121988-Workshop Session536
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida December 19,
1988
The Ct'by
Commission of
volunteer service.
o'clock P.M. on December 19, 1988.
Present:
Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith
Commissioner Whitey Eckstein
Commissioner Bob Thomas
Commissioner A.A. McClanahan
City Manager Frank A. Faison
City Clerk H.N. Tamm, Jr.
Absent: City Attorney William L. Colbert
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
The
the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Workshop Session in
of Sanford, Florida, at
Chairman presented plaques from the recent Recognition Dinner in honor of
Plaques were presented to the following:
Altamese Bentley
Charles J. "Kit" Carson
Glen Domen
Harry Ellis
Hortense Evans
Phil Gonzalez
Human Relations Advisory Board
Scenic Improvement Board
Code Enforcement Board
Adult Congregate Living Community
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minimum Housing Board of Adjustment and Appeals
The Chairman introduced Philip H. Chesnut, President of Seminole National Bank.
Mr. Chestnut explained he was appealing the Historic Preservation Board's decision
regarding the proposed sign for the front of his new bank building at the Southeast Corner
of First Street and Myrtle Avenue. He stated that the Board suggested the sign be reduced
25%, and also lowered to 9'10", and that they cited the sign as "not in keeping with the
Historical District in that the sign would be taller than the building next door.
Commissioner Mercer stated he had talked with members of the Historic Preservation
Board and that he felt that until the Commission gives the Board further direction, the
Commission should uphold the Board's decision.
Cal Conklin, a member of the Historic Preservation Board, appeared and stated that
the Board is only trying to uphold the "Historic District look". He stated that as an
alternative, the Board recommended a lower ground sign.
Mr. Chesnut stated that the Bank did net wish to install a ground sign, and that
by doing so, would be in direct conflict with the City's sign ordinance, and further that
he would have to go before the Board of Adjustment, then back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission since the sign previously approved would not be what he would be installing.
Director of Engineering and Planning recommended that Mr. Chestnut request to be
put on both the Board of Adjustment and Planning and Zoning Commission Agendas as he was
not sure of their schedules and did not wish to further delay Mr. Chesnut's completion and
bank opening.
Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not the sign would really "clash" with
others in the historic district, namely along First Street.
Mr. Conklin stated that there were some prior existing signs along First Street of
the same caliber, but questioned "where do you draw the line"?
The Commission reqeusted the item be put on the Agenda for December 27, 1988.
the City Manager's Conference Room of the City Hall in the City
4:00
MINUTE S 7
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
December 19,
19 88
The next item of business was a review of litigation between the City of Sanford
Lake Monroe Marina, Inc. and Starline. The Director of Engineering and Planning stated
had met with Charles Volk on December 7, 1988 and subsequently submitted the following
~emorandum to the City Manager dated December 13, 1988. MEMORANDUM
FROM:
.'?';5!i;~ JECT:
File
Director of Engineering and Planning
Marina Maintenance and Operation Responsibility
December 13, 1988
On December 7, 1988 I met with Mr. Charles Volk, Operator of Lake
~onroe Harbour, Inc. for the purpose of discussing "fu<ther elab-
oration'' as specified in the proposed settlement agreement of
November 30, 1988, Attachment 1.
this meeting I presented to Mr. Yolk a copy of the attached
d~;:~.ft titled Marina Responsibilities '(Attachment 2), which I had
~.~:'eviously prepared. (Although not on the original list, Item 9
~:<~nce Office Building" was added. I have subseqently filled in
-.ianks regarding block descriptions in Item 5, A, C, and D.)
The following sub paragraphs indicate my understanding of Mr.
Volk's position relative to the various Marina responsibilities
specified on Attachment 2 and include my observations and opinion
~...~here appropriate.
