Agenda - Council - 04/28/2009 - Board of Appeals

Home

CASE # l PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PLATTING REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDMSION; CASE OF LAN D PROPERTIES By: Tim Gladhill, Associate Planner Background: In July of 1983, an expansion of the warehouse facility for Grosslein Beverage was approved by the City under the assumption that a common property line over the area for expansion was located was to be moved in order to accommodate expansion. During recent property research, it was discovered that this common property line was not actually moved and literal interpretation states that the expansion was actually constructed over the common property line, thus creating an Illegal, Nonconforming Use. The Applicant is requesting a Variance to platting requirements in order to combine the two 'parcels with existing Legal, Nonconforming Uses. Notification: In accordance with' State Statute, Staff sent notification of the request for a variance to property owners within 700 feet of the subject property. Funding Source: All staff costs associated with the review of the Application are being handled through regular staff responsibilities. . Observations: The City has received a request from LAN D Properties to assist in rectifying several property and zoning inconsistencies. This request relates to a common property line through an existing warehouse for the Grosslein Beverage facility. Essentially, the expansion of the facility in 1983 was built over the property line. Both parcels are owned by LAN D Properties. The Applicant is requesting this procedure variance due to several existing Legal Nonconforming Uses. These Legal, Nonconforming Uses were created due to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and land use designations since the site was developed. Specifically, the changes to zoning included: Addition of Building Coverage requirements Amendments to setbacks Creation of the Critical River Overlay District Rezoning from a business type zoning to E-l Employment Current platting requirements in City Code state that an Administrative Subdivision cannot be used if Nonconforming Uses are created. Essentially, if the lots are combined under existing procedures, several other variances to setbacks and lot coverages would be required. This can create a practical difficulty in meeting these requirements using literal interpretation of the City Code.