Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVI(D) Kohlmeier Variance Fee Waiver Request Agenda 12-02-2003 e Center of Good Liv Item VI D Mayor �� `�1�, Commissioners S. Scott Vandergrift '''"+ _ Danny Howell,District 1 Scott Anderson, District 2 City Manager Rusty Johnson,District 3 Jim Gleason Nancy J. Parker,District 4 STAFF REPORT DATE: November 17, 2003 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners THROUGH: Russ Wagner, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Terry L. James, AICP Principal Planner SUBJECT: Kohlmeier Variance Fee Waiver Request Richard J. Kohlmeier&Virginia R. Kelley 465 Meadow Sweet Court ISSUE: Should the Mayor and City Commissioners approve a variance fee waiver request for Kohlmeier and Kelley? BACKGROUND: VARIANCE APPLICATIQN: The Applicants submitted the "Application for Variance" paperwork on November 13, 2003 concerning a driveway widening at their residence on 465 Meadow Sweet Court. This particular case originated when a previous case produced code enforcement action concerning the construction of a fence without a permit. At 6 feet, this fence was not in compliance with the Land Development Code (LDC) that requires a 4-foot fence at that location on the property. Both the failure to apply for a construction permit and the fence height were LDC violations. Subsequently, the fence height was reduced to the required 4 feet. During this action, the Code Enforcement Officer learned of the Applicants' plans to widen the driveway and told the Applicants of the permit and dimension requirements. This case was of particular concern since the Building Division informed the Applicants of the LDC requirements before the actual construction began. The Applicants then widened the driveway without a permit and contrary to the dimension requirements, both actions being violations of the LDC. The driveway widening case (# 03-002719) was continued from September 23, 2003 Code Enforcement Board meeting until the meeting on November 25, 2003 with the stipulation from the Board that the above Applicants would submit a variance application within 60 days. A variance would preclude further action by the Code Enforcement Board since the driveway was widened to the property line rather than 2 feet from the property line as required in the LDC. City of Ocoee• 150 N Lakeshore Drive•Ocoee,Florida 34761 phone:(407)905-3100•fax:(407)656-8504•www.ci.ocoee.fl.us Kohimeier-Kelly Fee Waiver Request Page 2 of 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES: On August 6, 2002, the City Commission adopted a Resolution 2002-15 that updated the review fees to more accurately reflect the cost of City Staff time and charges incurred by the City during development application reviews. The Development Review Fee included a Flat Fee and Review Costs further defined as follows: • Flat Fee or Application Fee is non-refundable and due with each application. This fee covers City Staff time related to the actual review of the application, including Development Review Committee meetings, individual Staff review time, clerical time and site inspections. • Review Costs is a $1,000.00 refundable deposit used a surety for the payment of all charges billed for legal, engineering, court reporting and other consultants working on behalf of the City. Any balance remaining in this account will be returned to the applicant upon issuance of a Certificate of Completion or final action on the application unless it is used for the reimbursement of non-payment of any review costs billed to the applicant. The entire Development Review fee is due at the time of application submittal. Staff cannot process any applications until this fee is paid. In addition, Staff cannot waive any of the above fees. DISCUSSION: The Applicants indicated that they were advised to seek a development review fee waiver for their variance application. The Applicant's Development Review Fee total was $1,500.00 (Variance Flat Fee of$500.00 and the Review Cost of$1,000.00) Given the above limitations that Staff cannot process an