07 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 4 DRAFT P14-0419/P14-0420/P14-0421. Andrew Batute TR Applications at a 0.23-acre site located at 4202 Stanley Boulevard for: (1) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Retail, Highway, and Service Commercial; Business and Professional Offices; (2) a Downtown Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Downtown Commercial; and (3) a Rezoning from the PUD-MDR/OS-PH&SIWO (Planned Unit Development — Medium Density Residential/Open Space-Public Health and SafetylWildland Overlay) District to the PUD-C-O (Planned Unit Development— Commercial-Office) District, allowing for the conversion of an existing home to a mixed-use building (residential, limited commercial, personal services, and/or office uses). Commissioner Piper noted that page 2 of the staff report talks about the California Register of Historic Resources and how the subject property lacked integrity. She requested staff to explain what that meant. Mr. Weinstein explained that when historical resources are evaluated, they are evaluated for architectural features, for relationship to important events in the State's history, events in local history, and other criteria. He added that they are also evaluated for whether the architectural design of the project actually has integrity in terms of whether the property or its surroundings have been modified in the past such that the historic value of the building has been degraded. He noted that in this case, this is an older building that was built in 1912, but its architectural features have been changed over time such that the building does not qualify for the register. Commissioner Piper clarified that "lacked integrity" simply means that it does not necessarily have the requirements or the charm that a house in that Register would have. Mr. Weinstein said yes. Commissioner Piper inquired why the structure would stay and not be taken down. Mr. Dolan replied that there was a lot of history on this property when the subdivision behind it was approved. He stated that there were some in the community who did not necessarily agree with the conclusion on the structure's historical value. They noted that it is an older building and that there are a lot of other older buildings on that stretch of road, and they thought that it did contribute to the overall character of the area. He indicated that the applicant, Ponderosa Homes, was reluctant at first, but it ultimately decided that it would go along with those requests and basically excluded that lot from the residential project as an offering of a community benefit to maintain an older structure, even though technically it did not meet the criteria where they could have required it. Commissioner Piper inquired if staff is actually requiring the building to stay. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 23, 2014 Page 1 of 2