Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 3/23/2009 1 . . HOPKINS Steve From: Sent: To: Subject: JONES Terry (Tara) Monday, March 23,20091:18 PM HOPKINS Steve FW: SR & DU fees Importance: High Steve, can you be prepared to speak to the surveyor during their Pre-Submittal meeting Tuesday about the question in the first paragraph of the attached email? Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! 'Tara XI003 From: Michael Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@poage.net] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:31 PM To: JONES Terry (Tara) Subject: RE: SR & DU fees Hi Tara, Thanks for your efforts. Did Jim say anything about my question of processing the Site Review under a Type III process as described in SDC 5.1-130 (Type II applications) where the Director can determine that the Type II application be reviewed as a Type III because of the need for discretionary review, and eliminate the separate DU process? I am curious as to what is different about the DU as it seems that everything that is covered in the SR will cover anything in the DU unless you were dealing with something listed in criteria 0 of Section 5.9-120, which I don't think we are. They are different criteria sections but not so much different in content - at least not as far as I can tell. I realize the fees are set by City Council but somebody had to decide how much they would be. I am hoping at some point for whoever sets the fees to realize how they affect the people of Springfield. It is not out of town developers that absorb those higher fees. Those fees are either passed on to clients of the businesses in Springfield or the businesses in Springfield just have to operate on a smaller profit margin than their counterparts in Eugene. Honestly, why would you start a business in Springfield knowing it would cost you twice as much in City fees to get it off the ground. Do you think they can charge more for their services than in Eugene? Not only does it cost more in City fees, our fees are higher because there is so much more paperwork and process. I would agree that you are very nice to work with and there are many others at the City of Springfield in the "nice" category. But I would have to say the same about Eugene. As with every place, there are nice people and not so nice people. Hopefully you know (even through e-mail) that I am trying to be nice to you, and always will try to be. Even when bringing up these kinds of issues with anyone I deal with at the City of Springfield, I strive to be nice and respectful. Mike Michael 1. Kaiser, PE 56363 POAGE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. PH 541/485-4505 FAX 541/485-5624 E-MAIL mkaiser@poage.net P.O. BOX 2527 EUGENE, OR 97402-0152 990 OBIE ST. 1 . . -----Original Message----- From: JONES Terry (Tara) [mailto:tjones@ci.springfield.or.us] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:12 AM To: 'Michael Kaiser' Subject: RE: SR & DU fees Hi Mike, I understand your frustration about fees, but our fees are adopted by the City Council and we can't change them without their approval.. I did pass on to my supervisor, Jim Donovan, the idea that Eugene uses for concurrent applications. I think this makes sense and it might be possible for us to propose that the next time we review fees. In the case of a DU/SPR, we used to do them as one application, but changed that about 4 years ago. Although Site Plan Review and Discretionary Use Permit are similar, they do actually look at different aspects of development: it involves two different sections of our code as well as different sets of criteria. In regards to comparing Eugene and Springfield fees, alii can say is that we strive to review and approve our applications faster and probably with fewer headaches than our neighbor to the west - as well as being nicer at the counter to work with! 7/UII ..;tones Planner 1 City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: 541 736-1003 Fax: 541 726-3689 tiones@ci.sprinofield.or.us From: Michael Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@poage.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:28 AM To: JONES Terry (Tara) Cc: Chris Nash Subject: SR & DU fees Tara, I am trying to help Chris Nash understand this process so we can explain to the client and get the applications started for the East Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. First we were hoping there is a fee break for processing concurrent applications. Chris calculated that there would be an additional fee of $4,404.40 for the Discretionary Use application on top of the $16,017.10 paid for the Site Review. These really seem like duplicate applications except for the planning commission or hearings officer makes the decision at a public hearing for the DU (a Type III) where the Director makes the decision for the SR (a Type II). Since the DU is dependent on approval of the SR, we are wondering if the SR could be reviewed as a Type III as described in SDC 5.1-130 (Type II applications) where the Director can determine that the Type II application be reviewed as a Type III because of the need for discretionary review. Maybe this would add a small amount to the fee for the SR because the commission has to be included in distribution of the application materials and staff decision, as well as the public hearing cost, but that doesn't seem like it should cost an additional $4,000. The City of Eugene has a process for concurrent applications where they charge the highest application fee + 75% of the concurrent 2 . application. For a similar C!h use in a low density residential area in !ene it would require a Conditional Use Permit of $6800. If Site Review were also required (most properties do not have the SR overlay zone which is the only reason Site Review would be required) the SR fee would be 75% x 5800 =$4,350 for a total of $11 ,500 for the same thing that will cost over $20,000 in Springfield if you don't have a concurrent application fee break. The fee break in Eugene seems insignificant to me but it does recognize that there it is a duplicate process that should cost less. If fees are to reflect the actual costs to do it then it is unfair to people doing concurrent applications not to give them a break. I am constantly amazed at how much things cost in Springfield and this is just another example. Should it cost double the Eugene fees for the church? We compared subdivision costs between the two cities and for a fictitious 25 acre - 100 lot residential subdivision the City fees in Springfield are over 8 times that of Eugene. Including annexation, tentative & final subdivision the 100 lots would cost $194,000 in Springfield but only $23,350 in Eugene. I don't expect you to explain this because you did not set the fees but it may help you understand why you may get unhappy customers at your counter. Please let me know if we can adjust the process and the fees. Thanks, Michael J. Kaiser, PE 56363 POAGE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. PH 541/485~505 FAX 541/485-5624 E-MAIL mkaiser@poage.net P.O. BOX 2527 EUGENE, OR 97402-0t52 990 OBIE ST. 3 . . 