CCMIN082013 - Laserfiche WebLink

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