergency, to work with of hard surface, is
sufficient. 900 feet with a cul -de -sac is sufficient and is a safe operation. Feel confident this is a working site plan estimate.
Engineer Bermudez said the City has right -of -ways that are 40 feet and they are too tight. At this time, it would not benefit
the City to approve the right -of -way of only 50 foot. In the future the City will have to extend the road and the City should
have the domain of that right -of -way all the way to the end. Do not see why we would put a cul -de -sac, and allow the
developer to own the property at the end when there is property to be developed adjacent to this property and could
possibly be land locked. The City should have the entire right -of -way from SR70 to the end of the property. So as the City
Engineer, I believe we need a minimum 70 foot right -of -way all the way from SR70 to the limits of the property. Mr. Whitehall
stated that access easement is fine, but the extension of the right -of -way is a more appropriate planning approach. I concur
with Mr. Bermudez.
Mr. Orazi reiterated, it is a 50 foot right -of -way, we are also providing 10 foot utility easements, this would give the City a
total of 70 feet overall. I Understand it is not right -of -way perse, but it would give the City a window. This property is
somewhat restrictive, width wise.
Mr. Tucker addressed the committee, stating, if he gave the City a 70 foot right -of -way and did a curb and gutter section,
including the utility area, would it be possible to have an agreement with the City to provide some kind of leniency in the
setbacks for the future development of these lots, because they are so narrow? I want to keep as much developable
property as possible.
Mr. Whitehall asked what the setback were for building on the lots? Mr. Brisson replied, "building setbacks has to be twenty
feet". Mr. Bermudez asked whether the setback was to the building or the parking? Most of those properties do not have
the parking adjacent to the right -of -way. Mr. Tucker answered, "that's correct'. You are only going to have a buffer of 10
foot before you start working with the parking. Mr. Tucker agreed.
Mr. Tucker stated the only lot that concerns him was lot one, which is on SR70, the very front, because it is a very narrow
lot. Once past the first lot, the lots get wider. If the City would allow that segment of a couple hundred feet of road to be
treated one way and the rest of the road to be treated another, I could save that little bit of land mass, because that really
concerns me. If we can do that, I do not a have a problem giving the City the right -of -way. Mr. Brisson reported, most
people put the parking in the front yard, only because of the 20 foot setback
In reality what the City would be doing, assuming you ended up with the wider road, is, require a 10 foot landscape strip,
assuming you put in the parking first. Unless, with that first lot you were looking at putting the parking in the rear and using
the sidewalk and 10 foot landscape as the setback, this would be different from the regulations, but may not necessarily be
a bad thing.
The only other issue, stated Mr. Tucker, is that we would have to go back to Riverside Bank to obtain 10 feet more on the
side of that one little segment of out parcel. That whole road section would have to shift 20 feet into that narrow lot, without
Riverside's participation. If on lot one, you consider the east side as the side and not the front, as far as the setbacks are
concerned, and call the frontage along SR70, that may resolve the setback issue. The code says, reported Mr. Brisson,
you can have 75 per cent of the setback on the side street, and 100 per cent on the front. Normally we look as the front as
being where you get the access, but we have nothing in the code that says that. He does not see a problem with this. Mr.
Whitehall stated, any modification made for setbacks should be noted on the final plat, so there is no ambiguity when we get
ready to do the building permitting.
5
IV. New Business Continued.
Mr. Tucker asked whether the cul -de -sac would disappear? Would there just be a straight right -of -way that would continue
to the end of the property or build the cul -de -sac now and tear it out for future development? Mr. Whitehall, replied, cul -de-
sac now and tear out later for future development. Mr. Tucker said, if the cul -de -sac area falls outside the right -of -way for
the temporary use until it is extended, there could be some type of developers agreement, or easement language of
agreement until such time the road is extended. Mr. Whitehall agreed. Mr. Tucker said he would work with the City on that
issue. Mr. Bermudez replied, that if we have the cul -de -sac, whoever is going to buy the lots at the end will lose some
property. But if the road extends to the property line, there would be no question. Mr. Tucker, interjected, we will just grant
the City the right -of -way, that way there will be no easement. We'll just go ahead and give it to the City. If some time in the
future the City wants to abandon the right -or -way, the owner(s) of lots 5 and 6 can apply for abandonment of right -of -way.
