Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> Code § 300.293(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 opportuiuty 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 upda.ted. � <br /> '� <br /> Kiuinmenacher 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 hazdship" because of the "topography of the site, width of <br /> the lot, location of the driveway, and existing vegetation"; (2) the preexisting <br /> nonconfoi-ming 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 /> 4 <br />