Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 07 15 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes '. . f' ..... ~LANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES. July 15, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 1:35 P.M. BOARD MEt-eERS: David Hopk ins, Chainnan, Present Mart i n Trencher, Absent John Ferr ing, Present David McLeod, Absent crace Am Glavin, Vice-Chairman, Present CITY OFFICIAL: G. Kern, City Planner Discussion on approval of minutes of April 1, 1992, May 20, 1992 and July 1, 1992. It was determined that the present Board merrbers were present at the July 1, 1992 meeting and can vote on those minutes. Ferring rroved to table the minutes of Apri 1 1, 1992. Seconded by Glavin. Vote: A 11 aye. t"bt ion carr i ed. Ferring rroved to table the minutes of May 20, 1992. Seconded by Glavin. Vote: All aye. t"bt ion carried. Glavin rroved to approve the minutes of July 1, 1992 as subnitted. Seconded by Ferring. Vote: All aye. t"btion carried. Hopkins stated that again all 'Board merrbers are not present for the election of officers. Glavin' asked if there was a rule that there be a complete Board to comp 1 ete the elect ion as there is a quorum th i seven i ng. Hopk ins stated that he did not believe there is a rule regarding the elections. Glavin rroved that Hopkins be reelected as Chainnan of this Board. Seconded by Ferring. Vote: All aye. G 1 av i n rroved that Ferr i ng be elected as Vi ce-Cha i nnan of th i s Board. Ferring decl ined the nanination. Ferring rroved that Glavin be elected as Vice-Chainnan of this Board. Seconded by Hopk ins. Vote: A 11 aye. Annexation reQuest of SpraQue Technologies. Inc.: Hopkins rEminded the Board that this request csne before the Board on July 1, 1992, the request was tabled for further information for the Board. Kern gave the Board a slll1l1ary of the request. He stated that Sprague is an asserrb1er of film capacitors. The site is north of 1/11 and Dittmer's property on US 17-92 and Shepard Road. The current County zoning and land use is M-1, Industrial, the requested City zoning and land use C-2, Industrial; abutting property is M-1, Industrial in the County and C-2, . tit' ~ Plaming and Zoning Board Minutes July 15, 1992 ,. Page 2 #I' " Industria 1 in the City. Land Use and zoning changes wi 11 be handled with a separate Ordinance updating the Ca11rehensive plan and the Land Use Map. The purpose of the appl icants reCJ,lest is to access City wat~ as the site has contaminated wells. The DER has been working with Sprague's env irormenta 1 consu 1 tant to address the prob 1 Em. The site is 11.8 acres and covers all or a part of eight lots. The site contains approximately five acres of unirrproved land on the applicatants portion of lots 21 and 22. The applicant has had discussions with our utility deparbnent and fire deparbnent regarding the provision of water to the site, there is no sewer capacity avai lable at the present time. Kern stated that overall it is the City's position to welcane all annexations which would eliminate enclaves and discontinues boundaries as present 1 y ev ident a long US 17 -92 fran SR 434 northward to SR 419. The Sprague request meets the requirement of Chapter 171.043 F .S., regarding the character of the area to be annexed. NL.lT'ber one: the area to be annexed rrust be contiguous to the rrunicipality's boundaries and reasonably coopact; nurber two: part or all of the area rrust be developed for urban purposes. The prospect of adding a cannercial enterprise into Winter Springs which EJl1)loyees 94 people and had sales last year of nearly 10 mi 1 lion dollars out . of this facility, would only benefit the City's position as a quality location for business. This facility has been in operation since 1964 under the management of the Deerborne Ca'I1lany, later purchased by Sprague in 1972 and subsequently consolidated into Sprague Corporate entity in 1985; this operation is regarded as a prEmier leader in manufacturer in the plastic film capacitors in the United States. Kern stated that he respectfully requests that the Board review this proposal and recannend to the City Cannission, the amexation of this property in Winter Springs. Ferring asked what was it that the Board requested regarding this particular piece of property. Hopkins said that the Board was concerned as whether there would be sane control over future cannercial use of the five acre tract that is part of this request. He also stated there was same discrepancy with the tie-in of utilities. Ferring asked if there was any problsn with the annexation of this property due to the fact that any changes of ownership would have to go through the City again. Kern stated