Chief Smith made a motion to approve Pre - Application Plat Review for a development of a 6 lot commercial
subdivision with on -site dry detention areas and lakes to be developed in a single phase with the following
contingencies: 1. Applicant will dedicate to the City 70 -foot right -of -way for E 12th Avenue from the south to north
property line of the subject property, including the cul -de -sac shown on the site plan. 2. Applicant shall provide a 20-
foot paved roadway, including the cul -de -sac, to a point 25 feet north of the cul -de -sac. 3. Applicant shall provide a 5-
foot sidewalk along the east side of NE 12th Avenue. 4. Applicant shall show setback lines for all lots on the final plat.
5. City agrees to allow /require only a 15 -foot minimum building setback along the east property line of Lot 1. A 10-
foot landscape buffer shall still be required along this property line; seconded by Chief Davis. (Motion carried 6-0)
D. Bridges Retail Nursery 08- 006 -TRC. The application submitted by Steven L. Dobbs, P.E. on behalf of
property owner Linda Bridges for development of .05 acres consisting of an addition to an existing
residence and proposed building to support a retail nursery with associated paving, drainage and
utility infrastructure to be developed in a single phase for property located on the North side of SR70
between Northwest 10th Avenue and Northwest 9th Avenue — Senior Planning Consultant.
Mr. Brisson presented the LaRue Planning Staff Report of approval providing:
1. The building is located so as to have a 20 -foot setback from the west property line;
2. First parking space is setback at least 10 feet from the west property line so as to provide the required buffer from
the street;
3. North driveway is widened to meet the minimum required dimension of 20 feet;
4. Applicant submits a landscape plan for the parking area meeting the requirements of Sections 90 -534;
5. Sidewalk is provided along NW 10 Avenue;
6. A lighting plan is submitted for the parking area;
7. The applicant identifies a more appropriate location for the dumpster; and
8. Applicant addresses any other stipulations as may be suggested by the TRC
After lengthy discussion, The Applicant was advised of the following issues that need to be addressed with regard to the
type of commercial operation desired and the site plan as submitted:
1. If Applicant wishes outdoor sale and storage to be undertaken on -site, approval of a special exception is required.
2. If and when Applicant should wish to have a drive - through capability, approval of a special exception will be
required.
6
+IV. New Business Continued.
3. When applying for the special exception and when submitting its site plan for review, Applicant should include a
fulsome and complete description of how the business is expected to be operated on the site, including locations,
type, and extent of outdoor storage and sales.
4. If the Applicant wishes to locate the dumpster at the proposed location in the alley:
a. Applicant must receive approval from City Council for use of the alley;
b. The alley will have to be improved in a manner that will accommodate access by the Waste Management
truck.
5. Applicant will need a permit from the City to put the culvert in the swale along NW 10th Avenue.
6. Applicant will need to provide a 5 -foot sidewalk along the east side of NW 10th Avenue for the length
of the subject property.
7. The first parking space on the south side of the property will have to be moved so as to provide at least
a 10 -foot landscape buffer along NW 10th Avenue.
8. Applicant will need to ensure that there is no infringement of the required visibility triangle.
9. Staff needs to check into whether or not there is a minimum distance for a driveway from the
intersection of NW 10th Avenue and SR 70.
The applicant decided to postpone to the February regular meeting.
V. Adjournment — Chairperson.
There being no further items on the agenda, Chairperson Whitehall adjourned the Technical Review Committee meeting at
12:50 p.m.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that any person desiring to appeal any decision made by the Technical Review
Committee with respect to any matter considered at this proceeding, such interested person will need a record of the
proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record
includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be bases. General Services media are for the sole
purpose of backup for official records of the Department.
