[1:21] Good evening and welcome to the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, occurring on Monday, April 20,

[1:28] 26.

[1:31] Mr. Kutaya, can we have a roll call please?

[1:35] Yes, did we under the touch of allegiance first?

[1:37] I was going to do that second, but we'll do that first.

[1:40] Okay. So we will now rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[2:04] Okay. Mr. Kutaya, can we have a roll call please?

[2:07] Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Goodson,

[2:12] I'll make sure, as your mic on, the little green on the please.

[2:16] Here.

[2:17] Mr. Link.

[2:20] Commissioner Preston.

[2:22] President. Commissioner Roberts.

[2:25] Commissioner Valez.

[2:30] Commissioner Vott, pardon me, Vice Chair Valander.

[2:32] President.

[2:33] And Chair McDivett.

[2:35] President.

[2:37] Thank you.

[2:39] At this time, the public will now have an opportunity to comment on any non agenda.

[2:44] item relevant to the jurisdiction of the city,

[2:49] are there any speaker slips or online?

[2:53] Yes, thank you, Chair. For those who wish to comment on a non-agenda item,

[2:56] please use raised hand icon and I will call on you.

[3:02] I'm seeing none for public form. Thank you, Chair.

[3:05] Okay, thank you. Mr. Kutaya, do we have any amendments for adjustments to the agenda?

[3:11] There are no amendments or adjustments. Thank you, Chair.

[3:13] Okay. All right. Well, that will take us to item A1, which is.

[3:21] Sorry. Sorry.

[3:22] And thank you, Chair, that's item A1 proposed adaptive reuse and renovation

[3:25] to the Fairview Gardens Historic Farmhouse.

[3:28] As part of Fairview Gardens Conditional Use Permit Project 598 North Fairview Avenue,

[3:32] APN 069-090-052, case numbers 25-001-CUP 25-0001-CUP 25-060.

[3:43] three dashed ERB. Thank you. Now this is an opportunity for any of the commissioners to provide

[3:51] expertise reports if any.

[3:57] Looks like we don't have any. So I'm going to open the public hearing

[4:03] and before we start, I'd like to just remind everyone present that the historic preservation

[4:11] commissions review is limited to the historic farmhouse portion of the project and whether the

[4:17] project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic

[4:22] structures.

[4:24] Other planning-related items, such as parking and traffic, noise, et cetera, are the

[4:30] purview of the Planning Commission, which will occur at a later date.

[4:35] The HPC will only be commenting on the proposed alterations to the historic farmhouse.

[4:46] Okay, so, I think now it's time for staff presentation, Mr. Highfield.

[4:53] Thank you, Chair.

[5:00] Good evening chair and commissioners. Staff is going to give some brief remarks, some background, and then the applicant will have some remarks as well, and then we can turn it back over to the commission for questions and deliberations and public forum.

[5:21] So just a quick bit of background, the Fairbred Gardens has applied for a conditional use permit to formalize activities that are on the site proposed to be on the site.

[5:37] These include farm operations, youth and adult education programs, staff housing, public events, and then other physical developments that will support those uses.

[5:49] So that's kind of the larger scale of the project overall.

[5:54] The part that the HPC, as you mentioned, is focusing on today, is the historic farmhouse,

[6:02] and how that relates to its consistency with Secretary of Interior standards.

[6:11] So, just a quick note on the standards, the standards to find rehabilitation, I'll just read the definition real quick just to set it set the tone.

[6:24] Rehabilitation of a source of structures to find as the act or process of making possible and compatible use for property through repair alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features,

[6:38] which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

[6:45] So with add-in mind, then the standards also require, they have 10 findings that are listed

[6:55] in the staff report.

[6:57] I won't go over each one item by item here, but what staff is going to be wanting from the

[7:04] P.C. in a recommendation is how the project is consistent or how those findings can be made and that it will be part of the recommendation to other decision makers, including other recommending, recommending bodies like the design and viewboard and then ultimately the planning commission, who will be the decision maker on the project.

[7:28] In terms of CQA, for tonight, the action is not required for a recommendation, so the

[7:40] CQA action is required tonight.

[7:44] The review authority will be asked to adopt CQA document when the entire project is presented

[7:50] to them at a future future hearings.

