The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15.D.1. Appeal of G. Leonard West/Magnum Contractors of Permit Fees IS. 0.) I CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: NA TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal ofG. Leonard West/Magnum Contractors of Permit Fees for Re- roofing of 2 eight-unit buildings on Roundhouse Street DATE: March 16, 2004 INTRODUCTION: Magnum Contractors has appealed the fee that the City of Shakopee Inspections division assessed for the re-roofing of2 eight-unit buildings in the Prairie Bend development. Copies of the appellant's application and letter are attached for the Council's information. BACKGROUND: Mr. West/Magnum contend that the permit fees for re-roofing properties in Prairie Bend should have been based on the valuation for a single valuation for the building, rather than on the basis of valuation for each separate dwelling unit. This is so, it is contended, because itis the homeowners association that owns the exterior of the buildings, and not the owners of each of the townhouse units. Mr. West indicates in his appeal that he has consulted an attorney who specializes in common interest communities (CrCs) and the Minnesota state building official, Ray Joachim, whom he indicates agrees with his position. The City's building official, Jim Grampre, did speak with staff that the state (albeit not Mr. Joachim) about this matter. In that conversation, Mr. Grampre was left with the impression that state staff appears to generally agree with the appellant's view, but were clear in stating that it is largely a matter oflocal interpretation and application. Inspection staff contacted a number of other communities to learn how they charge for roofing permits in similar circumstances, i.e. crc properties. In short, the way that cities calculate the fees for re-roofing are quite varied, and the resulting fees have a significant range. Following is a summary ofthose findings; . Shakopee - 1 permit/dwelling unit; Permit fee = value of work x 1 % (with a minimum permit fee of $50.00) . Total Re-roof fee for an 8-unit building (not including state surcharge) = $400.00 C:\DOCUME~ 1 \MLeek\LOCALS~ 1 \Temp\appealmagnum2.doc 1 . Bumsville - 1 permit/dwelling unit; value of work x 1997 UBC fee schedule No minimum permit fee specified . Total re-roof fee for an 8-unit building with a per unit work value of $2,081.00 = $83.25 per dwelling unit . Total re-roof fee for an 8-unit building (not including state surcharge)= $666.00 . Chaska - One permit with a flat fee of$75.50 for buildings with 4 or more dwelling units . Total re-roof fee for an 8-unit building (not including state surcharge) = $75.50 . Maple Grove - 1 permit/dwelling unit; Permit fee = $75.50 (flat fee) . Total re-rooffee for an 8-unit building (not including state surcharge) = $604.00 . Prior Lake - All attached structures have 2 permits, with an assigned work value of $5000.00, and a flat permit fee of $76.50 . Total re-rooffee of$153.00 . Savage - Uses the League of Minnesota Cities recommended fee schedule, That has a mimimum work value of $2,000.00 and a minimum permit fee of $86.50 ALTERNATIVES: 1) Direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the current fee structure for re-roofing to be acted on by the City Council at its April 6, 2004 meeting. 2) Direct staffto prepare a resolution upholding the appeal of Magnum Contractors to be acted on by the City Council at its April 6, 2004 meeting. In the event that the Council takes this action it should also direct the following; a. Preparation of an amendment to the current fee schedule; b. Return of a portion of the fee paid. 3) Table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion providing staff direction consistent with Council's desire. ~~d~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director C:\DOCUME~ 1 \MLeek\LOCALS~ 1 \Temp\appealmagnum2.doc 2 .T~ .A\>,p" \ \'0"+ - .