The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13.C.1. Gregory McClenahan Request for Waiver or Reduction of Fees J3.C,!/ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 08-022 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request of Gregory McClenahan for Waiver or Reduction of Review Fee for Preliminary and Final Plat of EVERGREEN HEIGHTS SECOND ADDITION. MEETING DATE: June 17, 2008 REVIEW PERIOD: Not Applicable DISCUSSION After Council approved the preliminary and final plat, Mr. McClenahan requested that the Council consider waiving or reducing the review fee. Council tabled the request to allow time for staff to report on the fee in connection with the subject application. DISCUSSION: Reporting on Fees: As Council will recall, in 2006 the City contracted with Springsted to study the City's development related fees. Relative to platting and other development related fees, that study recommended that the City adopt an administrative review fee and an escrow fee. The recommended review fees were based on an analysis of the actual time spent (and thereby resulting costs) on ministerial tasks such as taking in applications, setting up files, providing public hearing notice, and so on. The study set review fees at a "benchmark" level that took account of the fact that some applications may be more complex administratively and some may be less complex. The review fee recommendations were first adopted by the City Council for the 2007 fee schedule. Because these costs are "fixed costs" there use is not tracked by the Finance Department (See also attached e-mail exchange between Finance Director Gregg V oxland and Mr. McClenahan). In addition, the study recommended escrow fees (also adopted first in 2007) to cover the costs of review by staff, other agencies and outside consultants. Expenses against the escrows are tracked, and at the end of the process if any funds remain, they are refunded to the applicant. RationawforReques~ Mr. McClenahan's underlying rationale for the request is also set forth in the attached e-mail. It is essentially that the City's staff should have found a way to allow the construction of the storage building across the property line that would not have required platting. It does not appear to staff that current city code vests that discretion in City staff, and has communicated that to Mr. McClenahan in a June 6th e-mail that states in that regard as follows; H:\CC\2008\evergreen hts 2nd 08022 request for refund.doc 1 " . . ., the requirement that buildings meet zoning code requirements such as setbacks is a pretty fundamental land use and zoning concept, and leads to the conclusion pretty readily that a building that crosses lot lines does not meet those requirements. Further, as it addresses building permit submissions, Shakopee City Code Sec. 4.06, mandates that a survey for a building permit depict the "dimensions of the front, rear and side yards." It is interesting to note that, while the City acted as a pass-through to the applicant for the MNDOT right- of-way, the purpose that Mr. McClenahan says the property was initially intended for construction of a berm and sound wall, which could have been accommodated without resort to platting. It was much after the purchase that the intended use of the parcel was changed. Planning staff was not aware of the original sale of the parcel, and in fact at the time Mr. McClenahan approached staff about the storage building, we were under the impression that the parcel had been acquired by Mr. McClenahan directly from MNDOT. VISIONING RELATIONSHIP: This action supports Goal F: "Housekeeping" ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not waive or refund any portion of the application review fee. Unused escrow funds will be returned to the applicant by the City's Finance Department. 2. Direct staff to waive or reduce by some amount the application review fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1, i.e. do not waive or reduce the application review fee, as the costs of reviewing this application intended to be covered by this fee have been incurred by the City. ACTION REQUESTED: Do not waive or refund any portion of the application review fee. Unused escrow funds will be returned to the applicant by the City's Finance Department. /~ - //-;3< < ~~~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director H:\CC\2008\evergreen hts 2nd 08022 request for refund.doc 2 back up data Page 1 of2 Michael leek From: Greg McClenahan [gmcclenahan@eschlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 20089:33 AM To: Gregg Voxland Cc: Michael Leek Subject: RE: back up data Greg, thanks for this clarification. Let me explain my basic dissatisfaction with the process I have gone through with attempting to get a maintenance garage built at EverGreen Heights. I own two parcels of land - one parcel is a larger platted lot on which there are five townhome buildings (30 units) and common roads, etc., and the second parcel is a remnant parcel (.1 acre) purchased by the city of Shakopee from MNDOT in 1999 and reconveyed to me for the convenience of constructing an earthen berm and sound barrier along Highway 169. The small proposed shed will cross the common boundary of the two parcels. Absent a variance or some accommodation that would have allowed construction over the common property line, the only viable land use mechanism that would eliminate the common boundary was the expensive process of replatting. Normally a plat process is associated with an economic venture that entails a great deal of planning and coordination and project revenue that justifies all the administrative costs. However, in this instance, there is no economic venture, just a maintenance shed and the plat process. My thought is that in view of the fact that both parcels were inextricably linked for future land use purposes and sale, the common boundary issue could have been accommodated by the planning department, but since it wasn't, it would be reasonable for the associated fees, which might be justified with a typical platted project, to be reduced or waived. I am asking for an exception to policy, and not arguing that the basic policy is unjustified. I don't think Michael agrees with this, but my understanding is that he is the one who insisted that the building could not be built over the common boundary. Thank you. Greg From: Gregg Voxland [mailto:GVoxland@ci.shakopee.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:23 AM To: Greg McClenahan Subject: RE: back up data I think Michael Leek answered much of your questions but perhaps not all. For the plat, the fee is in two parts. The application fee part covers the "fixed" costs of handling the application, publishing notices, filing fees, agenda preparation etc. The escrow part is for the variable costs for staff review which depends on the size, complexity, responsiveness of the developer, outside legal or engineering services, etc. Gregg Voxland Finance Director City of Shakopee 952-233-9326 u__.~,..~.____.~~_~_.~_____.._,__~>~_"_~_.,. ~__._.~__~.~..~___<_~<....._,.__._.._~,.___~_,_,.~_.._._____._.. >,___.__.___...~~_~____._._..._..,.___.___._..._.+_.,._...___.__...u._.__._...____...__~_~_.-..._ From: Greg McClenahan [mailto:gmcclenahan@eschlaw.com] Sent: Friday, June 06,200811:42 AM To: Gregg Voxland Subject: RE: back up data 6/12/2008 back up data Page 2 of2 Greg, I have never gotten an explanation as to what expenditures are charged to the escrow. I was advised that I simply had to establish an escrow before I could file a plat application. Is there some type of administrative document that explains the purpose and disbursement policy applicable to the escrow. Please forward any such guidelines. Thank you. Greg From: Gregg Voxland [mailto:GVoxland@ci.shakopee.mn.us] Sent: Friday, June 06,200810:58 AM To: gmcclenahan@eschlaw.com Subject: back up data Evengreen Hgth .2nd Deposit $ 9,900.00 Case log 08-022 Subledger 105104 Pay period 3/30/2008 4/13/2008 4/27/2008 5/11/2008 5/25/2008 Total Hours Hr Rate Billing rate J Cox 0.25 0.25 34.58 $ 69.16 $ 17.29 M McNeill - 57.08 114.15 - T Vidmar 1.50 0.50 2.00 23.70 47.40 94.80 M Noble 2.50 8.00 5.50 16.00 31.36 62.73 1,003.62 M Leek - 49.27 98.54 - K Svobda - 25.77 51.53 - J Klima - 34.11 68.21 - T Pitschneider - - - R Hughes - 29.07 58.13 - 8 Loney - 49.27 98.54 - J Swentek - 34.11 68.21 - J Weyandt - 39.30 78.60 - J Polley - 39.42 78.83 - A Weber - 30.67 61.35 - 1,115.71 Gregg Voxland Finance Director City of Shakopee 952-233-9326 6/12/2008