that that is correct only if the five acres were sold and saneone else came in with plans to develop it, they would have to go through our Site Plan approval process for that particular faci 1 ity they plan to bu i 1 d. They wou 1 d have to coop 1 y with the <X<<prehens ive Plan any new 1 y adopted LOR's that irJl) 1 ement the plan and the future 1 and use map, which would updated to show this area as industrial. It would cane in as c- 2 as one parcel, however ;t those five acres were sold and the person wanted to rezone it would have to go through rezoning. We would look at the effect of the proposed operation on the surrounding area in terms of the residential area right next to it, the WHdwood area. In other words you do have protection within our ex;sting code and within our Ca'I1lrehensive Plan ""'I"'~".";'7'~";j;W<',,,,~....r " . P 1 ann ing and Zon ing Board Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 3 for any subsequent developnent of that lot should it be sold and proposed deve 1 or:ment. The prov i s ion of ut i 1 it i es, I had given you a sctumat i c that was provided by Mr. Carter that had been worked up by Doug Taylor of our ut i1 i ty Department and our F ke Department wh ich showed how the ut i lit i es would be brought into the site. They go up the side of lot 21, next to the asphalt parking lot that currently exists; should the facility be hooked up in that manner and should that require an eassnent on this vacant land, that would be an issue that would be worked out with Sprague Inc. and the subsequent buyer, the City would not be involved in tenms of that easement, that would be an easement that would be worked up between the two property owners should that property be sold off. Hopk ins asked if th i s property is annexed in and at a 1 ater date when a large scale amendnent to our map is approved, at that time then the zoning wi 11 change fran M-1 to C-2. Kern stated that is correct. Hopkins then stated under our current zoning of C-2 there are any ""lTber of industrial uses that can be appl ied to that type of zoning, we would sti 11 have a say in it though? Kern said absolutely, because the CaT1>rehensive Plan states that any development must be consistent with surrounding areas. In other words we wi 11 review it in tenns of its effect upon the surrounding area and require appropriate buffers and approve or disapprove according to the CaTprehens i ve Plan. The CaT1> Plan ru 1 es , per Chapter 163 F . S., even if LOR's are not adopted to iRl> 1 ernent it, the CaT1>rehens i ve Plan does ru 1 e, so you look at it in tenns of CO"f1)atibi 1 ity with surrounding areas. Kern stated one point he wanted to make is if that portion of the parcel was not annexed in the City would have no oontrol of it, it would be in the County. Glavin asked Kern if this would cane back to the Planning and Zoning Board or City Cannission when the vacant parcels are sold. Kern said yes, the Site Plan Review Board would review it. Glavin asked as part of this annexation application, the Board is also being asked to give this property the C-2 zoning designation as well as annexing. Kern stated yes, but we can't officially do it until it is done by a separate ordinance; a separate ordinance has to cane out amending the CaT1>rehensive Land Use Map and assigning the zoning, so there is a two step process. Glavin asked that within the Site Plan designation, what guidelines would there be to distinguish between different industrial uses within C-2. Kern stated that the City Planner is on the Site Plan Review Board and one of the jobs of the City Planner in tenms of the Site Plan Review is to review the perspective develor:ment in tenms of the CaT1>rehensive Plan; does it meet the earprehensive Plan, does it meet the intent of the different land use districts, densities, etc., does it meet the intent of buffering between incompatible uses and that's where we have the strength in tenms of enforcement. In the Site Plan Review the City Planner will review the proposed development and see if it is CO"f1)atible with surrounding uses. So no it doesn't cane before the Board again. . . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 4 Hopk ins stated that it was his understanding that every six rronths there is an up date to the 1 and use map; small sca 1 e snendnents are for 3 acres or under, large scale snendnents are for 3 acres or morej I believe at that time of that up date it does cane before this Board, and this Board would have a say as to the zoning that is applied to that land, however, we are annexing it in right now, cane that six rronth time frsne when it is time to up date our land use map then at that point in time we have an opportunity to adjust those acres if we so desire, or at least action can occur at that time, so tonight again we are only addressing the annexation of this property which does give us control over it. Glavin asked about sewer. Kern stated that right now we do not have the capac i ty, it is not ava i 1 ab 1 e. Now Sprague is us i ng sept i c tanks and they will continue to use septic tanks until a point if the lines are extended out there they would be required to tie into it if within 50 feet of the line. Glavin asked if they are having any problem with the septic tanks. Kern stated that with the tests that have been made there were no VOC's were found in the septic tanks, so in other words the tanks are not being contcminated by the contninated water wells. That a reason for their request to cane into the City to get clean water so they don't subsequently contninate the septic tanks. Glavin asked what contninated the water wells. Kern said volatile organic oompounds, it was basically oil based CXJl1)OUnds. Mike Carter, representative fran Sprague Corp., stated it was a degreasing fluid it is called trichlorethylene. Glavin asked if this chemical is still being used. Carter stated that they are using it right now but within the next 4-6 weeks they will be discontinuing the use of it. Kern stated that Sprague has had that tank dug out in 1981. Carter stated that is correct, the tank was rEilOOved and the so i 1 was rEilOOved and dug out part of the way and disposed of as hazardous waste and as the soi 1 was being taken out, they continued to check the soil until they didn't find anyroore in the soi 1, but this material had leaked through that soi 1 into the lower aquifer. We have put in about 15-16 different wells around the perimeter of this pool that is under the factory and it is rronitored on a periodic basis by Gary and Mi 11 er, our env i rormenta 1 consu ltants and we are not add ing to the pool nor is the pool spreading or growing. We will be meeting with DER on Friday to discuss corrective action and remediation progrn, basically what we'll do is take all the water purp it out of the ground and spray it through the air and it evaporates. Glavin asked why are they discontinuing the use of the chemical. Carter said that after they clean up the property and it shows up again they will not be responsible for it and the other aspect is that the CO'Tpanies they supply are petitioning their suppliers not to use it for envirormental reasons. ""'~~~~'fT'i.'J' ~"",..........-n " . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 5 Glavin asked Carter why is it il11JOf'tant to include in their proposed annexat ion the vacant property. Carter stated that because it is all together, it is all our property, we petitioned for 8rV'lexation as a OCJl1)lete entity not just pieces. Glavin asked Kern if annex at ion be approved. it is the reoammendation of city staff that this Kern said yes. Ferring asked if the contsnination assessment report done by Geraghty and Mi ller, was reviewed in detaH by the City's Fire Department and other departments regarding. Kern stated that it was reviewed by the Engineering Department. Ferring questioned the fact that we are deaHng with a highly volatile chemical and that only the Engineering Deparbnent reviewed this. Kern stated that the buildings are all sprinkled and the Fire Chief was notified of the toxic problem, and he didn't see it as a problem since the buildings were sprinkled, plus the Fire Chief will be prefonming an inspection of the site so he knew what was on the site should there be a fire on the site and that is required for all non-residential uses within the City. I also reviewed this with the City Engineer who has great experience with the EPA etc., and he noted that since FDER has been alerted to this back in 1985, it is continuously working with this problem with the environnenta 1 consultants and with Sprague, that it is not a Habi 1 ity to the City. The Feds are looking into and the only one Hable is Sprague Inc.; this is what the City Engineer relayed to me and he has a vast aoount of experience in Federal Protection Standards. Ferring stated he is talking about oontsnination and nothing else, and he wanted to know what the liability of the City is at any given point in the event that sanething is picked up later on down the 1 ine. Kern stated that according to our City Engineer the liability is zero because the Feds are involved and it is a private property matter, just because the facility is in the City does not make the City responsible. Discussion. Glavin asked Kern if the City Staff has looked at the proposed plan which she is assuning that Carter is saying is in accordance with