[7:52] One note on zoning in general planning consistency, the farmhouse rehabilitation project or that portion of the larger project is consistent with required zoning development standards for step-back and height as example.

[8:13] The farmhouse rehabilitation is also consistent with general plan policies related to alterations to historical resources and restoration and reuse of historical resources.

[8:33] Let's see, make sure I get all my notes here.

[8:35] One of the thing to note is that the farmhouse is listed in our historic resources inventory as a historic resource.

[8:48] So there's some precedents here and now we're here with an actual project to see how it relates to that.

[8:58] And so I can go over the plans real briefly here.

[9:02] The applicant will also be providing some remarks

[9:06] and we can go through the plans as we go.

[9:10] But I wanted to set the stage here.

[9:12] This is kind of looking southeast from above.

[9:16] And so you'll see some improvements that are proposed.

[9:19] The farmhouse is kind of right in the middle.

[9:22] And then some other proposed improvements including a barn.

[9:28] restored farm stand and then the staff housing.

[9:34] Sproul to some other pages here.

[9:45] So this is a site plan looking directly from above.

[9:47] So north is up in this view.

[9:51] Again, farm houses here near the library.

[9:59] And the other.

[10:00] Opposed developments.

[10:08] Proposed elevations for the farmhouse are here. So the aside fixing up the exterior,

[10:16] they're also proposing a porch and a retractable patio cover to kind of activate the outer space

[10:24] in and around the farmhouse. And then within the farmhouse will be a number of uses, including

[10:34] office, some storage, and then there will be a studio residential unit in the upstairs, as

[10:44] well. So I think I'll let the applicant go into more detail on the plans, but that concludes

[10:53] staff's initial remarks and have to answer questions when we get there. So the applicant

[10:59] would like to come up and use the podium and give them a remarks.

[11:07] Thank you.

[11:12] Good evening.

[11:13] I'm Tim Hazel-Tine from Post-Tiesel-Tine Associates.

[11:18] I prepared the, well, actually, Pamela post prepared the report with me and she seated

[11:23] in the audience.

[11:26] So, if we have any questions for her, she can come up.

[11:30] We simply had to start off with a really brief history of the property.

[11:34] Of course, originally it was part of, within the cultural sphere of the Tumash people.

[11:42] And then during the Spanish era there wasn't really much.

[11:45] It was really no development in the area.

[11:47] It might have been used for grazing or something of that sort.

[11:51] It was granted by the Mexican government as part of Rancho La Galita.

[11:56] And it was inherited by one of the daughters of the original grantee, Maria Antonio Hill O'Neill.

[12:06] There appears to have been no development of the property when she owned it.

[12:12] She sold it in some time we think in the 1870s to Ephraim Britain who then sold it to Beverly Hicks.

[12:23] Beverly Hicks had moved to California and the Santa Barbara area sometime between 1865 and 1870.

[12:30] The property was then inherited by Hicks' daughter Elizabeth Lillard.

[12:35] We would, as we noted in the report, Pamela, it was not really possible to find it exactly

[12:40] when the house was built and this is not uncommon for houses built in the 1870s in rural areas

[12:47] of Santa Barbara County. We did a close examination of the house and it's up on the

[12:52] screen here, at least. Could we bring up appendix of B of R report? Is that possible?

[13:00] Yes, it'll take a moment.

[13:01] Sure.

[13:04] Please continue.

[13:05] I'll take a couple of minutes.

[13:06] I wanted to show a couple of photos, which I'm sure you've all seen when you read

[13:10] the report of the existing structure.

[13:13] And why Pam and I believe it was built likely.

[13:16] It was built sometime between maybe the mid early to mid 1870s.

[13:20] And some time in the early 1890s, and it seems like a really big scope of time that it could have been built in.

[13:28] But vernacular houses of this type are sometimes very difficult to give a precise date to, because they tend to use traditional methods and architectural detailing that in a more urban area had already sort of passed their prime and weren't being used.

[13:44] And here you can see up on the screen a photograph of the south elevation in the front of the house.

[13:49] And this is an example of how these houses were adapted over time by their various owners and occupants.

[13:56] And you can see that existing porch here, very charming, but we looked at the way it was attached to the house and realized it was an alteration.

[14:06] Perhaps in the early 20th century and then it was further altered later in the 20th century.

[14:12] The existing front door could we pull up to the next photo please?

