Discuss Potential Amendments to City Code to Allow for Administrative Site Plan Review for Building Expansions and Simple Lot Splits

The purpose of this case is to discuss potentially amending City Code to allow for administrative site plan review for building expansions and simple lot splits. Currently, both of these precesses require Planning Commission review and City Council approval.  The intent would be both to streamline the review process and reduce costs for an applicant when a proposed building expansion conforms with all bulk standards and when there is a basic request to split a lot to create a second buildable lot.  Presently, the process for either of these is roughly forty-five to sixty (45-60) days with minimum initial costs of $1,000.00 (Site Plan) or $1,100.00 (Minor Plat).

No notification is required at this time as this is for discussion purposes only.

In our ongoing efforts to operate more efficiently and more effectively meet the needs of our customers, Staff has identified these two review processes (site plan and lot splits) as areas that could be streamlined and made more efficient for the applicant and the City as well.  By reviewing these types of requests administratively, an applicant could realize significant cost savings and greatly reduced review times.

Presently, there is no distinction in the required review process for a commercial project, whether it is a greenfield development or an expansion of an existing building.  The general review outline for any type of site plan request is application submittal thirty (30) days prior to a Planning Commission meeting, review by the Planning Commission for comment and recommendation, then final action by City Council.  As previously noted, this typically results in a review timeframe of forty-five to sixty (45-60) days. 

Staff would recommend implementing an administrative site plan review process for proposed building expansions that meet all current minimum standards (e.g. would not require a variance) and matches the exterior design, materials and treatments of the existing building.  This could result in potential cost savings of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 for an applicant, which typically reflects the cost incurred by the City to administer, publish and prepare for a full review.  Furthermore, this could expedite the review process by possibly as much as thirty to forty-five (30-45) days, which is often as important to an applicant as the cost savings.  

While the review process would be administrative, it would not alter the required submittal information (grading, erosion control, utilities, and landscaping plans).  These items would still be reviewed by the applicable departments, but this could be accomplished through the standard Building Permit review.  Additionally, any applicable third party review would still be required, such as Lower Rum River Water Management Organization, Mn/DOT, DNR, etc.).  In the event that a proposed expansion does not meet one or more existing standards, then the request would be processed as a traditional site plan, with Planning Commission review and City Council approval.

Similarly, a simple lot split is processed as a minor plat.  Again, that timeline essentially mirrors that for the site plan review: sketch plan application submittal thirty (30) days prior to a Planning Commission meeting, review and feedback by the Planning Commission on the proposed sketch plan to the applicant, then final plat approval by the City Council.  A simple lot split does not include construction of public streets or utilities and generally results in the creation of one additional buildable lot.

Staff would recommend implementing an administrative review process for simple lot splits, but still providing sufficient notification to adjacent property owners of such a request.  Typically, this type of request is from a local property owner, not a developer, and they are often times unfamiliar with the review process and the associated costs.  Staff would define minimum civil engineering information needed (such as existing grading patterns, wetlands, etc.) and minimum professional services required (can be accomplished with a licensed surveyor, generally an architect or planner is not necessary) to help the applicant better understand the true costs of their request.  Recording a plat does require final plat approval from City Council and Staff would recommend that this be accomplished simply as a City Council Consent Agenda item.

Similar to the aforementioned administrative site plan review process, an administrative lot split review would be utilized when a request meets all current minimum standards (e.g. would not require a variance, rezoning, etc.).  The City would still provide notification to adjacent property owners and third party review, if applicable, would still be required.  Again, an administrative review process would not alter the required submittal information, but would reduce costs and review time for an applicant.  Staff would still require proof that a basic structure consistent with the underlying zoning could be sustained on the newly created lot with regard to zoning administration and civil engineering.  Review and approval of items such as the final grading plan could be accomplished as part of the standard building permit review process.  Staff would recommend that a standard application fee of $200.00 be required for an administrative review.

This concept has been discussed on multiple occasions in the past and had been included in larger, but broad ordinance amendments that did not receive final adoption. Staff is forwarding this topic as a separate potential ordinance to focus solely on the administrative review process. Additionally, Staff has made some minor modifications to the proposals to make additional use of administrative review permitted under Minnesota Statutes based on the City's Strategic Plan; specifically goals of an efficient organization and smart, citizen-focused government.

Alternatives

Alternative #1: Provide Direction to Staff to Proceed with Drafting an Ordinance Amendment to Establish Processes for Administrative Site Plan Review for Building Expansions and for Administrative Review of Basic Lot Splits.  Establishing an administrative review process for basic building expansions and lot splits creates a more efficient, cost-effective means for an applicant to implement a project that is compliant with all existing minimum standards.  City Staff would still review each request and, if applicable, forward for review and comment by third parties as well.  With regard to lot splits, adjacent property owners would still receive notification and final plat approval would still be approved by City Council via the Consent Agenda.  Implementing this would have the effect of significant cost and time savings for an applicant. This alternative is permitted under Minnesota Statute Chapter 462. The City Council would provide final approval the Final Plat after a streamlined review in order for the Plat to be officially recorded.

Alternative #2: Provide Direction to Staff to Proceed with Drafting an Ordinance Amendment to Establish Processes for Administrative Site Plan Review for Building Expansions and for Administrative Review of Minor Plats.  This option mirrors that of Alternative #1 but would expand the administrative review process beyond simple lot splits and address all minor plats.  A minor plat includes the subdivision of land into three (3) or fewer lots and does not require the construction of public streets or utilities.  A basic lot split is a minor plat, thus the review process is the same.  The only difference is that with this alternative, an administrative review would be allowed for a subdivision of up to three (3) lots rather than just the creation of one (1) new lot.  Again, where applicable, third party reviews would still occur, the standard notification process of adjacent property owners would still be followed, and the final plat could be addressed via the City Council Consent Agenda (or Regular Agenda if preferred). This alternative is permitted under Minnesota Statute 462, which does not require full subdivision review as only subdivisions of four (4) or more lots is required. If any public infrastructure is constructed (roadways, utilities, etc.), this alternative would not be utilized. The City Council would still provide final approval of the Final Plat after a streamlined review in order for the Plat to be officially recorded.

Alternative #3: Provide Direction to Staff to not Proceed with Drafting an Ordinance Amendment regarding Administrative Review Processes for Building Expansions and Lot Splits.  For these types of basic projects, the standard review process seems cumbersome and costly for applicants.  Staff believes that the processes for both can be streamlined without negatively impacting the review and thereby saving an applicant both time and money.  Thus, Staff is not supportive of this alternative.

This case, and any resulting ordinance amendment, is being handled as part of Staff's regular duties.

Staff would recommend proceeding with drafting an ordinance amendment to streamline the review process for basic building expansions and lot splits that meet all current, minimum standards.

Provide direction and feedback to City Staff on proceeding to draft an ordinance amendment to establish an administrative site plan review process and an administrative lot split review process.