12/10/1980 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III. PUBLIC HEARING . A. Land Use Fee Adjustments for Calendar Year 1980 (memo, resolution, and additional information distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this resolution is to adjust fees for land development applications to bring the charges in line with the processing costs. Also, new fees are being passed on to. the City by the Boundary Commission for the cost of their processing of annexation applications. Consideration can be given to raising residential fees from 30 to 60 percent of the processing costs. He introduced Jim Farah, Planning, to provide additional information. Mr. Farah stated that there are three typographical errors in the resolution. In paragraph three regarding non-residential PUD's over 12 acres, "per acre" should be deleted and the cost would be simply $212. Also, the prelimi- nary PUD fee should be $242, and the non-residential preliminary fee of $194 should have the words llper acre" deleted. There are three parts to the memo; the first two deal with the recommendations for adoption and the third is informational. Table 1--Annexation Fees, outlines fees per application which the City will be required to pay to the Lane County Boundary Commission. There is a $325 charge per application and additional charges depending on the size of the annexed property. At this time, charges for sewer or water line extension and annexation to Metro Wastewater are not included but they could be at a later time. Fees charged for rezoning would remain with the City. Table 2 would modify the fee schedule for land use applications to increase them ten percent to cover inflation. Additional information is included regarding the fee structure. Staff is suggesting that this could be a fund- . raising mechanism and they would suggest that this be considered as part of the code update. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3452--A resolution establishing fees for applications for hearing requests in connection with the processing of petitions for annexations; changes of zone; conditional use permits; site review; zoning variance; planned unit developments; vacation of streets, easements, and alleys; partition and subdivision of land; administration of the Sign Code; and repealing Resolution No. 3236. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Delay stated that the graphic represen~ations in the report were very good and that this is a useful tool. i. Ms. Schue asked how assessments would be divided up for small property owners such as in the case of subdivisions. Mr. Farah stated that usually there is only one application for the entire subdivision. Division of the costs would be up to the applicants. Mr. Obie asked if these would be treated as one applica- tion. Mr. Farah responded that they would. Mr. Obie stated that he is concerned about institutionalizing fees for the Boundary Commission. He would like for . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 3