Laserfiche WebLink
_.. <br /> Code § 300.29.3(g). Liebeler's proposed addition would not alter the f�otprint 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 opportunify 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, explaini.ng 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 1ot, 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" beca.use 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 /> � -��.,> <br /> �-' �.J °\ <br /> I `� <br />