approved standards to rerrove the chemicals out of the ground and evaporate it through air to dissipate; I was wondering what the environmental consequences were to that in terms. to having the stuff sprinkled through the abmsphere and perhaps condensing and caning down as rain or breathing air. Kern stated that the property is there now, and whether it is in the County or City the residents would feel the same effect. As terms of legal liability, I'm not going to sit here try to assess that, the City Engineer was made aware and given a copy of this report and reviewed the report and he gave me his assessment that the City would not under any circunstances be . . P 1 anrdng and Zon i ng Board Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 6 1 iab 1e for anything that happened on this private property as a result of this contsnination. Kern also stated that the City Engineer stated that there is no liability to the City; that was my first question when this application csme forward, as I didn't want to annex any property that might make us liable. Glavin stated that she was not talking about legal liability. firstly she meant with regard to proposed law suits, anybody can sue anybody for anyth i ng it doesn't mean a court wi 11 u 1 t imate 1 y find that they are 1 i ab 1 e or not, , think what I'm talking about is these sorts of contaninant situations are pol itically unpopular now, and , didn't know if it had been thought through as to what the repercussion would be for the City of Winter Spr i ngs undertak ing to annex apiece of property wh ich was present 1 y hav ing a problEm, and is undertaking to correct its problEm but it is not part of the City right now and perhaps after its problEm were taken care of it might be more welcane to cane into the City. Glavin made it clear that this is just discussion. Carter stated that the method that we wou 1 d use to remove the mater i a 1 s out of the water wi 11 be a standard method EfT1) loyed by the Federal Env irormenta 1 Protection Agency and also be approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations so it is not a method that we came up with, it has been used hi stor i ca 11 y and is nLIch more caJ1l1 ex than PllTll i ng the water out and spraying it. The water is put through fi lters and scrubbed and then sprayed into the air. But regarding which method it is we will remain in the County we wi 11 be able to use abutting next to your City any method that we so choose that is approved by the County in which you may have no control over, but if you annex us, and we cane up with a method and we are in your City, then you will be able to say whether you like that method or not. G 1 av instated that she does not know, that she is new to th i s and she is not an engineer, but it looks 1 ike the City is more or less deferring as to what the EPA and DER would rule with regard to what are approved methods, so , don't know if that is giving the people of Winter Springs an extra layer of protection, or not, , don't think it is unless the City is undertaking another review or another level of standards. Carter stated that if we aren't in the City at all, you have little recourse, but if we are in the City then you might have more of a say. Glavin asked if she understood correctly that they would bring the water in by caning across the uninproved land to the plant. Carter stated yes. Glavin asked ~at would be the timetable if this is approved by the Cannission, of having your water totally hooked up and using. Kern stated that the earl iest we could have a publ ic hearing would be the begiming or middle of septerrber. Carter stated that his time frame would be as soon as possible. .- ee .. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 7 G 1 av i n asked what is the t imetab 1 e on the clean-up process. Carter said that the ir t imetab 1 e is str i ct 1 y governed by the rev i ew and approva 1 by the EPA and FDER. We understand that they want this clean-up to take place as soon as possible. Glavin asked if there was any il1l>act or concern with regard to their unapproved 1 and be i ng contami nated. Carter stated that the pudd 1 e is not under those lots, the puddle is under the factory. Glavin asked in tenns of their intent of the request for annexation, if it is for marketing purposes for those lots. Carter said no. Kern stated that he would have a continued problem.if they kept pulling from the wells, they would be putting the contaminants back into the septic system which would perpetuate the plume. Hopkins said that in effect the City would be helping resolve this dilemma and env ironmenta 1 prob 1 em by supp 1 y ing th i s property wi th water. Carter stated yes. Ferring