PC 072804 - Laserfiche WebLink

more of an issue when if the second unit is built after the fact in an existing neighborhood. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, representing the applicants, presented a background of the existing structures. He indicated that he agreed with staff recommendations with the exception of Condition Nos. 3, 4, and 5 involving the removal of the second unit above the detached garage. He explained that the house is currently for sale and that the retention of the second unit is part of the buyer's purchase to close. He added that to bring the structure up to code, new foundation footings would have to be put around the entire perimeter of the building; sheer, earthquake-strong walls would have to be added; and one-hour fire walls throughout most of the structure or fire sprinklers would have to be installed. He indicated that the applicants would not be willing to spend an estimated $60,000 to upgrade the structure if the second unit will not be retained, in which case they would demolish the existing structure and build the proposed one-story garage. He proposed to use vertical blinds to screen views and opposed stained glass windows. He felt that the existing structure is keeping with the historic character of the Downtown. Commissioner Arkin asked staff how much discretion the Commission has to allow the retention of the existing structure. Mr. Iserson replied that the Commission has no _ discretion over the building code; otherwise, the Commission can grant the variances if it can made the required findings. Ms. Nerland added that if the Commission is unable to find the planning land use reason for certain conditions, the Commission may delete those conditions; however, compliance with the building code would still be required. Mr. Thomas clarified that it is possible to use a window on the rear elevation that meets the one-hour requirement. Jean-Luc Chatelain, applicant, 4432 First Street, indicated that he and his wife would like to do the right thing and would be willing to do whatever is necessary if they are allowed to keep the second unit. Charles Huff, 30 West Neal Street, Suite 200, indicated that the garage and the second unit above it have been in existence for many years. He added that allowing second units in the Bernal Property but not in the Downtown sends a confused message. Jeff Bell, 4444 First Street, stated that the two-story garage is charming and fits in with the area and that taking down the structure would detract from the property values of the neighborhood. He supported the second unit. Jon Harvey, 3790 Smallwood Court, commented that he owns property on Neal Street and that he supports staff's recommendations with the exception of Condition No. 3. He supports retaining the second unit to encourage density in the Downtown, and believes it is well designed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 2004 Page 15 of 19