-s- \' ., 6>1 \,.<--l"'\.~r-1 v-J~-\-- ~ m~"'I.o',,", (Pf'\-t~ -\,o<,,~ (~~ \.:~ l-' (,:,1-\0-; (;11.t1. f~ k~-\!)r",;v t) ("-, \J lZ... ~ ~"'2Y)t2- m~ S S'~ .., <a SHAKOJP'JHIE q ~"1. - \.\1.-\'1 - q to q ~ O::I>>.lIl'dUNIl"fJPmD.E: SIN::$ la57 \e..O.. ~'f"\...H'\~ <:e. \i1~t1:> I " u;:>C"C"'\ Pro R~~e.r~.. U=>N""\ DEPARTMENT OF BUlLDING AND SAFETY BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FOR HEARING (-r~'" $"'~~ ~ ~~'>) Date "1.."7 ~fV- Co'~ Address of property 401.,- \.,\ ',<& -a..,-...,d 'Y.lc. "'1 .. \. r' 'i!. \2.-~~ ~~e...-~'>r<'tU!-'\- Location .. ~ \--'-"~~b '('14 _ / ",-""\ ~ . ,,"\ Owner "P "", '\b.t~ ro~ \-\~A- r~ . .r ..e- Go 10 ~-\i,v. Address of Owner 'Nc!.\,J I;:,.('V" r; ~'Nt?.T"\~~~+ ( -< Dn: c:- (' 0..-- t.... .-t\--" Location ~~\..r'>.;A "'2",..\L . \'""('\1'1 Phone: G\S'2. -'"7-';4 - \"2.f) 1 , STATEMENT: It is requested that the Building and Safety Board of Appeals schedule a hearing on an appeal from the decision of the Department of Building and Safety to: ).N,(,,~fV-"\ \... ' k1 4. ":.t' \' <: .e.. ~ <::NO s;> \N~~~ > f <!..'-J? \u~...- ?<" ~,...., T 0.('" ~~ ." ~- V'("~7r:a... ~n.d. L-a>\~r::.$ This appeal is based on the following factors: <. ~ :<J~,->je..J) ,r. . J:~~~:~=f~~~~~~::~"- ~~ -- -------- . : ~(~ i""M~4. :S'n,,~ \A ~ ~~ ..:::."" .>t~ (' e.. \"i\o ~ .\- ~ ,\ "t-lc:.""", ; I '% 'V-ya-<.-a~ '-''''ZJ h.>~t'i o,,~ ... r ~ . 4?.l') -\.: (' 4- ~ # \'~ .~ '""-:?;~ :::;;\\..a,.. ~~ Df' "". \...~~..J ~.\- .'~ 4-- .~\~ \\V\f'\~:) ,~~\~ "~ ~n~~'.J:Juo \ r\~ .1-') 'h~-.1~.'l c..\C- 0...'N" ~:S' J> November 17, 2003 Since 1978 6742 Featherstone Dr. Savage, MN 55378 (952) 447-9698 Mark McNeil City of Shakopee RE: Permit Valuation Dear Mark & Appeals Board Members, On October 20,2003, I came to City Hall to pull permits for reroofing work at Prairie Bend Condominiums. Please note a second group of permits were pulled on October 29, 2003. The ~ermit numbersJor October 29th are Sh0352(34-41). The permit numbers for October 29t are SH0354(23-30). Please note that each group of numbers is eight permits for each eight-plex building. My disagreement with your building department is in the way the valuation is figured. The valuation should be based on the base bid: one figure, one roof, a roof that is owned by the Prairie Bend H. 0 .A. The Shakopee building department insisted that eight separate permits with eight separate valuations be pulled for these eight-plex buildings. This significantly increases the cost of the permits. I feel it is important (not only because of the cost) that the building department does the permit computation in the correct and legal manner. It is not a matter that is open to interpretation for each city. With condominiums such as Prairie Bend, each individual homeowner does not own their exterior. It is legally documented that the Prairie Bend H.O.A. is incorporated. Prairie Bend H.O.A. owns and maintains the exteriors. Because of this ownership it must maintain insurance of the exteriors. Individual homeowners "cannot make _jrr1pr()yeIntl!!!~,_~l:1i:l!lg~~(}r~orr~c_t!()l1sto the exteri()rs". Also note that property lines (lot and block) are established for the entire eight-plex and noteach individual unit. Each unit within the eight-plex has a CIC number. I have consulted an attorney who is very experienced with Common Interest Communities and the State Building Official. Both con:(trmedthat I am correct on this matter. I do appreciate your attention to this issue.::. . Sincerely, ~ G. Leonard West, MN Lic. #6403