Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Anna MEMORANDUM DATE: RE: MAYOR AND COUNCIL ANNA BORCHERS CANNING, AICP PLANNING DIRECTOR JULY 25, 2005 PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION FEES r'") 'Tji :/-"i -'="("'\\1"" """""\ "r""'. ".'1:, b ~ ~"'1 Ì!.Jj ~ i ~', I¡;.,LA "..- -:1..-Iû","~~i L TO: FROM: JUt ',: 2 2005 City Of Mer5.dian ()ity Clerk Office With the adoption of the new Unified Development Code, we will also need to adopt new fees. In this memo, I will present the following: . my methodology in proposing new fees; cost to process applications (with and without Planning Department overhead costs); proposed fees (with and without Planning Department overhead costs); comparison of application fees for 9ther cities; and . . . . specific comparison of several projects under the old and proposed fees. I will need specific direction from Mayor and Council as to whether I should use the proposed fees with or without overhead costs included, and any other guidance and direction the Council would like to provide. I will then prepare a fee ordinance for your consideration. Methodology. To calculate costs, I interviewed Planning, Public Works, and Clerk staff on the average amount of time it took to review a typical application. The Planning Staff time includes application review, file preparation, site visit, comments meeting, pre- application conferences, staff report preparation, approval letters, and findings. Public Works time includes pre-application conferences, comments meetings, staff report preparation, and final signature review. Clerk time includes a one-time file preparation of a .5 hours and then 1.5 hours for each hearing that is required for the application. It also includes a hard cost of $75 for noticing each hearing. The same estimate for hearing time is used for all staff (planning, Public Works, and Clerk). The Planning Department wage rate ($32/hour) is based on the average of the mid-point for the whole departments. I have separate calculations for costs with and without Planning Department overhead costs of $18 per hour. The salary rate ($31) for non-Planning Department Staff is based the average mid- point of the city clerk, deputy city clerk, department specialists, development services director, city engineer, staff engineer, and development services coordinator. I also included the existing Fire Department fees. We also looked to divide up the tasks in a manner that made more sense for calculating fees. For example, an annexation fee is currendy based on the number of acres included in the annexation. Staff felt that the annexation area did not CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 660 E. WATERTOWER ROAD MERIDIAN, ID 83642 have a significant impact on the length of time needed to process the application. If anything, the converse is true in that a small infill project typically takes more time than a greenfield project. Stacy and Reta scrutinized my tables for me. They weren't impressed by my spreadsheet structure, but they gave a general thumbs up to the end calculations. Cost to Process Applications. Based on the methodology noted above, I have prepared Exhibit A that list our total costs with and without overhead. I have also noted the existing fees. In general, the total cost was used as the proposed fee with a few exceptions: Ciry counctl review (fka appeal). The cost to process such applications range from $440 to $600. Most communities reduce the fee so that people are not discouraged from filing an application when they feel an error was made. Building pewit to follow. Some applications are closely tied to building permits: certificate of zoning compliance, final plat, and short plats. I have reduced these by 25% in anticipation that some of those costs will picked up by the building permit fee. ComprehensÙJe Pian map amendment. Our current fee for a map amendment is $1,500. This is more than the estimated cost of processing the application. However, we are proposing to keep the same base fee in order to discourage piecemeal modifications to the Comprehensive Plan. This base fee would cover changes to two designations~one that is presumably being enlarged and one that is being reduced. Additional designations would be another $1,500. Proposed Fees. Let me begin this discussion on fees by pointing out that a primary goal in drafting the new ordinance was to allow more staff level approvals and require fewer public hearings. This represents a significant monetary savings to applicants in the form of quicker start-up times. We only required public hearings where there could potentially be significant concerns for the Commission and Council to consider. Please keep this in mind when reviewing the proposed fees. The proposed fees are listed in Exhibit B. The table lists the existing fee, the proposed fee including overhead for the Planning Department, the proposed fee without overhead, and the "add-in units." Example of the latter are: per lot preliminary plat fee; per building design review fee; per standard