[14:16] That's just the setting.

[14:17] This is the house from the agricultural fields

[14:20] to the east of the existing home.

[14:24] It goes down slope, houses up at the top,

[14:27] very characteristic of this period where the houses are up

[14:30] on a raised area of it exists.

[14:33] And can we go further here is the west elevation

[14:37] this faces towards the fair view.

[14:40] And the next one, we'll just go through these quickly.

[14:44] this is the wing at the rear of the house. And we believe that this at least in part is a later

[14:50] addition alteration. Can we go to the next photo?

[15:00] This is a characteristic window type six over six wood sash.

[15:08] And this, if we could stop here for a moment, this is the existing state of the state of the chimney, the brick chimney. It had partially collapsed some number of years ago.

[15:17] And one of the reasons we think this probably dates maybe before the 1890s, most likely maybe 1870s, 1880s is the it's a balloon framed.

[15:28] And these wood planks actually are long enough that they go from the sill all the way up to the top plate of the house.

[15:37] And that's something you rarely see by the end of the, by the 1880s or later it sort of has gone out as a construction technique and keep going here.

[15:49] I'm sorry, Sheriff, very briefly. I just want to confirm. Did you open the public hearing?

[15:56] I'm sorry, please continue.

[15:58] Can I continue?

[15:59] Yes, please go ahead.

[15:59] Thank you. Okay, so he's another shot of the front of the house and we go down. There's another one and we'll go down to the next page

[16:06] And you can see the front door and that steps leading up to it. And that's one of the reasons Pam and I'm very sure that this porch was altered

[16:14] When this house was built and when it underwent early alterations in the say that early 20th century

[16:19] These types of porch is would have that steps would have been out in front and he would have stepped up onto a raised wood porch

[16:26] This is not a design feature that would have been found in, say, the 1870s or the 1880s.

[16:32] Next, it was good down again, but we could stop here from it.

[16:35] This is the existing front door.

[16:38] This could be an alteration from either the very late 1880s or 19th century, or more likely sometime

[16:45] in the first decade or two of the 20th century, because it has essentially American colonial

[16:49] revival sort of motifs there, the way that is organized with the sidelines and the large

[16:54] panel door with glazing and this is the north elevation of the house, the window at the base

[17:02] is a replacement and also on the east elevation we keep going through the photos if you

[17:07] wouldn't mind. There are one more down I think. There we go. This is the porch on the east

[17:13] elevation which is definitely not original. You can just tell by the construction technique, the use

[17:18] of these, essentially, oversized brackets, keep going down,

[17:25] that's just a side view, we can

[17:26] go down past that, so another view, probably we had too many photos, I don't know if that's

[17:31] possible in historical report, but maybe we did, here's the, I want to point out something

[17:35] here, on the second floor, there was originally a sleeping porch, and that was likely something

[17:42] added in the first two decades of the 20th century. It's been enclosed, but when you go

[17:47] upstairs and go into that room. It is definitely was an exterior room at one point and there's

[17:55] a side door. I think what I'll go to now is why, so this is the house. There are no other historic

[18:01] buildings on the property. There was a very large barn located just north of the house and it shows

[18:08] up until sometime I think in the 1940s or early 50s and then it's gone. We don't know who built it.

[18:14] we don't know precisely when it was spelled.

[18:18] And so I think what we'll go to now is the first page

[18:22] of the plan set.

[18:26] I wanted to just summarize why Dr. Post and I believe

[18:29] that the project meets the standards.

[18:45] We go to the first sheet of the elevations

[18:48] of the proposed remodeling, rehabilitation.

[18:52] So the existing elevations?

[18:55] Yeah, we'll go to existing first

[18:56] and I'll just explain where the changes are taking place.

[18:59] I mean generally most of this project is a rehabilitation and the house has severe structural

[19:05] issues.

[19:06] If you are a distortion of the framing and the floors so this definitely not in good condition

[19:16] and not only not in good condition but not probably terribly great place to work at the

[19:20] moment.

[19:22] So this is the existing so you can see each of the elevations and the front of the house

[19:28] is the lower right-hand corner. It's that illustration there. So that's existing post-elevation

[19:33] please and

[19:39] there is the same organization so the front is the

[20:00] I should also note that the dormer element above the porch is obviously a later change, probably also the early 20th century.

