Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-2006 Regular Meeting• • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 A Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on September 13, 2006, at the Cape Canaveral Public Library, 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Board Chairperson Bea McNeely called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Bea McNeely Lamar Russell John Fredrickson Donald Dunn Harry Pearson John Johanson OTHERS PRESENT Chairperson Vice Chairperson 1st Alternate Rocky Randels Mayor Robert Hoog Mayor Pro Tem Todd Morley Building Official Brian Dennison Captain, CCVFD Kate Latorre Assistant City Attorney Todd Peetz City Planner Susan Chapman Secretary Chairperson McNeely advised the audience of the rules of the meeting. She announced that the meeting will adjourn by 10:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 23, 2006. Motion by Harry Pearson, seconded by Lamar Russell, to approve the meeting minutes of August 23, 2006, with a minor correction. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 2. Review and Recommendation to City Council Re: Final Replat of Beachside Townhomes - 2nd Addition, Replat of Lot 13, Block 5, Avon by the Sea Subdivision - John Johanson, Applicant. John Johanson declared a conflict of interest and submitted the appropriate form to the Secretary. Todd Peetz, City Planner, gave an overview of the project. Brief discussion followed. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn, to recommend approval of the Final Replat for Beachside Townhomes - 2nd Addition, as presented. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2006 Page 2 3. Review and Recommendation to City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Repealing Storage of Liquefied Petroleum Products - Section 110 -354 (c)(6) of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances - Anthony Garganese, City Attorney. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that this ordinance was prepared in response to the meeting on August 23rd, and it simply repeals the special exception for storage of liquefied petroleum from the M -1 industrial district. Donald Dunn questioned why the Board was considering removing liquefied petroleum products from the City code. Mr. Dunn then referred to Coastal Fuels application and previous testimony which held that what is being stored is not liquefied petroleum; they want to store gasoline which is liquid petroleum. He stressed the difference between the terms 'liquefied" and 'liquid ". He clarified that changing the code does not apply to what is being stored there. Todd Morley, Building Official, distributed and explained the results of research performed by City staff since the last meeting. The Board members reviewed the provided information. He read definitions of liquefied petroleum from the NFPA 101, 2006 edition, Florida Building Code, Fuel Gas, and Dept. of Environmental Protection. He provided a general historical overview of the term LP gas from a series of articles from the New York Times written in 1962 entitled "The First Fifty Years of LP- Gas "; "NFPA Documents & Papers Written over the Past 100 Years" in which he noted that there are ten instances where liquefied petroleum gas was written for the NFPA dating back to 1934. He provided a historical overview of the City code references to Liquefied Petroleum products, referring to June 7, 1966 City Council Meeting Minutes approving Ordinance 13 -66, Adopting Section 15, The National Board of Fire Underwriters for the storage and handling of liquefied petroleum and gases cited as NBFU #58; a copy of Ordinance 13 -66; a current print -out of NBFU #58; a copy of a 1962 City code which explained the uses permitted in M -1 and M -2 zoning districts. He noted that neither liquefied or liquid petroleum were mentioned; he read a 1964 City code, regarding prohibited uses and special requirements for uses in M -1 and M -2, (3) regarding the premises used by gasoline, oil and petroleum storage tanks; zoning regulations adopted by Ordinance 12 -71, District and Intent of the M -1, M -2 and M -3 zoning districts pointing out that the previous language regarding the bulk storage of gasoline, oil and petroleum had been removed and that the City code now began regulating liquefied petroleum storage. He cited current code references to liquefied petroleum which contrasted the current references to liquid petroleum. Specifically, Ordinance 22 -94, Section 38 -4, Restriction on Storage and Dispensing of Flammable Materials and Liquids; Article III, Occupational License Tax, Section 70 -66, Definitions; Article II, Public Service Tax, Section 70 -26, Definitions. Based on the definitions, general history and historical City code references, Mr. Morley maintained that previous City Councils intentionally removed the bulk storage provision of liquid petroleum from the City code, and likewise, subsequent City Councils have historically demonstrated a functional knowledge of the definition of liquefied petroleum. He advised that the City code does not provide a special exception for the storage of liquid petroleum. Mr. Morley stated that the City put in a code to regulate liquefied petroleum and they meant liquefied petroleum. He maintained that the special exception that was granted in 1991 to Coastal Fuels was based on an interpretation that he would not have made. He voiced his opinion that the ordinance presented to the Board is a good ordinance and should not be repealed. • Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2006 Page 3 He advised that the use has been granted to other properties that store and sell propane; if the ordinance is repealed, the City will be affecting and could cause a hardship on those merchants by making it a non - conforming use. He explained that what the City needs is to look at how they want to regulate liquid petroleum storage tanks. The Board members reviewed the ordinance. Discussion followed regarding defining a fire district, buffering, safety, and existing locations of liquefied petroleum. Werner Grewe, 8921 Lake Drive, questioned what was discussed at the last meeting. He believed that the meeting clarified the difference between liquefied and liquid petroleum. