PL PACKET 11152011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 18, 2011 Page 3 1 2 2. 3219 STINSON BOULEVARD—GARAGE VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE 3 VARIANCE 4 5 Chair Jensen opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. 6 7 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes presented the staff report. 8 9 Ms. Rachel Sanzone, 3219 Stinson Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission and 10 introduced Mr. Mark Belke, Integrity Restoration, Inc. She explained that one of the questions 11 raised at closing was whether there were any issues with the building and the seller told her she 12 was not aware of any. She indicated that the City's paperwork showed that the slab was 13 approved but not the structure. She stated that part of the reason she purchased the property was 14 because of the large area for doing yard work and the workstation in the back. She stated that 15 her neighbor does not have an issue with her constructing a larger garage and noted that the 16 garages around her are all larger garages. She pointed out that had the storm not happened, she 17 would not be here and the storm damage was completely outside her control. 18 19 Mr. Belke indicated there were three sheds on the property that have since been removed and 20 explained that the garage addition meets the 5' setback and the 2' setback represents an old 21 garage that has been in place since 1950. He stated the plan is to remove the garage that was 22 damaged during the storm and put it back as it was. He reiterated that the garage in the rear 23 meets the setback requirements. He stated that the intent is to construct a garage that meets City 24 Code and to give Ms. Sanzone what she had prior to the storm in order to make her whole. 25 26 Chair Jensen closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. 27 28 Mr. Belke explained that the garage addition was not constructed properly and stated it was his 29 belief that it should come down and be rebuilt properly. He added that the garage addition has 30 been in place since 2003 with no complaints on record. 31 32 Commissioner Chaput expressed concern that the applicant has requested a variance for what is 33 already a non-conforming structure that should be removed. 34 35 Mr. Belke respectfully disagreed and stated that the pre-existing garage from 1950 was 36 conforming and the garage addition is non-conforming. He recited the notes from the City's file 37 and referenced the notation that states"everything can be taken down while concrete is poured." 38 He stated that the former owner did not do it right but for eight years,the structure stood there. 39 He added that Ms. Sanzone is asking to take the existing situation, which involved an act of God, 40 and build a garage to Code. He pointed out that the back garage addition is conforming and the 41 existing original garage should be grandfathered in because it was built in 1950. 42 43 Commissioner Crone stated that this still represents an illegal garage, even though it was built 44 through no fault of Ms. Sanzone. 45