The central issue of the meeting was the proposed construction of a large garage connected to a dwelling via an enclosed breezeway. Kepple and his attorney argued that the structure should be classified as a detached garage and not part of a single-family home due to zoning definitions. The garage, measuring 6,000 square feet, far exceeded the footprint of the dwelling itself, which was 3,614 square feet. Concerns were raised about the proposed garage’s capacity to hold approximately 27 cars, leading to suspicions about its intended use beyond residential purposes. Kepple’s attorney argued that the garage’s size and design, coupled with a second-floor lounge area, suggested potential commercial use, such as a private car storage facility or an event venue, which could increase noise, traffic, and crime in the residential neighborhood.

Throughout the hearing, the attorney referenced zoning precedents from other states, including cases from Iowa and Connecticut, to bolster the argument that a breezeway does not convert two structures into one entity. The argument was that the breezeway, lacking a common wall with the primary dwelling, should not classify the garage as attached under local ordinances. These assertions were part of a broader claim that the city’s approval of the permit violated zoning sections concerning the size and definition of accessory structures.

In response, the city planner and building official addressed each of the appeal’s claims. They clarified that the building plans met the zoning code’s definition of a dwelling, with multiple bedrooms and bathrooms, and did not exceed the height limitations for the district. The planner emphasized that the breezeway does connect the garage to the house through shared walls and utilities, thus considering it an attached structure under zoning laws. The building official confirmed the structural details.

Public comments echoed similar concerns. Residents expressed apprehension about the garage’s scale, likening it to a commercial facility rather than a residential amenity. One resident feared the development would obstruct sightlines and diminish property values, particularly with increased traffic and safety risks for children. Another resident highlighted the neighborhood’s unique character, emphasizing the potential negative impact on the community’s quality of life. These residents urged the commission to consider revoking the permit, stressing the need for community input in the decision-making process.

Despite the passionate appeals and detailed arguments from both residents and Kepple’s legal representation, the commission ultimately decided against the appeal. The discussion among commissioners acknowledged the challenge of balancing community concerns with adherence to zoning regulations. A commissioner noted that, based on the information presented, there appeared to be no error in the city staff’s handling of the appeal’s claims.