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, explained that as staff researched the definition of liquefied petroleum, they became smarter, and realized that the definition of liquefied petroleum was not applicable to what Coastal Fuels was seeking. She further explained that anyone can come forward with a request for an ordinance change but, there is a specific public hearing process. Lamar Russell verified that there is nothing written in the City code that specifically allows for large storage of liquid petroleum however, an existing use would be grandfathered and not allowed to be expanded. Joe Glover, owner of Glover Oil, advised that he grew up in this area and he purchases all of his supply from Coastal Fuels. He advised that when there was a fuel supply shortage in the State of Florida a few years ago, it was because there were not enough petroleum product storage facilities. He stated that the State has only a three day supply if all the ports are shut off. He stressed that the one thing the State of Florida needs is additional storage facilities. Mr. Glover explained an alternative type of fuel which is Ethanol and Bio Diesel. In order for the Port to handle this product, they will need to put in additional storage. He noted that the State of Florida sells 23 million gallons a day in gasoline sales and the State has no pipe lines to supply the fuel. Lamar Russell questioned if Coastal Fuels supplies Orlando International Airport with aviation fuel. Mr. Glover did not know but, commented that there is a pipeline of that type of fuel that runs from Tampa to Orlando. Brief discussion followed regarding fuel additives. Chairperson McNeely requested that staffs additional research should include all types of fuels. John Bond, 8931 Lake Drive, advised that this issue originally started as a Coastal Fuels problem. Now it is a City issue. He stated that the Port has currently set aside 32 acres on the North side and is currently negotiating with VITOL, Inc. to put a number of different fuels, including aviation fuel which will piped to Orlando International Airport. Mr. Bond questioned how many gallons of LP the existing merchants were using. Todd Morley responded that staff will be researching the quantity, placement and buffering of existing liquefied petroleum tanks currently located within the City, and would report back to the Board. Richard Evans, 8921 Lake Drive, commented that Mr. Glover was correct that the State needs additional storage facilities just not in Cape Canaveral. He commented that a B.L.E.V.E. is possible, although unlikely, with storage of liquid petroleum products. Mr. Evans stressed the concern that the City can not afford to have liquefied petroleum products in any quantity near residential homes. He urged the Board to consider the proposed ordinance from the standpoint of safety of the residents. • • Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2006 Page 4 Evelyn "Annie" Tennenbaum, 8921 Lake Drive, advised that at the last meeting the residents tried to explain and document their concerns. She stressed that the issue is not the supply, the issue is buffering and safety. She commented that she was very disappointed this evening because the City Attorney at the last meeting put the wording together for the proposed ordinance and the information presented this evening is only to clarify the language which should have been concluded at the previous meeting. Chairperson McNeely responded that this issue will take a lot of research and study. She assured the audience that the City would not drop- the -ball on this issue. Marianne Brokus, 8911 Solana Lake Drive, advised that approximately 11 years ago, the City gave Coastal Fuels permission to expand and install two more tanks, and the Mayor at that time, had said that the City will allow these two tanks but that's the end of their expansion. Katie Mantuso, 8899 Solana Lake Drive, asked how the proposed ordinance had nothing to do with Coastal Fuels, when according to the City code liquid petroleum is a non- conforming use. Lamar Russell responded that the City code says that a non- conforming use can not be expanded. He explained that if someone wants to come in and ask for a code change to make that use conforming they could do that. He further explained that Coastal Fuels can not come in with an application to increase liquid storage because there is no City code that allows that use. Lee Ann Mann, resident of Port Canaveral Trailer Park, asked for clarification of the issue being discussed. She also asked for clarification of liquid petroleum and liquefied petroleum. She questioned where the existing merchants would receive their product if Coastal Fuels no longer existed. The Board members answered her questions. She voiced her concern regarding being on a barrier island and trying to evacuate in case of an emergency. Chairperson McNeely advised that there are established evacuation routes in place but yes, evacuation is always a concern. Scott Wiedermann, 202 Harbor City Boulevard, Melbourne, spoke on behalf of Coastal Fuels. He voiced his opinion that it is important to recognize all the corporate entities of Cape Canaveral that Coastal Fuels directly supplies. He advised that Coastal Fuels distributes 90% of the fuel to the cruise lines. He explained that if a regulatory agency should require Coastal Fuels to add an additive or some type of liquefied petroleum to their existing operation without such mechanism from the City they would have no way to supply or meet the regulatory agencies that could put pressure on them and the other corporate residents of Cape Canaveral. He voiced his opinion that at a minimum, it should be addressed to a determination of how this special exception will affect other merchants within the City to abide by the numerous other regulatory agencies that are out there. He advised that Coastal Fuels not only supplies the cruise lines but, also NASA directly for their recovery of the solid rocket boosters, the barges and ships that are used for that purpose. Coastal Fuels also supplies directly to Exxon, Mobil, Pilot, RaceTrac, Cumberland Farms, and the United States Navy. He believed that there needs to be a special exception to allow the continuous supply to the corporate residents of the City that also bring in revenue and generate the economy of the Counties and throughout the State. Planning & Zoning Bolt Meeting Minutes September 13, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Wiedermann spoke about negative impacts to existing merchants if the City goes