5.1-130 Type 1/ Applications (Administrative) Type II decisions are made by the Director after public notice, but without a public hearing, unless appealed. Type II applications are reviewed as described below, unless the Director determines that the application should be reviewed as a Type III decision due to .the complexity of the application or the need for discretionary review: A. Type II applications are submitted to the Development Services Department. The Director shall determine application completeness. B. The Director shall provide mailed notice to the property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property being reviewed and to the applicable neighborhood association. In addition, the applicant shall post 1 sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property. For all Type II notices, an affidavit will be completed by staff stating that the required notice was provided to the appropriate individuals. There is a 14-day period, beginning from the date of the notice, for persons to provide written comments to the Director. The Type \I notice shall contain the following: 1. A map locating the subject property; 2. Identification of the application by Department case number; 3. Identification of the subject property by reference to the Lane County assessment map and tax lot number, and the property address/location; 4. Identification of the property owner and applicant; 5. An explanation ofthe nature of the application and the proposed use or uses that could be authorized by the decision; 6. The applicable approval criteria from this Code that apply to the decision; 7. The name and phone number of the assigned planner; 8. A statement that the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Development Services Department at no cost and that copies will be provided at reasonable cost; 9. A statement listing where, and when written comments are due; 10. A statement briefly summarizing the local decision making process for the particular application; and 11. A statement that issues which may provide the basis for an appeal shall be raised in writing prior to the expiration of the comment period. Issues shall be raised with sufficient information to enable the Approval Authority to respond to the issue. C. The Director shall distribute the application to the Development Review Committee or the Historical Commission for comments. D. The Director's decision shall address all of the applicable approval criteria and/or development standards and any written comments from those persons who received notice. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. E. The Director's decision is the City's final decision and is effective the day it is mailed to the applicant, property owner and those persons who submitted written comments, unless appealed. The Director's decision shall include an explanation of the rights of each party to appeal the decision. F. The Director's decision may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the Planning Commission or Hearing's Official as specified in Section 5.3-100. Any action taken to begin development prior to the expiration of the appeal period is solely at the applicant's risk and expense. The City assumes no liability or expense if the development is ultimately terminated based upon the outcome of the appeal. . . . ./ ~. DU 5.9-105 Purpose There are certain uses which, due to the nature of their impact on nearby uses and public facilities, require a case-by-case review and analysis at the Planning Commission or Hearings Official level. These impacts, include but are not limited to, the size of the area required for the full development of a proposed use, the nature of the traffic problems incidental to operation of a use, and the effect the use may have on any nearby existing uses. To mitigate these and other possible impacts, conditions may be applied to address potential adverse effects associated with the proposed use. This Section provides standards and procedures under which a Discretionary Use may be permitted, expanded or altered. 5.9-120 Criteria A Discretionary Use may be approved only if the Planning Commission or Hearings Official finds that the proposal conforms with the Site Plan Review approval criteria specified in Section 5.17-125, where applicable, and the following approval criteria: A. The proposed use conforms with applicable: 1. Provisions of the Metro Plan; 2. Refinement plans; 3. Plan District standards; 4. Conceptual Development Plans or 5. Specific Development Standards in this Code; B. The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering: 1. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating characteristics include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration, emissions, light, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable); 2. Adequate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the proposed site, and on-site circulation and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation; 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and wooded areas shall be adequately considered in the project design; and 4. Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to, utilities, streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure. C. Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated through the: 1. Application of other Code standards (including, but not limited to: buffering from less intensive uses and increased setbacks); 2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable; . 3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or 4. A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or approval conditions. D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code: .' . . ..-.. 1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A.--c., above but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3-145. 2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A.--c., above but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245. 3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A.-C., above but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115C. 4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is exempt from Subsections A.-C., above but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.7-195. . . Site Plan 5.17-105 Purpose and Applicability A. The purpose of Site Plan Review is to: Facilitate and enhance the value of development; Regulate the manner in which land is used and developed; Ensure the provision of public facilities and services; Maintain the integrity of the City's watercourses by promoting bank stability, assisting in flood protection and flow control, protecting riparian functions, minimizing erosion, and preserving water quality and significant fish and wildlife areas; Provide for connectivity between different uses; Utilize alternative transportation modes including and walking, bicycling and mass transit facilities; Implement the Metro Plan, applicable refinement plans and specific area plans and development plans; Minimize adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public through specific approval conditions; and Otherwise protect the public health and safety. Site plan 5.17-125 Criteria The Director shall approve or approve with conditions: a Type II Site Plan Review application upon determining that approval criteria A. through E., below have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval criteria, the Director shall deny the application. A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. B. Capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. D. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas; other riparian areas and wetlands specified in Section 4.3-117; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760,358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.