1. Boat ramp maintenance and repair including finger piers,
concrete, and lake bottom near the boat ramp - Mr. Volk
feels that since this ramp functions as a "public" faci-
lity wherein he has no control of its use, that main-
tenance and repair should be City responsibility. He
notes that in the past the City has performed maintenance
and repair. Comment: The lease and modification of
lease appear to be give leasee responsibility for normal
maintenance as well as further responsibility for correc-
tion of any damage occurring as a result of acts of the
leasee, its agents, servants, employees or invitees.
"Normal maintenance" is not further defined. Maintenance
and repair of the ramp as result of general deterioration
or toe undermining is, of course a subject of the ongoing
law suit. I suspect that the only basis upon Mr. Volk
would agree to accept this more specific maintenance and
repair responsibility would be his receipt of control of
the use of the ramps. The passing of this control is not
recommended. Alternatives appear to be either acceptance
of continued City maintenance responsibility for the
ramp, pursuit of present litigation, or perhaps some
splitting of future costs between City and leasee based
on a specific formula, recognizing mutual benefit of
repairs. ~ Nb~ ~.c~.
2. Dredging - east and west basins, Romance berth area and
channels. Mr. Volk - City dredged east a~d west approxi-
mately 5 years ago as result of the feeling that basins
were too shallow. Mr. Volk obtained all permits. He
states that his harbour master routinely performs
sounding of the basins, and that the recommended project
depth should be 3.5 feet + 1 foot below mean lo~ water
(MLW). He feels that f~ture maintenance dredging to
maintain the basins should be City responsibility
because a primary source of siltation within both basins
is "the large amount of material carried into the basins
by existing storm drains outlets along the seawall".
Comment: While the storm drain out falls may contribute
limited amounts of material to the boat basins, I feel
that the primary source of shoaling within the basins is
probably the result of prop-wash moving material around
within the basins, creating shoals ~n certain locations
and deep holes in other iocations. Long term fluctuation
of Lake Monroe water level is another obvious factor.
Mr. Volk acknowledges the responsibility for additional
dredging to provide necessary operation depth below pro-
3ect depth for the Romance in its berthing area and
ingress/egress channel.
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
December 19, 1988
Marina piers, including water, electric, and berth covers
where existing - Mr. Yolk has performed maintenance and
repair in the past, and will continue to do so.
e
Parking lots, including paved surface, signage, and
striping - It is Mr. Volk's position that he should have
no responsibility for maintenance of parking lots other
than those located within block 8 (See Attachment 3) (the
site of dry storage building), unless he is given full
authority to control and regulate ingress, egress, and
utilization of such parking lots. He feels that since
these parking lots are "open to the public" their main-
tenance and repair should be City responsibility. He
notes that in the past City has performed all maintenance
and has regulated parking and utilization. Comment:
Ther% is only limited "public" parking contained in
blocks 6 and 7, addressed by the Marina operating
franchise of December 31, 1968, and none in Blocks 4 and
5. The bulk of public parking on the Marina is contained
in block No. 1. I concur generally with Mr. Volk's
feeling regarding responsibility for maintenance of
"public" parking lots. I do not recommend giving him
authority to regulate ingress, egress and usage as a
means of transfering the maintenance responsibility since
to do so would essentially destory the "public" nature of
the facility.
Beach maintenance - Mr. Volk indicates he has performed
beach maintenance within block 8, and to some limited
extent along the easterly end of block 1. He notes that
the City has performed all remaining beach maintenance
along the east and north sides of block 1. He feels this
division should continue. Comment: I concur in con-
tinuation of this division of responsibility with respect
to the City and Mr. Volk.
Landscaped area - Mr. Volk feels that the City/Scenic
Improvement Board should "continue" to provide main-
tenance in landscaped areas. Comment: Although the City
has been provided mos~'landscaping maintenance and impro-
vements, I feel that this xs an area fairly well
addressed by the lease and the operating franchise as a
lessee/franchisee responsibility. The lease and modifi-
cation lease state in part "leasee shall maintain
landscaping upon the demised premises as is necessary to
make such premises as aesthetically attractively as
possible." These nogotiations offer the City an oper-
tunity, if we desire, to reestablish lessee responibility
in this area rather than perpetuate previous City
performance of leasee responsiblity. The main entrance to
the Marina and the Palmetto Avenue right-of-way are con-
tained in block 1, not out leased. Landscaping actually
included within the lease would therefore encompass only
narrow strips along the seawalls of the east and west
basins, in block 6 wherein the Romance operation is
located and limited landscaping adjacent to the west side
of block 7.