Irian Whit-•
all, Chairperson
7
1375 Jackson Street, Suite 206
Fort Myers, Florida 33901 -2845
Phone: 239 - 334 -3366 Fax: 239 - 334 -6384
LaRue Planning & Management Services, Inc.
Staff Report
Site Plan Review
Prepared for : City of Okeechobee
Applicant: The Lakehouse PUD-R
Petition #: 08- 001 -TRC
Staff Report
Site Plan Review
Application No.: 08- 001 -TRC
Applicant's Name: The Lakehouse PUD -R
General Information:
Applicant:
Jose Rasco, CFO for Owners
Applicant Address:
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1740
Miami, FL 33131
Contact person:
John D. Cassels, Jr., Attorney for
Owners
Contact Address:
400 NW 2nd Street
Okeechobee, FL 34973
Contact Phone Number:
863- 763 -3131
Contact Fax Number:
863 - 763 -1031
Owner:
15th Street Homes LLC /Montebello
13 LLC, Joint Venture
Owner Address:
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1740
Miami, FL 33131
Legal Description of Subject Property:
PARCEL I:
All that part of Section 21, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, Okeechobee County, Florida, lying West of Blocks 248
and 249, and Southerly extension thereof, "FIRST ADDITION TO OKEECHOBEE FLORIDA ", as recorded in Plat
Book 5, Page 6, Okeechobee County Public Records; South of Southwest 9th Street; North of Southwest 15th Street;
and East of Block 202, and Southerly extension thereof, "OKEECHOBEE" as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 5,
Okeechobee County Public Records; and East of Southwest 10th Avenue, within the City Limits of Okeechobee,
Florida.
LESS AND EXCEPT FROM THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL:
Beginning at the Intersection of Hopkins Meander Line and the South boundary line of Section 21, Township 37 South,
Range 35 East, and run Northeasterly along said Hopkins Meander Line 28.6 feet for a POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence East paralleling said South line of Section 21, aforesaid 56.6 feet; thence North 175 feet; thence West 240 feet;
thence South 175 feet; thence East 183.4 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; said land lying in and comprising a part
of Government Lots 3 and 5 of Section 21, Township 37 South, Range 35 East.
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT FROM THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL:
A 30' wide strip of land as described in Official Records Book 351, Page 618, Okeechobee County Public Records.
Parcel ID #: 2 -21 - 37- 35 -0A00- 00006 -B000
PARCEL II:
Beginning at the intersection of Hopkins Meander Line and the South boundary line of Section 21, Township 37 South,
Range 35 East, and run Northeasterly along said Hopkins Meander Line 28.6 feet for a POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence East paralleling said South line of Section 21, aforesaid 56.6 feet; thence North 175 feet; thence West 240 feet;
thence South175 feet; thence East 183.4 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said land lying in and comprising a part
of Government Lots 3 and 5 of Section 21,
Township 37 South, Range 35 East.
2
Staff Report Application No.: 08- 001 -TRC
Site Plan Review Applicant's Name: The Lakehouse PUD -R
LESS AND EXCEPT the East 160 feet.
Parcel ID #: 2 -21 - 37- 35 -0A00- 00027 -B000
PARCEL III:
A parcel of land lying in Section 21, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, Okeechobee County, Florida. Being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of Hopkins Meander Line and the South line of Section 21, bear Northeasterly along
the said Hopkins Meander Line, a distance of 28.6 feet; thence bear East parallel to the said South line of Section 21, a
distance of 56.6 feet; thence bear North 175.00 feet; thence bear West, a distance of 80.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence continue West, a distance of 80.00 feet; thence bear South, a distance of 175.00 feet; thence bear
East, a distance of 80.00 feet; thence bear North a distance of 175.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Parcel ID#: 2-21-37-35-0A00-00027-0000
PARCEL IV:
Beginning at the intersection of Hopkins Meander Line and the South boundary line of Section 21, Township 37 South,
Range 35 East, and run Northeasterly along said Hopkins Meander Line 28.6 feet for a POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence East paralleling said South line of Section 21 aforesaid, a distance of 56.6 feet; thence North 175.00 feet; thence
West 80.00 feet; thence South 175.00 feet; thence East 23.4 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said land lying in and
comprising a part of Government Lots 3 and 5 of Section 21, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, Okeechobee County,
Florida.
