6/26/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FF_ JUN 26 195 I TO: The Honorable Members ATE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE BOOK.C-jP�,;E June 14, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Xeatilng Lq Planning & Development Director THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried Chief, Current Development Section PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULEFOR PRD, SPECIAL EXCEP- TION, PLAT VACATION, SITE RE -INSPECTION, TEMPORARY USE, AND SUB- DIVISION VARIANCE APPLI- CATIONS AND REQUESTS FROM: Stan Boling REFERENCES: NEW FEES 46 Staff Planner Prop. Fee Sched. Memo It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on June 26, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Recently, several new additions or amendments have been made to the Zoning Code. These include the residential zoning district ordinance (No. 85-4), the planned residential development (PRD) ordinance (No. 85-5), the site plan ordinance (No. 85-47), and the general provisions ordinance (No. 85-44). These ordinances established several new review procedures and applications, including PRD applications, special exception requests, develop- ment site re -inspections, and temporary use permits. For each of these activities, a fee must be established to cover a portion of the County's costs. Besides the new programs created by the recently enacted ordinances, there are several types of reviews for which fees had never been set. These include plat vacation requests and subdivisions variance requests. Fees must now be set for both of these review activities. At their regular meeting of June 13, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed fee schedule (see attachment #2). ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The fees proposed are comparable to existing fees charged for similar types of review. The proposed fees are set to cover notice and advertising costs, some of the administrative costs, and some of the costs associated with staff review time. For projects requiring more than one type of application or request, the proposed fees are generally less for concurrent review of applications than would be charged for separate review. All comparisons between existing and proposed fees are shown on attachment #1 ("Fee Comparison Chart"). 'The proposed fees, as shown on attachment #2 ("Fee Schedule") were derived from these comparisons and the recommendations of the individual staff persons involved in the various types of development review. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed fee schedule by adopting the attached resolution. 31a