application without the fees and that Staff also cannot waive fees, we presented the Applicants with two options as follows: • Option#1: The Applicants would pay the entire fee. The application and the fee waiver request would be processed at the same time. If the fee waiver request was approved, then the money would be refunded. • Option #2: The Applicants would not pay the fee. The fee waiver request would be processed separately from the actual application. After the decision on the fee waiver request, the application would then be processed and the fees would be assessed based on the fee waiver decision. The Applicants did not want to pay the Development Review Fee and chose Option #2. The Fee Waiver request is being processed with this report. After the Mayor and City Commissioners determine the validity of the waiver request, the actual "Application for Variance" will be processed and brought before the Board of Adjustment for recommendations and then to the Mayor and City Commissioners for final approval. There is no mention of a "fee waiver" in the Resolution 2002-15 adopted by the Mayor and City Commissioners. The only fee waiver is the "Policy for Non-Profit Organizations" enacted on Kohlmeier-Kelly Fee Waiver Request Page 3 of 3 February 18, 2003 which allows for the waiver of the flat fee or application fee for those non- profit organizations such as churches and charitable organizations. The approval of fee waivers on an individual basis may set a precedent to encourage others to seek fee waivers. Resolution 2002-15 was adopted to better reflect the costs incurred by the City, if fees are waived, the City is essentially not collecting money for the cost in Staff and consultant time required to properly process this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Mayor and City Commissioners deny the development review fee waiver request by Richard J. Kohlmeier and Virginia R. Kelley. Attachments: Fee Waiver Request Letter O:1Staff Reports12003\SR03124 CC.doc '',.:'- iVai:::,,.-,-,,,',1,--,r.-:•,-,--'-.-;:,•1 4r.,-. „ - . ,. - _ k-'--i--,2,7? :•-- ,,,,-,,;,-- ,':,-4., e- . . • , ,. - . , ... . 4- ,l1;•,:l''".----,,,,-„,,,,,,,7.: ,,, -;-, , •:, -,,•f I -:- • ,-..-•. 'i,',,--f,-<.!, -.0 ':'% . l'''' '.'' • ,-.:,--',.: 4-1. ,;!;1 „:--,„ : - 3 • ' i - ..LL -: -,-,••::<•,o:•;::, : -,,,,-:,, : . 3 1 , , ,,, ,,,:,:af,:::,:1:,,,,:.4.-,,,fllif,--,,,?-' ',441: - e / co ce e 1 45, ifellas 747etre4 le cii., di..41,s.)--;4.‘„is .1,..;. '','-:'•!:' 5'•' '' --::'--:11::: :--,'-'''.-- • _ .. _ ....7-. R/ehAxi A44/sleier ip ne. 64//i IXArsomi-,-,* 5.,,,: ,,-,::,,,,r;,!,,,4-,L .,,,,g,-;: r•4::1. , .i., z - i • ,:tigg.„-„,,s.*?,, ,•;r:1,7:,.,N,..:,--,,,,,t. ; --6.-riit . ve. otr-A7,,,ivi/,e-d Aix ,Ar 1,"04-/of 0 t 0 fee i A 37''k'''.'' :.'":': l.'' ' . ' ', • A ..'',;: .- • :lee-fryroge-A4ec e 10 74 # di(juvoatit;e i )t" .41c1______,.....__.4.4 &44 :',-''''":,',.. 4/ • 040 ie. AO/44 4. A/ 114 4-- Al4r0a(:5c.ei .54/4210/Cf‘ : ._ „_, „ , . ..,: :, --------- .---.....„.•_•.,................____________............._ Ate, 00 .„2 ..Z ?4- 44,A, 10:10 o ift-s' A mi0A-sude . .... _ ..:,--„,,tv,,*%-:.,.-.:„:s:v•:. ,-,;,-,,,,--.. ., z_ _ . 4,--gr#/e,,r 0/le ie 3 71-g er,- ' AA•ce 7'0 — — ii:tin.',;•;-e.;,'-'t:: :' ' ,' i...so, Zir 44, a 741 14/' 0 0,,e- 1 Ze P if saitily IA% d veg. itide/ 9 4 Id,0 4: :. •-• ';,3' ,' . i 'A/4 416q,_q4, 6 It - 167 /Ate"44:Ku S.a1efei4 7 _......_ . _. . . . ,444,Axe 4.,C 44010,e.._ A ./f /er, 46f 'y . , . ........ Af#46/ /4-4,4 to/i ....4 to c.,J 41 h,e.. ., 74 As-oe 7.7A0V-e-yo,4 . f . , , YObto "o'e 04a4va• c 7A-4) .;,14-:::..!.•' - ' - ti f - . -,. L . . . t - 4 i ',.'0.-,Y.;`:'-,--• ' . . .. , . ..r........ . ,,., I . -.•:110..,---,:- , - 't . . exii/4/ j.) a „eiee-sA404.r- . .: .. . . : • ........._ _ -•,- -4,:;,,,,,,:c: :,: .. 1. ,: : • . ,• ,, , ,„:,,„:,.,:, -.,-••.,. .::, „:-- - -../c.7"...4. / "/ ___.. :7 t 0"`7.,..:•- - : ,,,,',7:',. ' -, I ----'.,'.; ' • Air' - . 1---3-A.A. • A. d- ' , . 1 : '---. - ---- - ...,- - • --,--- ,. ..„..' ] r • i 1 . i -. - - - 1 . 1 . ''• - - - - , - , ,....