General cleanup for out leased blocks - Mr. Volk indica-
tes he has four strategically placed trash container
along Palmetto Avenue near the Marina piers which he has
purchased, and regularly services. All other general
cleanup of "public areas" is viewed as City respon-
sibility. Comment: General cleanliness of the area is to
the advantage of the lessor, leasee, and subtenants of
the leasee. Mr. Volk and 'operators of the Romance
appear to generally maintain their immediate areas, where
such maintenance is to their benefit. General cleanup
and maintenance within "public areas" would appear to be
beyond their responsibility unless control and regulation
authority i~g~n to the leasee.
The Romance Office Building, block 6 - Mr. Yolk
acknowledges responsibility, together with operators, for
appropriate maintenance and repair of this building and
its surrounding area. Comment: It a appears that this
responsibility has be satifictory exercised in the past,
and is reasonably covered in the existing lease docu-
ments.
3. Navigation markers and signs - Mr. Vo - agree_ .~e -: , - -
provide maintenance and repair, as he has done in the
past.
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
December 19,
19 88
Mr. Yolk stated that he feels the responsibility of the ramp is the City's, and if
~e had control of it, it'd be an entirely different situation. He stated that, as he
understands it, the litigation surrounds three problems: damage to the ramp; damage to the
seawall; and holes that were blown in the basin bottom.
Attorney Clay Simmons, representing Mr Volk, stated that suit asked the Star of
Sanford for $7,000.00 in damages, and received an offer to settle in the amount of
$10,000.00.
The consensus of the Commission was to accept the $10,000.00 offer.
Mr. Volk stated that if you took the $50,000.00 in damages to the ramp and spread
it over 20 years life expectancy of the ramp, a reasonable figure would be $2500.00 per
year. He requested that a clear understanding be between, both parties be made, and an
addendum added to the Lease.
The Commission requested Director of Engineering and Planning to meet with Mr.
Volk and his attorney, Clay Simmons, and attempt to come to an agreement rather than
litigation.
A discussion regarding the funding for replacement of the Master Wastewater Pump
Station, and to authorize use of State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan and also to authorize a
Rate Coverage Study to determine utility rates, was the next item on the agenda. The City
Manager stated that the SRF loan was a good alternative as it had a 4.66 interest rate cap.
A Rate Coverage Study to determine utility rates necessary to repay the State Revolving
Fund Loan, to repay the 1876 BANs, and to maintain the required debt service coverage.
The Commission requested this item to be placed on the December 27, 1989 agenda.
Storm drainage conditions at the intersection of French Avenue and 24th Place was
the next topic for discussion. The Director of Engineering and Planning stated that the
existing trench drain is connected to FDOT drainage system and during serious storm events,
discharges water from the storm drain system rather than receiving it, and that this
location has been a "problem area" for several years. He stated that an addition to the
north end of the existing furniture store/drug store shopping center was in site plan
review, and that a considerable amount of run-off from the parking lot could be intercepted
by a new trench drain significantly to the the South of the existing trench drain. This
run-off could then be diverted to a retention pond now being required for the new addition.
Mr. Simmons stated that the developer is willing to pay for the cost of materials in the
amount of $3050, with the City to provide labor, equipment, and overhead which are
essentially covered by basic departmental budget.
The Commission authorized this item be placed on the December 27, 1988 agenda.
A review of Land Development Fees was the next item on the agenda. Jay Marder,
City Planner, gave a brief review of surrounding
following renumeration:
Type of Request
Rezoning
Conditional Use
Location
Sanford
Seminole Co.