[20:13] And the changes here are to revamp the porch, which is not original. And then to remove one window on the left-hand side of the front door, you can see it to the left there.

[20:25] There was a window there and they wanted to put in a door, a French door, to provide access to that front room, which they will be using for some types of events.

[20:37] Generally, we like to see few changes to the front of the house, the entry elevation, but we did take into consideration that the house one has been altered a great deal.

[20:47] And secondly, that we're cognizant of this sort of programmatic needs of using this as a public space.

[20:58] They would need some access points that were more accessible to a wider part of the population.

[21:07] The remainder of the changes are pretty from a preservation point relatively innocuous.

[21:13] they're really saving almost everything here that's original, they are replacing a window on the

[21:20] North Elevation first floor that's not historic, it's a metal frame, it's a vinyl-clad unit,

[21:28] and then they want to, and we're supportive of taking the existing port is not

[21:33] enhancing the historic character of the building, so we thought that having it redone essentially

[21:41] You know, in a fashion that's closer to what you would expect

[21:44] to porch to have look like, say, in the early 20th century

[21:48] when the house was remodeled at some point.

[21:50] So we're a supportive of that.

[21:52] Generally, the rebuilding, of course, the rebuilding.

[21:55] The chimney is a plus.

[21:57] And the windows, it's a maximum extent feasible.

[22:00] The plan is to rehabilitate them.

[22:03] And if they cannot be rehabilitated, because they're too

[22:05] deteriorated to repair, then they will be replaced in kind.

[22:08] And that's essentially the philosophy from almost all of the exterior, including the

[22:14] siding of siding is rotted, then it will be replaced in kind.

[22:19] Under the direction of a city approved historian, they will go out occasionally as the

[22:25] project progresses.

[22:26] If it is approved and goes forward to make sure that all those preservation elements in the

[22:33] report are followed, and that's generally followed at the end by a letter from the consultant

[22:38] to the city that confirms that those measures were undertaken and completed and if there

[22:47] need to be any changes during construction and that does sometimes happen, that that is

[22:52] done in consultation with the city planning staff and a qualified consultant.

[23:01] We also, so that's

[23:02] And the other is that there's not other pardon.

[23:06] That really is a nutshell what's happening to the house.

[23:09] There will be some changes around it, but they are not.

[23:14] We feel that they're quite acceptable.

[23:18] There's a kind of a canopy structure that's going to come off the front of the house that

[23:22] will not be used at all times, so it will not, it'll be, essentially, unveralled

[23:29] it's needed for use. And currently that area was already revamped about 20 years ago, 15 to 20 years ago,

[23:39] and it has decomposed granite, and there's a large cauldron probably from a welling ship out there.

[23:46] So what you're seeing there is not a historic landscape, and that's something I should have mentioned,

[23:51] that there's some great specifications that are being retained, but there's not a historic landscape around the house.

[23:59] like you might find around a farmhouse of that era.

[24:05] And also there is a new building nearby that's not really the focus of today,

[24:09] but we were that whole area is we felt that that was appropriate.

[24:16] You know, just generally it's not appearing the setting of the house.

[24:19] It's far enough away.

[24:22] And so also in regard to other new construction, I'm not going to detail.

[24:28] But one of the standards is, is the project going to impair or affect the setting of the resource in such a way that it's not a longer able to convey its historic appearance associations.

[24:41] And in this case, almost all of this new work is far enough away from the house that it's not going to impair the setting and it is quite large property.

[24:51] And I should also note that during the Lillard Hicks,

[25:00] We'll see the, it was mostly orchards and those had all removed by the 1950s. Some little bit survived later, but then they were removed.

[25:15] And I, for fail to mention, of course the House does have also an association with Roger and Cornelio Chapman who started an organic farm there, which was one of the first in Santa Barbara County.

[25:25] So that has some historic significance also.

[25:29] So I'm here to answer any questions.

[25:31] The Commission might have and Pam's over here, too.

[25:39] Thank you.

[25:41] Thank you.

[25:43] So, commissioners, do we have any questions related

[25:46] to the items that are within our purview

[25:49] as the Historic Preservation Commission?

[25:52] And this is probably more idle curiosity,

[25:56] but because it looks like the building is somewhat elevated,

[25:59] what's the ADA compliance? How is that integrated into it?

[26:03] I would defer to Adam the...