alternative compliance fee; etc. You will recall that one of the limitations of the current fee ordinance is that large projects such as Silverstone and Pinebridge faced huge fees due to a "per square foot" fee. None of the new fees are based on square feet of proposed construction. You'll also notice that I have shaded some of the cells red and some blue. The red cells represent a general increase from the existing fee. Most fees are going up, but there are some that will go down. I need to point out that comparing the proposed and existing fees is not always an apple to apple comparison. For example, the base fee for annexations is going up, but, as I pointed out earlier, there is no longer a "per acre" additional fee. This means that the fee for a small project will likely go up, but the fee for a larger project will likely go down. The shading just evaluates the base fees. To give a better illustration, the last section of this memo compares the cost of some specific projects evaluated under the different criteria. 2 Comparison to Other Cities. Exhibit C is a comparison table of fees for Meridian, Boise, Eagle, Kuna, Nampa, and Ada County. The comparison is based on the proposed fees without overhead. Exhibit D is the same comparison, except with overhead included. I again used the red and blue shading, and this is again a comparison of base fees. Most are really apple to oranges comparison-for example, the cities of Eagle and Kuna charge directly for all their engineering costs, so these are not reflected in the application fees. Likewise, the City of Boise has a surcharge for environmentally sensitive areas such as hillsides and floodplains. Specific Application Fees. Exhibit E compares the current fee for several different projects. I chose a large project for the primary comparison. Bainbridge required annexation and zoning, planned development and preliminary plat approval. The total fee for the project (excluding Fire Department) was $14,438. Under the new fee structure and code, only annexation and zoning and preliminary plat would be necessary. The total fee for the project would be $12,315 with overhead or $9,785 without overhead. This represents a 15% or 32% decrease in fees respectively. Ashtyn Park was an annexation request without a concurrent development application at the southwest corner of Us tick and Meridian. Under the current fee structure they paid $630. Under the new structure they would pay $1,200 or $900. Given the amount of time spent discussing the application and working with the applicant, the higher fee seems reasonable. The Arnke conditional use application is for multi-family dwellings in an R-40 zone. Under the current fee structure they paid $405. Under the new structure they would pay $1,050 or $775. This represents up to a 159% increase. However, given the amount of time involved in processing a multi-family conditional use application, the fee seems reasonable. I wanted to provide one example of a non-residential planned development. For illustration purposes, I used the Sparrowhawk development. The planned development fee would increase by 34% for that application. However, this is actually another instance where the planned development application would not be required. 3 Exhibit A: Total Cost with and without overhead total cost total cost w/out permit/decision existin!! fee w/overhead overhead add-in units accessory use in residential district 150 162,5 131 NA accessory use, home occupation with no customers or clients 150 0 0 NA accessory use, not residential district 0 0 0 NA additional hearing varies 142,25 137.75 NA administrative design review 0 100 64 per buildinq alternative compliance 60 100 64 per standard annexation, staff prepared consensual boundary $ 1100 1205.5 899.5 separate annexation/rezone 550 905.5 707.5 NA annexation/rezone w/out concurrent application 550 1205.5 899,5 NA certificate of zoning compliance 60 375 240 NA certificate of zoning compliance w/prior approval 60 125 80 NA city council review (appeal) 150 603 441 NA comprehensive plan map amendment 1500 1017,5 783.5 per desiqnation comprehensive plan text amendment 500 605.5 497,5 per issue conditional use 325 1046 776 per use conditional use modification 150 206 161 NA director determination 35 250 160 per issue inspections, additional 60 50 32 NA miscellaneous 225 459 360 NA planned development 480 1260,5 1062,5 see per exception planned developmnet, per exception fee 0 100 64 NA plat, combination 450 1227,5 1029,5 NA plat, final 325 717,5 555.5 see per lot plat, final per lot P&Z and PW fee 11 28 23,5 per lot plat, final, modification to approved plat 225 349.5 295,5 per issue plat, preliminary 450 1275.5 1095,5 see per lot plat, preliminary per lot fire fee 1 1 1 per lot plat, preliminary per lot P&Z and PW fee 11 20.25 15,75 NA plat, short 450 410 374 NA private road 0 50 32 NA property boundary adjustment 240 149 140 NA sign 150 50 32 NA sign, planned sign program 150 62.5 40 NA sign, temporary 10 25 16 NA temporary use 225 125 80 NA time extension, Commission or