forward with the adoption of the proposed ordinance. He offered to facilitate a workshop with Coastal Fuels and other fuel merchants with the City to further outline the affect that this ordinance may have. He stated for the record that he was an employee of Coastal Fuels. A resident of the City questioned the Coastal Fuels representative as to why the facility has not complied with EPA regulations. Chairperson McNeely advised that the question was not part of what the Board was considering at this time but, it would be addressed. Evelyn "Annie" Tennenbaum commented that the reason why they are here is because Coastal Fuels is adjacent to their property and there is a conflict. She suggested that they find other places to expand. Discussion followed. Lamar Russell explained that in 1991 when the special exception was granted to Coastal Fuels for an expansion the Board thought that liquid and liquefied were both the same. Mark Morrison, 8931 Lake Drive, thanked the Board and Building Official. He reiterated what Lamar Russell had already said that the City code does not allow Coastal Fuels to expand. He advised that Coastal Fuels or anyone has a right to request a change in the City code. He stated that if Coastal Fuels does that the Board will see all of the residents again. He commented that the ordinance was exceptionally well done. Motion by Lamar Russell, seconded by Donald Dunn, that the Board make no recommendation at this time. That the Board will reconsider the proposed ordinance amending Section 110 -354 (c) (6) at a later meeting after the City Attorney's office and City staff work together to redefine liquefied petroleum storage with clear unified appropriate definitions; define fire district(s) and where they should be applied; apply buffers and safety factors; and City staff identify the quantity, placement and buffering of existing liquefied petroleum tanks currently located within the City. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 4. Review and Recommendation to City Council Re: Proposed Ordinance Clarifying Non - Conforming Uses and Structures - Section 191 -201 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances - Anthony Garganese, City Attorney. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the proposed ordinance was a result of several workshops and all of the recommendations are incorporated into this ordinance. The Board members reviewed the proposed ordinance. Discussion followed. Motion by Donald Dunn, seconded by Lamar Russell, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to City Council with the amendment that the wording "special permit" be changed to "special building permit ". Vote on the motion carried unanimously. • • Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2006 Page 6 5. Discussion Re: Chapter 2006 -88, Amending Florida Statute 166.033 - Written Notice Requirements for Denial of a Development Permit - Anthony Garqanese, City Attorney. Kate Latorre, Assistant City Attorney, advised that this amendment will go into effect starting on October 1st, and affects several of the City Boards. She explained that the legislature amended Florida Statute 166.033 to require that when any request is denied, the denial must refer to the specific code or law in which the denial is based. Discussion followed regarding implementing the written criteria and findings to meet the requirement. Following discussion, Kate Latorre offered to work with the Building department in generating a check list to comply with the new code requirement. Motion by Bea McNeely, seconded by Harry Pearson to direct the City Attorney's office to work with the Building Official in creating a check list for compliance. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Susan L. Chapm. , - ocretary Melted-fd Bea McNeely, Chairpers i l FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS --r-AST NAME —FIRST NAME -- MIDDLE NAME 014 iN 4A. MAILING ADDRESS 3/0 LA & s j7t t. CITY Cop e L0 0.1e COUNTY Nl OF Imo, COIF+ . . AU HIORITY. OR f. TTTE£ THE BOARD, cOUNcL, , OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE ISA UNIT OF: CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED e /3/06 NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: c e. L ee 0, MY POSMON 0 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It apps equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly erg on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which lures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or minted local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by whtch he or she is retail); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or toss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre. one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a °relative° includes only the oi%?s father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother -in -law, son-in -law, and daughter- in-law. A °business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate sharehol der (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * 4 ELECTED OFFICERS: * * In addition to abstaining from voting ki the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to Influence uence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. `c YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE AKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsthl a for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 112000 PAGE 1 • fAPPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose wally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the four must be provided immedlately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST , hereby disclose that on 5 e 9 / 3 , 20 0 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) Xinured to my special private gain or loss; - inured to the special gain or loss of my business assodate, , inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, - inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom 1 am retained; or - inured to the special gain or toss of , which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure m�e 3asure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting ' interest in thej measure Is as follows: J iL vi �.,/ l.� f ✓1 es s .�L. ,% 02A 49i F i /� L`L P.i l GL 'Y �• �G w i�� evi ®=3 /n 4 �-.0.. + ca C 4- . Cc; J l 04] /3/ 1310 k � l v �_` �. 4 e R/3/v 6 Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2