50:15The board first addressed case BOA25-10002, where the applicant, Michael Sittner, sought variances for front and rear yard setbacks and lot coverage on South First Street. Sittner proposed subdividing the current single lot to build two detached single-family homes, arguing that the variances were necessary to meet modern housing demands and would align with neighborhood characteristics. He noted that the property, currently featuring a 1938 bungalow, could be developed into two multifamily units without variances, but believed single-family homes were a better fit.

11:37Despite Sittner’s assertions, board members expressed concerns about the proposed increase in lot coverage from 45% to 70%. They questioned whether the variance request met the necessary criteria, particularly given that the applicant could construct compliant multifamily units without requiring variances. The board also considered public opposition, including concerns from a resident, Janelle Wilson, who submitted a written objection. Ultimately, the board unanimously voted to deny the variance requests, concluding that the self-imposed nature of the hardship did not justify the proposed changes.

Another discussion involved a property on North 8th Avenue, where the applicant, Tuxedo Park Rental LLC, sought variances related to setbacks and parking requirements for converting a single-family dwelling into a multifamily unit. Despite these concerns, the board approved the variance request, following an amendment to ensure the property remained within its existing footprint and met minimum parking requirements.

44:59The board also reviewed a case concerning a vacant property formerly housing a furniture store. The owner proposed repurposing the site for a new commercial tenant, requiring variances for parking and setbacks due to a lapse in commercial use. The application faced opposition from resident Robert Bunkley, who raised issues about the use of city right-of-way for parking and potential disturbances from the proposed business. The board ultimately approved the variance request, contingent on maintaining parking spaces within city guidelines.

52:33Additionally, the board considered a proposal for a new three-unit residential building on a lot with an existing dilapidated structure. The applicant argued that variances were needed due to the lot’s narrow width and the desire to maximize density in line with neighborhood standards. However, public comments, including those from Emma Louise Lansancy and Alex Flores, voiced concerns about the potential impact on neighborhood character and questioned whether the request constituted a self-imposed hardship. The board appeared divided on the issue, reflecting varying views on property development and community standards.