Laserfiche WebLink
Code § 300.29.3(g). Liebeler's proposed addition would not alter the footprint of the <br />garage and would comply with the City zoning requirements for a detached garage with <br />respect to maximum height and size. <br />The City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2008, to <br />consider Liebeler's request. Both Liebeler and Krummenacher had an opportunity to <br />present their arguments at that hearing. Liebeler explained that she believed that the flat <br />roof was causing leakage problems and that the structure itself needed to be updated. <br />Krummenacher objected to Liebeler's proposed project, explaining that the added height <br />of the garage would obstruct his view to the east. <br />The Planning Commission approved Liebeler's request for the variance. The <br />Planning Commission based its decision on the following findings: (1) the denial of a <br />variance would cause "undue hardship" because of the "topography of the site, width of <br />the lot, location of the driveway, and existing vegetation' ; (2) the preexisting <br />nonconforming setback was a "unique circumstance'; (3) Liebeler's proposal would <br />comply with the "intent of the ordinance" because it satisfied the "zoning ordinance <br />requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size" and did not alter the <br />footprint of the garage; and (4) the proposal would not alter the "neighborhood character" <br />because it would "visually enhance the exterior of the garage" and because there was <br />(Footnote continued from previous page.) <br />significant slope immediately behind the garage, making it difficult to move the garage <br />back. <br />El <br />