Lake Mary
'Sanford
Seminole Co.
cities and municipalities. He gave the
Fee Amount
$75.00
$150.00 min.
$250.00
$100.00
$113.00+
540
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
December 19,
___ 19 88
Site Plan Approval
Inspection Fee
Vacate & Abandon
Bill Simmons,
Lake Mary
Sanford
Seminole Co.
Lake Mary
Sanford
Seminole Co.
Sanford
Oviedo
Director of
$600.00
$25.00
$62.00+$10.00/acre
$1600.00
$25.00 (per $5,000 improvements)
2% of projected cost
$75.00
$200.00
Engineering and Planning, recommended the Commiss
fees as proposed on Exhibits "A" and "B"
....... , as follows:
EXHIBIT A
FEE SCHEDULE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 30, 1988 DRAFT
Application For Proposed Amendment To Zoning
District Map By Owner of 51% of Land Area
Involved In Proposed Change
Application For Conditional Use (1)
Application For Administrative Appeal
Application For Dimensional Variance
Involving a One-Family Dwelling
Involving Use Other Than A One-Family
Dwelling
Application For Declaratory Order
Application For Proposed Planned Development
Project Rezoning Review
For Master Plan Approval (2)
Development Plan Review
Application For Site Plan Review
Application for Engineering Plan Review
Subdivision Plan Review
TOTAL
Application For Preliminary Subdivision
Plan Review
Application For Final Plat and
Improvement Plan Review
TOTAL
Notice of Intent To Recognize Public Easement
As Street For Purpose Of This Ordinance
Notice of Intent to Vacate or Abandon .a Public
Easement or Street For Purpose of This Ordinance
Application For Waiver of One Year Required
Waiting Period After Rendition of Final
DeciSion By Board of Adjustment, Planning
and ~oning Commission Or City Commission
100.00
100.00
75.OO
50.00
75.00
75.00
$ 150.00
$ 50.00
25.00
25.O0
50.00
$ 100.00
$ 100.00
$ 200.00
$ 75.00
$ 75.00
50.00
MINUTE S 54 !
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
December
19,
Application for Site Development Permit
For a One-Family Dwelling, a Two-Family Dwelling or
Any Improvemellt Serving Same (3) (4)
For Any Use Other Than a One-Family Dwelling or a Two-
Family Dwelling or Any Improvement Serving Such Use: As
set forth in Schedule of Site Development Permit Fees
(4)
For a Driveway Only $
For Tree Removal, Protection or Replacement Only:
$5.00 minimum; $5.00 per acre; maximum $200.00
Application For Temporary Construction
Activities Use Permit
Appticatiol% For Certificate of Completion (first)
Reapplication For Certificate of Completion
comprehensive Plan Document
Land Development Regulations
5.00
10.00
10.00
$ .00
10.00
15.00
30.00
FOOTNOTES
(1)
Include additional fee required for preliminary subdivision
plan review when conditional use application involves
proposed preliminary subdivision plan review.
(2)
in addition to application fee for preliminary subdivision
plan review or site plan review. Fee already incorporated
into application for planned development project rezoning.
(3)
Except when a Building Permit is issued in which c,.ase there
shall be no fee for a site development permit.
(4) Unless otherwise specified.
