One notable issue revolved around the variance request for the property on North 7th Avenue. Martinez sought relief from multiple setback requirements, including an 11.3-foot corner setback instead of the required 12.6 feet, a zero-foot front yard setback instead of 20 feet, a side yard setback of 6.8 feet instead of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 14 feet instead of 20 feet. Additionally, he requested a reduction in the required parking spaces from four to two to accommodate planned renovations, which included the addition of a staircase and expansion of a second-story deck.

The discussion was marked by detailed examination of the garage’s structural and functional aspects. The existing garage, added without permits, was described as having a width of 16 feet and a door width of 14 feet, rendering it inadequate for accommodating two vehicles. Historical modifications to the garage had reduced its usability for parking, with its front part previously serving as a workshop and the back half as a laundry room. The board considered whether the garage could be retained or needed to be removed to comply with parking space requirements, as its dimensions presented collision hazards for vehicles attempting to back out.

The city staff’s recommendation to remove the garage or convert it into usable parking spaces was met with resistance, as the removal was seen as potentially complicating parking maneuvers. The board explored the potential for parking coordination among tenants and the possibility of widening the driveway apron to mitigate backing issues. A board member articulated that the existing structure’s dimensions and the non-conforming use of the property complicated compliance with typical site design standards, emphasizing that the variance would not create undue privilege for the applicant compared to similar parcels.

The debate extended to the implications of reducing the required number of parking spaces and the historical context of parking arrangements at the property. Martinez maintained that the property had historically functioned with only two parking spots, referencing the need for variance due to the lot’s small size. He argued that parking relief would not create a nuisance and would align with existing practices of neighboring properties. Ultimately, the board considered a motion to amend the rear yard setback to 18 feet and allow two parking spaces instead of four.

In a subsequent matter, the board addressed a variance request on South First Street for a new single-family home. The request included several setback adjustments, such as a front yard setback of three feet instead of 20 feet, a northerly yard setback of 4.4 feet instead of five feet, and a rear yard setback of five feet instead of 20 feet. Paul Fras, representing Bella Builders, described the project as a straightforward development, noting that the current structure on the lot, built in 1931, was non-conforming. The plan aimed to replace it with a single-family home utilizing similar setbacks to adjacent properties.

The board evaluated the hardships presented by the limited lot size and the necessity for coverage exceeding standard limits. A board member acknowledged that while the request exceeded typical coverage limits, it was reasonable given the lot’s substandard size. The proposed coverage was slightly above the maximum allowed, raising considerations about the appropriateness of the request. After minimal discussion and a public hearing with no speakers present, the board unanimously approved the variance request, recognizing that it met the necessary standards outlined in the land development code.