11-20-2002 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Browse Search

February 28, 2003 City of La Porte Board of Adjustments Re: Development of 216 S. I& St. La Porte, Oakland Land & Development Company. Members of Board, A proposed site plan was submitted on July 31, 2002. "Staff' returned comments in a letter dated August 8, 2002. In this letter several items were listed concerning existing non -conforming issues on an existing building located within the boundaries of this overall property. Items 4, 6, and 7 in this letter requested that the site plan be noted to state that the existing fence, building and parking are "pre-existing and non -conforming". The site plan was reworked and resubmitted for approval. On September 26, 2002, another letter was issued by the city regarding the need to change the non -conforming items on the existing property prior to approval of the site plan on the new property to be developed. This letter is an attempt to get the board to reverse the decision of the planning director not on the basis of a variance request, but on the basis that the planning director did not base his decision on current ordinance. According to Div. 9, Sec. 106-261, preservation of the property rights shall be maintained regarding buildings and site development prior to the adoption of these ordinances. Relocation of existing parking at the sole discretion of the planning director is not maintaining property rights. Also mentioned is a fence located on the property that was constructed in accordance with the then City ordinance, but encroaches on the front setback line under the current ordinance. Once again, We do not believe that requiring the Owner to relocate the fence falls within existing city ordinance. Regarding the issue of landscaping, the landscape calculations on the resubmitted site plan exceed 6% of the new development in accordance with current ordinance (excluding developed area in existence prior to adoption of the current ordinance). At issue are two situations that developed within the planning department: 1. The issuance of subsequent letters requesting additional changes which should have been addressed in the first site plan meeting and the first letter, therefore requiring additional time and expense incurred by the Applicant. 2. The fact that the planning department acts arbitrarily in making rules as to the requirements for additional development to existing properties. Your help in a prompt resolution to this matter is in the best interest of the City (additional fee and tax revenue), and the Owners of the property so that they may proceed to construct their facility. YOU, 11AXQW— Alan T. Ward By direction of Owner. EXHIBIT "A" nn �f I 1 y FEB 2 8 Z003 I 1 v