02-08-1978 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- DRAFT -- MEMORANDUM urban planning • design • market research 2101 hennepin avenue south minneapolis minnesota 55405 (612) 871- 2661 TO: Little Canada Mayor and City Council Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: David Licht DATE: 3 January 1978 RE: Ordinance Amendment - Variable Plan Review Fee Charges on Development Requests FILE NO: Little Canada (758.06) As an initial c'dinance revision assignment which was undertaken as a result of the comprehensive plan tactics interviews we have drafted a proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance amendment which provides for what we consider to be a more equitable means of assigning re; ;oonsibility for processing costs. The procedure which we term a "variable plan review fee: " schedule is used by a majority of communities which we serve. Under this system, applicants are charged all actual and direct costs for processing of requests which they brirng to the City for consideration. Such a situation is seen as beneficial and much more equitable for a number of reasons. First, the degree and complexity of similar types (variance:s, rezonings, subdivisions) vary greatly. If a uniform standard plan review fee is charged, one individual may pay more in a fee than actually costs to process his requests. In Dither cases, an individual pays far less than the actual cost for review and consideration o'f a development proposal . This is not seen as fair to either applicant nor is it fair to the general taxpayer who picks up the difference between the fee paid and actual cost of processing. The operating principal which we recommend is that the benefitting individual, that is the person making the request, should pay for the cost of considering improvements which will enhance his property and value. A related bene-fit is that many times applicants fall short in supplying required and necessary inforrmation which is needed for a technical evaluation of the request. In many such instc nces, the City staff, consultants and decision - makers must spend un- necessary time determining facts about the request. Too often, it has also been our experience tha applicants in fact have required information available, but simply don't want to take thr:e time or be bothered with the effort to locate and provide it to the City. Again, -he consequence is that the City taxpayers pay an unnecessary expense. When faced wi'-h the fact that they will pay for extra efforts of the City staff and consultants, applicants find it to their advantage to cooperate more fully. 10