Laserfiche WebLink
Vice -Mayor Cook - Kallio requested clarification on the Council's responsibilities relative to the language <br />in Condition No. 4, the parcel map and rezoning, given that Option 2 was not a viable alternative. <br />Mr. Fialho cautioned against overcomplicating what is before the Council, which is simply whether to <br />allow demolition or require rehabilitation of the existing home as part of the proposed project. The sale <br />of the home is irrelevant in the context of the Council's discussion. The property owner's representative <br />has indicated that Option 2 is really not an option. This leaves Option 1 which involves either the <br />applicant beautifying the home with the $30,000 credit or the new owner using their own money to <br />rehabilitate the home. He explained that while the mechanism by which the home is preserved is <br />different, Option 1 is essentially all that is before the Council. If the direction from the Council is to <br />invest $30,000 of Bernal Park fees into paint, roofing and landscaping, then what happens between <br />these two parties relative to the sale is a private issue and obligation that is not in the control of the city. <br />Mayor Thorne closed the public hearing. <br />Vice -Mayor Cook - Kallio said she liked the project, particularly the dedicated easement, pedestrian <br />connection and overall architecture. <br />MOTION: It was m/s by Cook - Kallio /Brown to approve Option 1, with clarifying language regarding <br />Condition No. 4 and an encouragement to process the parcel map and rezoning for existing home site <br />as quickly as possible. <br />Councilmember Brown said the project is clearly an overall win for the community. She restated that the <br />Planning Commission voted 4 -0 in favor of protecting the existing home, said preservation of a 101 <br />year old home should always be the first option and said she was pleased to be able to have this <br />discussion. She noted that when she toured the site with the applicant and staff, Mr. Dolan commented <br />to her that the home appeared to be in fairly good condition although more recent modifications were <br />done properly. She said the city should be proud to partner with Ponderosa on this project, which will <br />be a dramatic improvement over the current mobile home park. She said the existing home would be a <br />real asset once rehabilitated and would fit nicely next to existing commercial uses. She expressed <br />concern over the proposed FAR, despite the presence of similar examples, as well as the removal of 29 <br />of 39 trees currently on the site. Overall, she felt the project would be a real asset to the downtown. <br />Councilmember Narum generally agreed with what was said. She shared her appreciation for the <br />applicant's efforts to respond to the feedback provided at the Planning Commission workshop, <br />particularly the wraparound porch on the corner lot. Given the pending sale of the existing home, she <br />requested support to delete Condition No. 1 and separately direct staff to initiate the General Plan and <br />Specific Plan amendments to approve a limited commercial zoning overlay on Lot 13. <br />Vice -Mayor Cook - Kallio and Councilmember Brown accepted the amendment to the motion. Staff <br />confirmed that they understood the intent of the direction, as well as the desire to do so expeditiously. <br />Councilmember Pentin said he supported the project, particularly in an infill area. He expressed <br />concern over the additional language proposed by staff questioned the need given that it is now clear <br />the applicant will have no relationship with Lot 13. He explained that his concern was that the investor <br />could ultimately benefit from $30,000 that should otherwise go to Bernal Park. <br />Mr. Fialho explained that the Bernal Park fee credit is only provided to Ponderosa if the sale of the <br />existing home is not executed. <br />Mayor Thorne echoed other comments supporting the project. He said he would support the motion, as <br />amended, but did feel government had overstepped its bounds in trying to tie the applicant to the <br />existing home. <br />City Council Minutes Page 9 of 10 August 20, 2013 <br />