Voided permit#2012-00878 and all associated paperwork

Home Browse Search

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: December 6, 2012 Item No. 3 ( Department ApprovaL• Administrator A roval: Agenda Section: Name: Mike Gaffron City Administrator's Report Title: Asst. City Administrator Item Description: Request for Waiver of Consultant Fees - 420 Deborah Drive Property owner Rachaelle Brady of 420 Deborah Drive contacted staff earlier this year regarding the requirements for installing a swimming pool on her property. She was informed that the pool permit would trigger the requirement to replace her non-compliant septic system. In August, as she was finalizing plans for the septic system replacement, it was noted to her by staff that a wetland shown on official City maps would potentially affect her pool permit. She submitted a permit application for the pool in early September, paying a$30339 Plan Review Fee and establishing a $2500 escrow account as required by City Code. The survey submitted with the application noted there were no visible wetlands on the site. During the plan review process it was determined that a small wetland does in fact exist on the site, as part of a much larger wetland complex on the adjacent City property. This determination involved some preliminary work, a site visit and some followup by the City's consulting engineers. The total pass-through costs for engineering services was $1,030 which staff believes are legitimate costs for the work performed. Because the applicant is allowed a$500 credit towards engineering services,the total to be billed to applicant was reduced to $530. Shortly after the consulting engineer's site visit, applicant indicated she wished to stop the pool application process because she was not interested in establishing the required 50' buffer. However, in subsequent discussions initiated by the applicant, it was determined that a Functional Assessment of the wetland might reveal that its management class would be reduced from `Preserve' to `Manage 3' which would minimize the required buffer width. The cost of this assessment would be paid by the applicant. Applicant chose to not move forward with the Functional Assessment process and has indicated a variety of reasons why she feels the ordinance is unreasonable. Applicant is also disputing a portion of the bill for engineering services, some of which were performed after she `called off' the project, and some of which can be attributed to general information gathering regarding MCWD rules. Staff has since learned that there may be some level of Council support for reviewing the buffer requirements of the City's wetland ordinance in early 2013, in light of this application and other recent applications. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED In contemplation of reviewing the City's wetland ordinances in 2013, and in light of the circumstances noted above, staff is requesting Council consideration for waiving the $530 billing to the applicant and refunding the escrow amount of$2500. �(i- t��' Proposed motion: Moved by��'�;�seconded by�n� to waive the $530 engineering fees and refund the $2500 escrow for Rachaelle Brady at 420 Deborah Drive. A,°�r` � -° I 2/tQ /ZP��i � G '