[26:06] Everyone, I'm Adam Sharky with Blackbird Architects, with Architects for the...

[26:11] Yes, it's raised up about 18 inches from surrounding grades, so we'll part of that porch

[26:16] and outdoor landscape improvements will be to make a sloped ability to roll up onto the front porch,

[26:22] access the front door and access those new doors that would go into that main,

[26:27] of the big ideas the downstairs is a multi-purpose sort of educational

[26:31] coming space. There's great within a team. So we want to bring it to you.

[26:41] The question is partly informational because I'm such an amateur at this, but on page

[26:46] five of the report it says the project will feature or architectural

[26:51] decorative elements from other historic properties. And it seemed as if you were

[26:57] making conjectures about what those ought to look like. And so I don't quite

[27:00] to understand how to distinguish.

[27:03] Sure.

[27:03] Would you like me to answer that?

[27:05] Should I?

[27:05] Like me to answer your question?

[27:07] Yes, please.

[27:08] Usually in preservation perspective,

[27:10] conjectural would mean, I think in 1870,

[27:14] they had a turret at this end of the building.

[27:16] We don't have evidence for it,

[27:18] but I'm going to put that on or plans for a building

[27:24] that included elements that were never built.

[27:27] And so adding things that aren't documented is in conjectural usually refers to just that I think in a sense it's or it would look better if we put a gazebo off one end of the building.

[27:43] So that's conjectural, because the Victoria's liked, because he boats, so why doesn't

[27:50] a house have a disabled?

[27:52] I'm just being hypercised.

[27:54] I still don't quite understand how to distinguish, let's say, adding the porch in a certain

[28:00] way, if you didn't have evidence for it.

[28:04] I mean, how do you say this is conjectural, and this is what we need?

[28:07] Yeah, well, in that case, it would be, I think if the historians had said, you know,

[28:14] conjectured about what would it been there now.

[28:17] As you pointed out, unfortunately, there are virtually no photos of this house.

[28:21] And we checked with the Gallaudet Valley Historical Society at UCSP.

[28:26] It's sort of our historic museum.

[28:27] We're hoping that we could find a photo showing what it looked like before the changes were made.

[28:33] So we know, we're confident there was a porch

[28:36] because of the way, just the organization

[28:40] of the front of the house.

[28:41] And at some point, some of that or all of that

[28:44] was taken off, but we think they saved like the ceiling

[28:48] as beed board, but it doesn't look quite right.

[28:52] So we have a, it's a conjecture.

[28:55] So, but the materials were salvaged from an older porch

[28:58] and some of them were reused.

[29:00] But the porch post and it's are not original and certainly the porch would have been, as I noted earlier, elevated.

[29:08] Like most Victorian houses you've got three or four steps.

[29:12] You up on the porch and then you go to the front door.

[29:15] It would be completely anomalous to have a set of steps of budding against the door with, I believe,

[29:21] I'm going to correctly break paving around them.

[29:23] So it's a it's a it's a gray area and you have to use your best judgment based on the information that we had and we thought that the way

[30:00] I believe that they were redoing the porch was respectful of the House. I, of course, ideally there was

[30:06] a photo of the front of it because we could put back exactly what was there.

[30:11] I mean, it makes sense to me what's proposed. I was just trying to think through.

[30:17] No, I don't really mean it because it's rather opaque at times when you need the guidelines and

[30:21] you go, well, what does that really mean? How is that? How do you apply that to an actual building?

[30:28] Okay. Thank you.

[30:33] Any other commissioners for the question?

[30:42] Any staff have responses?

[30:46] No, at this time, Chair. Thank you.

[30:53] So now we'll thank you very much, Tim.

[30:56] Mr. Haisel, thank you.

[30:57] Appreciate it.

[30:59] So now we'll open to the public testimony.

[31:02] And I'm just going to remind everyone, again, that the Historic Preservation Commission's review is limited to the Historic Farmhouse portion of the project and whether the project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic structures.

[31:21] Other planning-related items such as parking and traffic, noise and such, is the purview of the Planning Commission which will occur at a later date.

[31:31] The HPC will only be commenting on the proposed alterations to the historic farmhouse that Mr.

[31:42] Hazel team did a great job in presenting to us.

[31:45] Also, the comments are limited to three minutes per person at the discretion of the chair.

