CCMIN082013 - Laserfiche WebLink

agreement with the property owner in 2011. A 14 lot plan, which included removal of the house, was prepared and a neighborhood meeting conducted at which neighbors immediately adjoining the property indicated strong support for the proposed project. Ponderosa proceeded with a historic evaluation of the home, which indicated that the house failed to meet eligibility requirements for both the state and national registries of historic places and structures. She said they also felt that the home's original arid added features lacked the architectural significance to satisfy the desired design themes discussed in the city's context statement. Following the Planning Commission workshop, at which it became apparent that the proposed removal of the home would still be an issue, Ponderosa renegotiated its agreement with the property owner to allow the retention of the existing home on a 9,800 square foot lot. She stated that Ponderosa's preference continues to be Option 2, although in light of recent news that the property owner may have found a buyer for the home, they are simply asking that the Council vote to approve either option. She cited the project's advantages, which include elimination of a dilapidated mobile home park, improvements to this portion of Stanley Boulevard, development of new and smaller home lots consistent with the General Plan and land use pattern in this area, preservation of the creek, dedicated easement for future public use, pedestrian access to Vervais Avenue, installation of a public sidewalk on Stanley Boulevard where one does not currently exist, as well as significant fee and property tax revenue generation for the City. She requested clarification on the new language added by staff, which she understood to mean that Ponderosa would be required to make the stated improvements to the existing home as well as pay the Bernal Park fee. Mayor Thorne clarified and staff confirmed that it is an either/or, not both. Councilmember Brown conceded that the project would be a significant improvement over the existing mobile home park and that the City is definitely appreciative of the fees that will be generated from the project. She asked why, when the applicant acknowledges it is the desire of the community to preserve the home they would continue to push for Option 2. She noted that she spoke with the applicant several days ago, at which point there was no indication this option was not viable, and asked when Ms. Hardy learned the home was already under contract with another buyer. Ms. Hardy assured her that they take to heart any input received from the community, as evidenced by their willingness to revise the project accordingly. However, as a business it is only logical that they would advocate for the 14 unit plan, particularly when they do not believe the home is historic in nature. She stated that she was made aware of the potential sale of the site late Thursday evening and deferred to the property owner's representative for more information. Jeff Schrader, Ponderosa Homes, agreed that the 14 unit plan is the logical preference, particularly on a smaller project like this. At some point however, they as a company recognize that these 2 lots are not worth fighting over if preserving the home is really the wish of the community. He explained that when it was first apparent that this could become an issue, they met with the property owner, renegotiated their agreement, and suggested they begin to seek another buyer for the home. He stated that technically, Ponderosa is still under contract to purchase the entire site and therefore the owner cannot enter into a contract with another party to purchase the property. Recent news indicates that they have in fact found a buyer, but their commitment is unclear and Ponderosa therefore feels it is important to keep both options on the table for the Council's consideration. Councilmember Brown asked when Ponderosa pulled its legal option to purchase the home. Mr. Schrader explained that when it became apparent the home could pose an issue, they negotiated an amendment to the agreement that would still allow Ponderosa to purchase the entire lot if Option 2 were approved. If however something like Option 1 were approved, they would need to submit a parcel map and either do a lot split prior to the purchase or purchase the site as a whole and grant the property back to the seller once the lot split is completed. He noted that Ponderosa submitted a parcel map some time ago and is confident that either method could be resolved fairly quickly. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 10 August 20, 2013