stated that there are questions that came into our minds regarding this annexation, in reading the documents that have been put before us, it appears that the Federal Government in 1990 requested additional infonmation. What was the response of the FDER to the comments from the Government. Carter stated the question was what we used to inspect the plume and we did use what they asked. He said the questions were roore of a technical nature and they did ask that we have our septic tanks checked, which we have done and the answer to their questions and review wi 11 take place on Friday. Hopkins said that at this point that by annexing this property into our City will he 1 p reso 1 ve an env i ronnenta 1 poss i b 1 e prob 1 em for much roore than just our City and if we can help in that matter, he feels it be appropriate. Discussion on the request. Ferring stated that he wanted just one roore clarification from Kern that the Staff has reviewed this completely and they approve this unanimously that there are no objections of any sort from any Staff regarding this project. Kern stated tha.t is correct. Ferring then asked to the best of Kern's knowledge there are no legal liabilities for anything in the future on the part of this City. Kern stated that is what was indicated to him. Ferring stated that based on those statements by Kern, he moves to recommend approval the annexation request of Sprague Technology Inc., which legal description is listed as: parcel 2820, 3050, 1000, 00130, south 25' of lot 13 and all lots 14, 15, 16, and 19 less the road and lot 20 less north 175' and lot 21 less north 375 feet, lot 22 less north 575' Spring Hammock, replat book 7, page 96. Seconded by Glavin. Discussion. Glavin asked how the City goes about making sure an annexation is contiguous to the City. Kern stated that with looking at the future land use map and zoning map. ,.- - ll'-.'!I:r" .....'.,~"" .. .. ee -. P 1 ann i ng and Zon i ng Board Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 8 Kern stated that Florida statutes 171, does make provision if there should be sanething between the boundary of the City 1 imits and the property you are trying to annex in, should there be sanething 1 ike a small easement or sanething, they still consider that contiguous so you don't get caught in the legalities of sane easement through there that saneone may have missed, so that is covered under F .5. Chapter 171. . Hopkins stated that based on the asslJ1l)tion we are helping to resolve an environnenta 1 hazard here, I agree with it. Glavin stated she agrees with Hopkins if indeed that by providing City water enhances their clean-up project, then she thinks it is a.va1id reason to annex the property if that is correct; do we know that. Kern said that he sees many more valid reasons for annexing the property such as adding 94 eIl1>loyees to the City, adding an on-going ccmnercia1 concern to the City increasing our tax roles, the Commerce & Industry Board has been trying to bring businesses into the City trying to market, and they have had very POor success at that, it is very dUficult to do in these times. We've got a carpany here that ; s vo 1 untar i 1 y cani ng forward say i ng they want to be in our City, I think those are real carpel ling reasons for this to be annexed in as well as the fact it is the City's goal to annex in the property we have discussed between 434, 419 a long us 17/92 to i nc 1 ude all that in the City limits. Ferring stated the reasons that Kern just nunerated are well within the Board's scope, we want to make sure what we do bring into our City is going to be safe for our City, that is the primary valid reason for all this discussion. Vote on the root ion to reccmnend approval of the annex at ion request of Sprague Technologies Inc.: All aye. Motion carried. Hopk ins asked Kern to up date the Board on Parce 1 51. Kern passed out information to the Board that becane avai lable the day after their last meeting. Kern stated that in his investigation of Parcel 51 he discovered through County Records that the true owner is Hooker Hanes. Upon contacting Hooker Hanes again, he discovered that they are under bankruptcy court of New York now. The property is subject to creditors claims through the bankruptcy court. He stated that he will be meeting with Mr. Bill Kazel, of Hooker Hanes, taoorrow, he has already met with Mr. Blakeman, a consultant for Hooker's development carpany, who was retained by the bankruptcy court to manage the carpany' s F 1 or i da propert i es. Kern to 1 d the Board that as he gains roore information on this situation he would up date2them. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopkins, Deputy City Clerk