Parcel ID #: 2- 21- 37- 35 -0A00- 00027 -A000
PARCEL V:
A parcel of land lying in Section 21, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, Okeechobee County, Florida, being more
particularly described as follows:
For a POINT OF REFERENCE, commence at the intersection of the Hopkins Meander Line and the South line of
Section 21; thence bear Northeasterly along said Hopkins Meander Line a distance of 28.6 feet to the North right -of-
way line of Southwest 15th Street; thence bear North 89 °36'23" East along said right -of -way line (also being 25 feet
North of and parallel to the said South line of Section 21) a distance of 56.43 feet to the Southeast corner of the lands
described in Official Records Book 153, Page 803 and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence departing said right -of -way line, bear North 00 °18'09" West along the East line of those lands described in
Official Records Book 153, Page 803 a distance of 97.24 feet to the Southwest corner of the lands referred to as "Parcel
2" in Official Records Book 581, Page 401; thence bear North 89 °36'39" East along the South line of said "Parcel 2" a
distance of 99.49 feet to the Northwest corner of the lands referred to as "Parcel 1 "in Official Records Book 581, Page
401; thence South 00 °39'46" East along the West line of said "Parcel 1" a distance of 97.23 feet to the North right -of-
way line of said Southwest 15th Street; thence bear South 89 °36'23" West along said right -of -way line a distance of
100.10 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Parcel ID#: 2-21-37-35-0A00-00028-A000
3
Staff Report Application No.: 08 -001 -TRC
Site Plan Review Applicant's Name: The Lakehouse PUD -R
PARCEL VI:
From the Southwest corner of Government Lot 5, Section 21, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, thence East along the
South boundary line of said Government Lots to the intersection with the West right -of -way line of Okeechobee Avenue
extended South, thence North along said right -of -way line of Okeechobee Avenue 25 feet for the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence North along West right -of -way line of Okeechobee Avenue 97.3 feet; thence West parallel to
South boundary line of Government Lot 5, 99.6 feet; thence South parallel to East line of Tract, 97.5 feet; thence East
parallel to North line of Tract, 99.6 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; being a part of Government Lot 5, Section 21,
Township 37 South, Range 35 East, Okeechobee County, Florida.
AN D
From the Southwest corner of Government Lot 5, Section 21, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, run thence East along
South boundary line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 336.7 feet to the intersection with the West right -of -way
line of Okeechobee Avenue extended South; thence North along the West right -of -way line of Okeechobee Avenue a
distance of 122.3 feet for POINT OF BEGINNING; thence West parallel to South boundary of Government Lot 5 for a
distance of 199.7 feet to the intersection with the West boundary line of Government Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along
West boundary line of Government Lot 5 a distance of 89:73 feet; thence East parallel to South line of Tract a distance
of 154.76 feet to the West right -of -way line of Okeechobee Avenue; thence South along said West right -of -way line a
distance of 77.7 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Being a part of Government Lot 5, Section 21, Township 37
South, Range 35 East, Okeechobee County, Florida.
Parcel 1 D #: 2- 21- 37- 35 -0A00- 00028 -0000
General Description:
This is the final site plan review for a residential planned unit development encompassing 136
single- family units on a variety of lots sizes on approximately 50.8 acres in the southern part of the
City. The TRC conducted its review of the concept plan for this development on September 26,
2007. The rezoning to PUD -R has since been recommended for approval by the Planning Board
and approved by the City Council.
Following is the Staff analysis of the project's consistency with sound planning practices and the
various City requirements and regulations. Areas where the Staff believes the submission to be
deficient are highlighted.
Concurrency of Adequate Public Facilities:
Concurrency was addressed in detail during consideration of the rezoning and therefore is provided
only in summary form for this site plan review.