Council 100 443.5 362,5 NA time extension, Director 100 75 48 NA unified development code amendment 480 805,5 625,5 per issue vacations 350 374.5 284.5 NA variance 310 603 441 per standard zoning verification letter 35 50 32 NA 4 Exhibit B: Comparison of proposed fees permit/decision accessory use in residential district accessory use, home occupation with no customers or clients accessory use, not residential district additional hearing administrative design review alternative compliance annexation, staff prepared consensual annexation/rezone annexation/rezone w/out concurrent application certificate of zoning compliance' certificate of zoning compliance w/prior approval' city council review (appeal) comprehensive plan map amendment comprehensive plan text amendment conditional use conditional use modification director determination inspections, additional miscellaneous planned development planned developmnet, per exception fee plat, combination' plat, final' plat, final per lot P&Z and PW fee' plat, final, modification to approved plat' plat, preliminary plat, preliminary per lot fire fee plat, preliminary per lot P&Z and PW fee plat, short' private road property boundary adjustment sign sign, planned sign program sign, temporary temporary use time extension, Commission or Council time extension, Director unified development code amendment vacations variance zoning verification letter existin fee 150 0 60 1100 550 550 60 60 150 1500 500 325 150 35 60 225 480 0 450 325 11 225 450 1 11 450 0 240 150 150 10 225 100 100 480 350 310 35 proposed with overhead proposed w/out overhead add.in units -'1" .(,' _IIJkl1J:klll " 1"\1. NA 150 0 varies 5 Exhibt C: City Comparison w/out overhead Permit/decision Proposed wlout overhead 130 accessory use in residential district accessory use, home occupation with no customers or clients accessory use, not residential district additional hearing administrative design review alternative compliance annexation, staff prepared consensual annexation/rezone annexation/rezone wfout concurrent application 0 0 140 65 65 900 700 900 certificate of zoning compliance certificate of zoning compliance w/prior approval city council review (appeal) comprehensive plan map amendment comprehensive plan text amendment 60 200 1500 500 conditional use 775 160 50 35 360 1065 65 770 415 18 225 1095 1 conditional use modification director determination inspections, additional miscellaneous planned development planned developmnet, per exception fee plat, combination plat, final plat, final per lot P&Z and PW fee plat, final, modffication to approved plat plat, preliminary plat, preliminary per lot fire fee 180 Kuna NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 406 to 910 406 to 910 6 Exhibt C: City Comparison wiout overhead Permit/decision plat, preliminary per lot P&Z and PW fee plat, short private road property boundary adjustment sign sign, planned sign program sign, temporary temporary use time extension, Commission or Council time extension, Director unified development code amendment vacations variance zoning verification letter Proposed wiout overhead 16 280 35 140 35 40 15 80 360 50 625 285 440 35 Ada Coun 7 Exhibit D: City Comparison w/overhead PenniUdecision accessory use in residential district accessory use, home occupation with no customers or clients accessory use, not residential district additional hearing administrative design review altemative compiiance annexation, staff prepared consensual annexation/rezone annexationfrezone w/out conCUfTent application certificate of zoning compliance certificate of zoning compliance w/prior approval city councii review (appeal) comprehensive plan map amendment comprehensive plan text amendment conditionai use conditionai use modification director determination inspections, additional miscellaneous planned development planned developmnet, per exception fee plat, combination plat, final plat, final per lot P&Z and PW fee plat, final, modification to approved plat plat, preHminary plat, preiiminary per iot fire fee Proposed wloverhead 160 0 0 140 100 100 1200 900 1200 280 95 200 2000 605 1050 205 75 50 460 1260 100 920 535 21 262 1275 1 Kuna NA Nampa NA 8 Exhibit D: City Comparison wloverhead Permit/decision Proposed wloverhead 20 307 50 150 50 62 25 plat, preliminary per 101 P&Z and PW fee plat, short private road property boundary adjustment sign sign, planned sign program sign, temporary temporary use 125 444 75 805 375 600 50 time extension, Commission or Council time extension, Director unified development code amendment vacations variance zoning verification letter Ada Coun Exhibit E: Comparison of Project Fees I total cost total cost w/out w/overhead % change overhead % change Bainbridge Annexation and Zonin 4,763 0 0 Planned Development 4,055 900 700 Prelimina Plat 5,620 11,415 9,085 Total 14,438 12,315 9,785 Ashtyn Park Annexation 630 1,200 900 Amke CUP 405 1,050 775 Paramount Sub. No.9 815 1,375 1,135 Larkspur PD 1,290 1,560 1,260 Sparrowhawk PD 2,904 3,884 3,619 Sl'...arrowhawk PD (not really required) 2,904 0 0 9