47:14The central topic of the meeting revolved around the property owned by Anthony Martinez, who sought multiple variances for his two-unit multifamily dwelling. Martinez requested a corner yard setback of 11.3 feet, a front yard setback of zero feet, a side yard setback of 6.8 feet, and a rear yard setback of 14 feet. Additionally, Martinez aimed to adjust parking requirements, which typically mandate four parking spaces for a two-unit property. He proposed utilizing an easement to the south of the property for parking to manage the existing shortage.

03:10Martinez explained that the building was an older structure, unchanged for a significant duration, and sought approval to maintain the current setbacks. He emphasized the aesthetic and functional improvements associated with moving a staircase and expanding an existing second-story deck. The board scrutinized the clarity of the property’s surveyed boundaries, particularly concerning the proposed deck expansion and its alignment with visual representations from Google images.

31:11Parking was a recurring concern throughout the meeting. Martinez faced challenges in providing adequate parking due to constraints posed by the structure’s historical nature and the neighborhood’s small lot sizes. The garage, originally intended as a single-car space, had been modified with a workshop, reducing its capacity to accommodate a vehicle fully. Martinez expressed a desire to enclose and elevate the garage in compliance with FEMA flood zone regulations, a move that would address both structural concerns and improve insurance eligibility. However, converting the garage back into a parking space was met with reluctance due to its historical significance and existing utility as a storage area.

45:14The board deliberated on the feasibility of utilizing city right-of-way for additional parking, clarifying that such spaces would remain public and not be exclusive to property owners. There was a suggestion to pave an area south of the building to create two to four parking spaces, aligning with neighboring properties’ configurations. This proposal aimed to provide a visually appealing solution that did not involve demolishing existing structures.

06:14A significant aspect of the discussion was the potential impact of building height and layout changes, including a request to raise the structure by about 12 inches. The board examined the implications of these modifications on headroom and property boundaries, noting inaccuracies in the property appraiser’s depiction of lines, which led to further dialogue about the actual lot boundaries.

21:31The conversation also touched on the necessity for a second staircase for fire code compliance. Board members sought clarity on whether this requirement was mandatory and how it would affect the proposed variances. The rear yard setback request, which sought to reduce the existing 18 feet to 14 feet, was highlighted as a key consideration, with the board examining the potential impact of the staircase on required setbacks.

50:25Despite the complexities of the proposed development, the board displayed a commitment to achieving a resolution that satisfied both code requirements and neighborhood aesthetics. The option to defer the discussion was entertained, with participants encouraged to consult with city staff regarding parking possibilities before reconvening. The decision to defer was made, with plans to revisit the parking issue at the next scheduled meeting on July 15th.