Citizen Portal

Council stalls Walker Property preliminary plan over disputed 10-foot trail; directs staff and developer to present options

City Council of St. Cloud, Florida · January 10, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council declined to approve the Walker Property preliminary subdivision plan (PSP24-00001) because a 10-foot multipurpose trail included in the approved PUD was omitted; council directed staff and the applicant to return with two options — amend the PUD to allow a deposit or ensure the trail design is constructible — and continued the item to a future meeting.

The St. Cloud City Council on Jan. 15 declined to approve the Walker Property preliminary subdivision plan (PSP24-00001) as presented after staff determined the plan omitted a 10-foot multipurpose trail required by the approved PUD.

Melissa Dunklin, director of community development, said staff recommended denial because the PSP did not show the 10-foot multipurpose trail that was part of the approved planned-unit development. Joe Thacker, speaking for the applicant, said the developer had included connectivity on most of the site but that the particular 10-foot segment between Albany and Narcoossee Road raised engineering complications — potential tree removal, utility relocations, mailbox moves and stormwater handling — and that “anything greater than 8 feet would require” a South Florida Water Management District permit.

Public works and engineering staff asked the developer to provide cross sections and construction-level geometry so staff could evaluate how the trail might fit in the existing right-of-way and whether additional stormwater infrastructure or right-of-way acquisition would be required. City counsel outlined two principal options: require the developer to construct the 10-foot trail as currently written in the PUD, or amend the PUD to allow the developer to deposit funds with the city to construct the trail later, with appropriate ordinance language defining amounts and timing.

The council did not take a final vote to approve the PSP. Instead, members asked staff and the applicant to prepare two options — one showing hard cost numbers and feasibility for the trail as currently required and one removing the 10-foot connection from the PSP (with amended PUD language to allow a deposit) — and to return with that information at a future meeting (staff suggested the February meeting for a continuance).