[31:53] Okay.

[31:54] Mr. Good.

[31:55] Yes.

[31:56] Thank you, Chair.

[31:57] For those of you in the Zoom webinar, please use the raised hand icon.

[31:59] I will call on you if you wish to speak to this item.

[32:03] I have eight in person speaker slips.

[32:05] If you're here in person, please hand me a speaker

[32:07] card to speak to this item.

[32:09] Our first speaker's film, McKenna.

[32:19] My name is Film McKenna.

[32:21] And I think my comment is,

[32:24] Exteraneous to the subject given the narrow scope

[32:26] that you've outlined, so I won't make any comment.

[32:29] At this time, thank you.

[32:31] Thank you, sir.

[32:33] Our next speaker is Christopher Cobb.

[32:44] Good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Christopher Cobb. I live in the adjacent village terrace community to the site and service association president there.

[32:57] I'm speaking tonight regarding the preservation of the historic integrity and agricultural setting of Fairview Gardens.

[33:03] While I support the restoration of the farmhouse the applicant site relies on an incomplete accounting of the land.

[33:10] The conservation easement mandates the 88% of this land remain in active agricultural production.

[33:17] Section 5.1 of that deed explicitly excludes road drainage and native trees from that 88% total.

[33:25] Upon reviewing this submitted site plan, it is clear that the yellow shaded agricultural support areas showing on sheet A13 and if that may be brought up that might be helpful.

[33:37] are drawn around buildings and parking stalls.

[33:42] This means the applicant failed to include the white and main road, the eastern access

[33:46] road, and the bridge in their support acreage calculations.

[33:51] Under the terms of the easement in the city's standards at space that cannot be farmed.

[33:56] Furthermore, the fine print on the lower portion of that sheet will use with approval

[34:01] of the lantern.

[34:02] The land trust allows the applicant to pour asphalt for a road.

[34:05] The land is no longer a tillable soil for some active agricultural production area.

[34:12] The provable, because these non-tilable areas have been included in the active agricultural

[34:17] production areas.

[34:20] So my formal request for the commission finally verified net acreage survey that accurately

[34:26] depicts current versus proposed tillable land.

[34:30] Brooking utility easements, the creek and buffer zones from the 88% active agricultural

[34:35] You'll appreciate it.

[35:01] With this calculation, the commission cannot verify if the historic setting is being preserved or overdeveloped.

[35:09] Finally, because the map provided does not accurately show the removal of trees.

[35:14] We are looking at a plan native trees. We're looking at a plan that underestimates the impact of the farm's historic character.

[35:21] I urge you to recommend a return to the Thompson Daily Plan, which I have a copy of and would be happy to share,

[35:27] which avoids these infrastructure heavy intrusions entirely. I've submitted a summary of six technical

[35:33] requests for the record and we ask that they be addressed in the commission's final findings. Thank you.

[35:42] Our next speaker is Linda Cobb.

[35:55] You have this information in your envelope. It's my understanding.

[36:02] Good evening, Chair and commissioners. My name is Linda Cobb. Our family has lived in a

[36:09] property next door to Fairview Gardens since 1987.

[36:14] The purpose of the conservation easement

[36:17] is to preserve the entire Fairview Gardens parcel,

[36:22] which historically was a quiet working farm.

[36:25] It is not consistent to preserve the historic farmhouse

[36:29] while also proposing to build non-compliant housing

[36:33] on the back end of the parcel, which must be obscured from view

[36:38] because it's non-historical related.

[36:43] While I support the physical restoration of the farmhouse,

[36:48] I am concerned that the proposed commercialization

[36:52] threatens historic integrity.

[36:57] Historically, this farmhouse served as a residence.

[37:02] Fairview Gardens is stating a need for housing

[37:04] and the best use for this landmark is to maintain its original function as a home.

[37:12] Converting it into a commercial cafe is not compatible with the site's history and its agricultural zoning.

[37:22] Furthermore, an historic farm is a place of quiet labor, not a venue for amplified sound.

[37:29] We are concerned that the transition to a cafe and also the addition of festival space will introduce loud music and speeches into a historically peaceful area.

[37:45] The proposed commercial add-ons, such as awnings and outdoor seating areas, would hide the historic architecture of the farmhouse features and its agricultural setting.

