PC 042716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Hagen: Yes Commissioner Nagler: I think it absolutely should be a condition of this development that the home be preserved and you know there's a home as we know on Neal just above Third Street that the City owns and was donated and bids are now being taken. Some private party is going to fall in love with that place. As structurally unsound as that place may be and they're going to restore it. Okay, so it's already pending, and somebody's going to put another half a million or something dollars into that place and that barn, and more, okay, and restore it. So it is always possible. It just is a function of how much is it going to cost, right? And it just occurs to me that given the role that this home has played in the history of this community and the fact that we're allowing this piece of historical land to be rezoned for a development that at a minimum for the integrity and the history of our town, we ought to have this home preserved. And whether it's on the current site or moved somewhere else within this development as opposed to some place at the corner of, you know, something else and something else, I just think it ought to be imperative to have this development go forward. Commissioner Allen: And I agree with David, plus our historic guidelines say we are required to preserve this, correct? This is an historic resource. Hagen: There are different interpretations to it. Like we talked about earlier, there's no historic guidance outside of the Downtown Specific Plan which the Irby home is not within. There are also CEQA requirements for historic resources. When this property was evaluated as part of the Housing Element, the original CEQA document, the homes on the site were not evaluated at that time, but it took into consideration that at the time of the project that if these homes were evaluated and determined to be historic resources that it was a significant impact that would be mitigated with some of the mitigation measures which were recorded and documented. Commissioner Allen: I understand. It's not in the Downtown Specific Plan and that's what makes it different. So anyway, given this is a rezone and what we would be looking at here I absolutely agree it should be preserved and Mr. Serpa told us how critical this is to the history and it has all the pictures so to not preserve it would seem irresponsible. Hagen: Can I clarify whether anyone has any preference on how it should be used? On whether you're looking for it to be preserved as a community building as part of the park, whether you are looking for it to be preserved as a residential unit or whether this is something you are comfortable leaving up to staff and the developer. Commissioner Allen: I think it should look nice and I'm comfortable leaving it to staff Chair Ritter: And I am too. Commissioner Nagler: And I'm fine with that other than having it be a private residence. Hagen: You do not want it to be a private residence? Commissioner Nagler: No, but anything else you guys come up with would be fine. Commissioner Allen: Could it be like a caretaker's unit potentially? I don't know if that would ever happen but when you say not a private residence, do you mean just not a regular house? It needs to be part of a group situation? Shared? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 27, 2016 Page 34 of 43