According to the U.S. Census, the City of Okeechobee averages approximately 2.7 persons per
household (pph). Thus, the development of this property could generate approximately 367
additional residents.
Potable Water: The adopted LOSS for potable water is 114 gpcpd. The impact for the proposed
development is calculated to be 41,838 gpd. The Applicant has submitted a copy of the developer's
agreement indicating the ability of OUA to provide the needed potable water to the project.
4
Staff Report Application No.: 08 -001 -TRC
Site Plan Review Applicant's Name: The Lakehouse PUD -R
Sanitary Sewer: The adopted LOSS for sanitary sewer is 130 gpcpd. The impact for the proposed
development is calculated to be 47,710 gpd. The Applicant has submitted a copy of the developer's
agreement indicating the ability of OUA to provide the needed sanitary sewer services to the
project.
Solid Waste: The adopted LOSS for solid waste is 13 lbs /person/day. The impact for the proposed
development is calculated to be 4,771 ppd. The County has recently confirmed a considerable
level of excess capacity available to serve the solid waste disposal needs of other major
developments in the City. It is reasonable that the volume of solid waste associated with a
development of this size can also be accommodated within the capacity of the County's Solid Waste
Facility.
Drainage: The proposed development will be required to meet all standards required by the City of
Okeechobee and the South Florida Water Management District.
Parks & Recreation: The adopted LOSS for parks and recreation is 3 acres /1,000 persons. Based
on the estimated population, the minimum acreage requirement for parks and recreation would be
approximately 1.1 acres of recreation/open space. The Applicant is providing park areas in excess
of this requirement.
Traffic: The Applicant has submitted a Traffic Analysis, the findings of which are summarized as
follows:
The proposed project is primarily served by local roads, with access provided by SE 9th and 15th
Streets. The overall impact of the project is minimal on local streets and neither will level of
service be reduced or nor will turn lanes be necessary. Traffic impacts on both SR 70 and US
441/98 will be insignificant. Traffic congestion will continue on SR 70 with or without the project.
The impact of the project on this roadway is estimated at just 1.9% of the adopted level of service
"C ", considerably less that the 10% normally acknowledged by FDOT as the minimum level of
significance.
5
Staff Report
Site Plan Review
Application No.: 08- 001 -TRC
Applicant's Name: The Lakehouse PUD -R
Comparison of Proposal with Dimensional Standards (Sec. 90-418 :
Nonresidentially Developed Areas.
Clubhouse and Pool Area: The Applicant's plans call for an area to be devoted to recreational
amenities associated with the development, consisting of two clubhouse buildings and a pool all to
be located at the south end just outside of the eagle's nest buffer zone. The site plan should show
the off - street parking area to serve these nonresidential uses and should also include lighting and
landscape plans for these facilities. None have been provided. It would appear reasonable to
assume that the clubhouse area would be the equivalent of a private club, with a parking
requirement of about one space per 300 square feet of floor area.
Other Requirements and Considerations:
Sidewalks: The site plan shows five -foot sidewalks along all the public rights -of -way of SW 9th
Street and SW 15th Street, as well as along all of the interior roadways providing for a continuous
pedestrian circulat l n system connecting the various neighborhoods and attributes of the project.
Lighting Plan: The Applicant has not submitted a lighting plan for the streets or for the
Clubhouse /pool area. Such plan should be submitted for street lighting that meets the City's
requirements for public streets and should include provision for lighting of the clubhouse /pool area
and associated parking that would meet the most recent recommendations for by the International
Code Congress (ICC) for an average of one -half horizontal foot - candle power of artificial lighting.
Garbage and Trash Pickup: Garbage and trash will be collected from the street in front of the
individual units. The Applicant's supporting documentation to the site plan shows turning
movements of a waste truck on the various street configurations throughout the project.