[37:58] Also, the proposed changing out of doors and sash windows, subtracts from the original historic

[38:05] features.

[38:07] There is a lack of on-site parking, and that also is a problem.

[38:12] My formal request for the commission is this.

[38:16] Please require the applicant to maintain the farmhouses, primary residential character,

[38:22] and to reject commercial expansions like honines, outdoor cafe seating that degrade the farmhouses agricultural setting.

[38:34] The farm should remain a farm, not a commercial facility. This is consistent with the conservation easement.

[38:42] And the reason we're concerned about noise is because they have exhibited noise in their events which haven't been legal, but that's what's happened on the property.

[38:59] So thank you very much for consideration of our concerns.

[39:04] Our next in-person speaker is Larry Cobb,

[39:17] but evening chair and commissioners, my name is Larry Cobb.

[39:25] I have been a resident on VFUR Elaine since 1987, and the view from my house overlooks the Fairview Gardens farm.

[39:37] I appreciate all the considerable effort that's been put into this project.

[39:44] However, I am disturbed about the scale, fragmentation of the proposed changes that Fairview

[39:53] Garden says is proposing versus the spirit of preservation.

[40:00] The scale and placement of the new infrastructure permanently fragments this historic landmark.

[40:11] In my opinion, the proposed service barn is unnecessarily large for a 12-acre parcel, and functions more as a commercial hall than a farm building.

[40:25] Furthermore, the decision to push housing into the northeast corner, reachable only by a new eastern

[40:34] bridge and road, is a modern urban layout that has no historical precedents on this farm,

[40:44] violates the spirit of the conservation easement and distributes, or disrupts the historic

[40:52] flow of the farm. Every square foot used for this new road and bridge is a square foot of

[41:00] historical farm land lost forever. Yet the applicant's current support area calculations

[41:08] ignore these roads entirely. My formal request for the commission is this. Please recommend

[41:17] the applicant, returned to a plan that clusters the housing development logically near the

[41:26] youth library as shown in the approved 2009 pumps and nailer phase five plan. This protects the

[41:36] historic spatial relationships of the farm and honors the 88% agriculture mandate by utilizing

[41:46] existing bridge free infrastructure. We should not have to hide housing by destroying

[41:55] farmable soil and creek side habitat. Thank you for your attention to these

[42:02] important matters.

[42:05] Our next-in-person speaker is Treve Yang.

[42:15] Good evening, Chair

[42:15] and commissioners. My name is Treve Yang. My family has owned a property on VFU

[42:20] backing up to the farm since 1987. Today I'm speaking on the cumulative impact of this proposal

[42:26] on the Fairview Gardens landmark. Why is only the farmhouse being treated as of historical significance?

[42:33] The conservation easement of 1997 considered the entire property historic. There's a cumulative

[42:39] effect associated with the presence of supplemental buildings and the roads to get to them. This

[42:44] results in a loss of integrity and tillable soil for this historic resource that is the

[42:49] Fairview Gardens Farm. Specifically the proposed eastern bridge and road are modern interventions

[42:55] into a historically intact riparian boundary. Surely this is obvious on map A12 in the North East

[43:04] corner, the large orange rectangle labeled as agricultural support area is oversized for the two

[43:12] containers that it notes are there.

[43:15] If anything that orange rectangle highlights the native trees in the area where staff housing

[43:20] is proposed, the document provided by the farm mentions that both an archaeologist and native

[43:25] American monitor must be present for ground disturbance, which confirms the sensitivity

[43:29] of this area.

[43:31] However, the plan fails to address the removal of mature native trees and vegetation required

[43:35] to build the bridge and the staff housing.

[43:37] These trees are character defining features of the farm historic setting and provide vital

[43:42] habitat for nesting owls that have been part of the farm's character for decades.

[43:47] You can see the trees and the photos presented by the farm and on the oldest photos in

[43:51] Google Earth in 1994, these are all in your packet.

[43:55] These native trees are prohibited from removal according to the 1997 conservation easement

[44:00] section seven R. Additionally, seven eyes specifies as prohibited the alteration or manipulation

[44:08] of water courses with one of the exceptions being wildlife improvement.

[44:12] On the Fairview Gardens website, the intention is made clear to re-establish a meandering

[44:17] creek zone, complete with rocks and native plants along its full length.