EF~IBIT B
SCMEDULE OF SITE~ENT PERMIT TEES
CITY OF SANFORD , ~LORI~A
TOTAL VALUATION
Improvement (Dollars)
SO - $5,00O
$5,001-S15,000
$15,001-$!00,000
8100,001-8500,000
$500,001-$1,000,000
$1,000,001-$2,000,000
$2,000,001-$3,000,000
$3,000.001-$4:000,000
$4,000,001-$$,000,000
S5,000,001-$$,000,000
$6,000,001-$7,000,000
$7,000,001-$8,000,000
$8,000.001-$9,000,000
$9,000,001-S10,000,000
Over $10,000,000
Tee [Dollars)
$ 25
$ 5/1,000
$75 plus $3/1,000 over first $15.000
$330 plus $1.50/1,000 over first
$~OO,O00
$930 plus $.$0/1,000 over first
$500.000
$1,230 plus $.25/1,000 over firs:
$I,000,000
$1.480 plus $.25/1,000 over first
$2,000,000
$1,730 plus $.25/1,000 over first
$3,000,000
$1,980 plus $.25/!,000 oVermfirs=
$4,000,000
$2,230 plus $.25/1,000 over first
$5,000,000
$2,480 plus $.25/I,000 over first
$6,000,000
$2,730 plus $.25/1,000 over first
$7,000,000
$2,980 plus $.25/1.000 over first
$8,000,000
$3,230 plus $.25/I,000 over first~
$9,000,000
$3,480 plus $..25/1,000 over first
S10,000,000
Reinspec=ion Fee $5.00
VALUATION DET.RMINATION - TO be ~etermined by project engineer's
estimate or con=rac= price with proof unless under S5,000.
1988
542
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
Deflnmber 19;
19 88'
Commissioner Eckstein suggested the City contact the Home Builders Association for
a fee survey, and adopt fees best suited for Sanford now, and not have to revise in a few
months when its deemed insufficient.
The City Manager recommended the Commission adopt the fees, then review and revise
them in March.
The Commission requested this item be placed on the agenda for December 27, 1988.
Ron Neale, Assistant Fire Chief, addressed
equipment and certification of water rescue/search
for $15,192.00.
Chief of Police Steve Harriett stated that
the Commission regarding training,
and recovery, and submitted a request
the nearest access for underwater
rescue is Forest City, and that it was too long a time span for rescue purposes.
Commissioner McClanahan questioned if there was anyway to fund this out of the
existing budget or to spread it over two budgets.
Chief Neale explained that his first priority, would be to obtain some scuba gear
equipment and certification for at least three men, and estimated a cost of approximately
$7,000.00 for equipment, training and certification for three men.
The Commission requested staff to check the amount of funds in the contingency
account and to place this item on. the agenda for December 27, 1989.
A letter from Tony V~nDerWorp, Seminole County Planning Director concerning a
review of the county funded rehabilitation program was the next item of discussion. The
letter, dated November 10, 1988, alleged ineligible charging of time, lack of progress in
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects; charging of ineligible costs; management
of rental rehabilitation program and budget deficiencies of the City managed office of
CDBG. The City Manager stated that on-going negotiations with Seminole County on
"supportable administrative expenses" for projects being done by contract from County pass-
through Block Grants. He stated that although administrative staff funds are running out,
we have taken steps to start reducing staff, but even this is inefficient with the level of
funding presently existing.
Commissioner Thomas stated that Richard Woods complained several times to him
regarding the program being understaffed, and suggested that perhaps the lack of personnel
contributed to these problems.
Commissioner McClanahan stated he was not completely sure that it was not an
innocent error.
Mr. Simmons assured the Commission that better, more specific procedures have been
put in place relative to qualifying structures for rehabilitation than were in place at the
time of the Daryll Sanders case.
Commissioner Eckstein reminded staff that this was not a vendetta against any
individual or individual(s) and hopes that everyone understands.
The Tax Increment District boundaries was the next item for discussion. The
Director of Engineering and Planning submitted a Memo with various back-up materials to
establish tax increment revenues for community redevelopment activities. Revenues are
generated to pay for approved projects within the redevelopment area, either on a pay-as-
you-go basis or as security for bonds, the proceeds of which must be used for purposes
described in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
MINUTES
543
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
December 19 1988
The City Manager stated that Ken Hooper, Seminole County Administrator, will be
submitting a list of questions he would like replies to in the near future concerning the
tax increment district boundardies.
The Commission authorized this item be placed on the December 27, 1988 agenda.
The Chairman announced that due to the late time, she was requesting that the last
item on the agenda, a discussion regarding inspection of rental property, be placed on the
next Work Session agenda.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Attest:
City Clerk
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
19__
BLANK PAGE