6
Required
Provided
Minimum Parcel Size
5 acres
50+ acres
Maximum Density
4 d.u. /acre
2.7 d.u. /acre
Maximum Dwelling Units
201
136
Minimum Perimeter Setback
20 feet
20 — 25 feet
Minimum Building Separation
12 feet
12 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
@ 40% = 20.32 acres
12.62 acres (24.8 %)
Maximum Lot Coverage and Other
Impervious Surfaces
@ 60% = 30.48 acres
27.85 acres (54.8 %)
Minimum Open Space
@ 40% = 20.32 acres
22.18 acres (43.7 %)
Maximum Water Bodies as Percent
of Required Open Space
@ 50% = 10.16 acres
9.27 acres
Minimum Active Recreation Area
@l5 sf /d.u. = 2,040 sf
2,116 sf
Residential Off- street Parking
@ 2 per dwelling unit
indicates the need for172
172 in two -car garages;
another 124 on- street
Nonresidentially Developed Areas.
Clubhouse and Pool Area: The Applicant's plans call for an area to be devoted to recreational
amenities associated with the development, consisting of two clubhouse buildings and a pool all to
be located at the south end just outside of the eagle's nest buffer zone. The site plan should show
the off - street parking area to serve these nonresidential uses and should also include lighting and
landscape plans for these facilities. None have been provided. It would appear reasonable to
assume that the clubhouse area would be the equivalent of a private club, with a parking
requirement of about one space per 300 square feet of floor area.
Other Requirements and Considerations:
Sidewalks: The site plan shows five -foot sidewalks along all the public rights -of -way of SW 9th
Street and SW 15th Street, as well as along all of the interior roadways providing for a continuous
pedestrian circulat l n system connecting the various neighborhoods and attributes of the project.
Lighting Plan: The Applicant has not submitted a lighting plan for the streets or for the
Clubhouse /pool area. Such plan should be submitted for street lighting that meets the City's
requirements for public streets and should include provision for lighting of the clubhouse /pool area
and associated parking that would meet the most recent recommendations for by the International
Code Congress (ICC) for an average of one -half horizontal foot - candle power of artificial lighting.
Garbage and Trash Pickup: Garbage and trash will be collected from the street in front of the
individual units. The Applicant's supporting documentation to the site plan shows turning
movements of a waste truck on the various street configurations throughout the project.
6
Staff Report Application No.: 08- 001 -TRC
Site Plan Review Applicant's Name: The Lakehouse PUD -R
Fire Fighting Considerations: The Applicant's supporting documentation to the site plan shows
turning movements for a ladder truck on the various street configurations throughout the project.
The 19' 2" pavement width of the streets meets the need for 18' 6" of pavement to accommodate
the stabilizers for the ladder truck. According to verbal discussion with the Applicant's
representative, the water system capable of providing the 1,000 gpm suggested during the TRC's
review of the Conceptual Plan for the development?
Fire Hydrants: The site plan shows the locations of fire hydrants.
Landscape Plan: The Applicant has submitted a landscape plan. As can be seen in the following
table, the plan provides for a significantly greater number of tress than the typical standard of two
trees per dwelling unit.
Tree and Shrub Types
Number
Dahoon Holly (8— 9 feet high)
46
Natchez Crape Myrtle (9 — 10 feet high)
96
Little Gem Magnolia (5 — 6 feet high)
52
Slash Pine (7 — 8 feet high)
93
Cathedral Live Oak (12 — 14 feet high)
100
Cabbage Palm (8 — 15 feet high)
64
Bald Cypress ( 8 — 10 feet high)
33
TOTAL
484
Wax Myrtle (shrub, 3 — 4 feet high)
597
Recommendation:
Assuming the Applicant provides acceptable explanations and /or provides the required information
identified below, Staff recommends approval of the site plan
1. Lighting plan for the Local roadways; and,
2. Plans showing the off - street parking area to serve the clubhouse and pool area, including
lighting and landscape plans for these facilities.
Submitted by:
James G. LaRue, AICP
Planning Consultant
January 15, 2008
TRC Hearing date: January 23, 2008
7
Staff Report
Site Plan Review
Application No.: 08- 001 -TRC
Applicant's Name: The Lakehouse PUD -R
Attachment: Aerial of subject property
8