[44:22] All that might be fine, but a meandering creek definitely adds to the area of land that is

[44:28] not tillable and needs to be excluded from the 88% of land in active agricultural production.

[44:34] My formal request for the commission is this.

[44:37] Please recommend a finding of inconsistency for the current layout.

[44:41] The current plan fails to accurately depict current versus proposed tillable land and ignores

[44:46] the biological cost of the eastern entrance.

[44:48] Please direct the applicant to reconsider the approved 2009 Thompson Nailer Plan, which

[44:54] respected the creek, preserve the trees, and maintain the farm's historic integrity.

[44:59] Thank you.

[45:02] Our next-in person speaker is Alan Fenson.

[45:10] Yeah, I think you had a speaker slip, so you can speak if you would like.

[45:18] I deferred my comments relative to your specific limitation.

[45:23] What I have been hearing are cogent arguments on other issues that are before you.

[45:30] I would ask that you ask speakers to limit their comments to what you, the parameters upon which you have placed for this hearing.

[45:43] Thank you.

[45:46] Thank you.

[45:47] I will just address that real quick.

[45:50] So, yes, we do try to give some context to the type of comments that are going to be presented to us.

[45:59] We also cannot control what people say.

[46:03] I'm not if they want to use their three minutes to present aspects that we cannot address as a HPC.

[46:11] Although I understand what you're saying, if that's how they want to use their three minutes, I'm actually not going to prevent them from doing so.

[46:19] But that does not mean that we're taking that into account because as the HPC, you are correct.

[46:25] There are items that are being brought up that we cannot address.

[46:28] So, thank you.

[46:32] Thank you on our next speaker, Alan Fredsen.

[46:37] Good evening, chair and commissioners.

[46:40] My name is Alan Franssen.

[46:42] My wife grew up in a home that backed up to this farm.

[46:46] So we have a personal investment ensuring this landmark has preserved correctly.

[46:51] The entire Fairview Gardens property, not just the farmhouse,

[46:55] is deemed historical according to the conservation easement.

[46:58] This document written 29 years ago, states the property has been formed over the past 100 years.

[47:08] However, the current site play plan presents a conceptual inconsistency that I believe warrants closer scrutiny.

[47:17] On one hand, the applicant has proposed a barn that is prominently visible as a sufficiently differentiated new feature.

[47:25] Yet simultaneously, they have proposed new staff housing in the Northeast corner with the intent to keep it hidden because it's not compatible.

[47:37] From a preservation standpoint, this is a concerning admission.

[47:41] Under the Secretary of Interior's standards, new construction is intended to be compatible with a historical character of the site.

[47:50] If a proposed structure must be obscured or tucked away to avoid clashing with the historic setting,

[47:59] it suggests that the design is not yet made the standard of compatibility required for such a significant landmark.

[48:07] Furthermore, this placement contributes to the net acreage concerns raised earlier by Christopher Cobb,

[48:14] Squeezing residential-style development into the Farms margins still consumes the land protected by the 1997 conservation easement.

[48:25] Whether that development is visible or not.

[48:28] My formal request is this.

[48:30] I ask that the Commission required the applicant to develop a site plan,

[48:36] where every proposed structure, including the housing, demonstrates full compatibility with the 1896 farmhouse.

[48:44] and the agricultural setting. We should not have to hide development on a historic farm.

[48:51] We should ensure that any new addition honors the integrity of the land.

[48:56] Thank you for your time and your dedication to our community's history.

[49:02] Our next then, Perth's because Sunny Hudson.

[49:08] Good evening, Chair. Commissioner, my speech was concentrated more on the staff housing

[49:16] towards the Northeast corner, so I think I'll just defer to the next hearing when that's applicable.

[49:23] Thank you.

[49:26] Our last in-person speaker is Firmina Murray, and the last call for those of you on the Zoom

[49:31] Webber who has to speak to this item, please use your hand icon and I will call on you.

[49:44] Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission.

[49:48] Firmina Murray, I used to serve the Commission.

[49:50] everybody knows me. I'm here to fully support the report of it isn't just an

[49:58] excellent lesson report.

[50:00] That PM and TM did. I also will disclose that I did at the FH-1 report for this house. And at the time it was during COVID and the city of Calcutta did not have the ordinance yet.

[50:14] So I'm very delighted that this is a being studied thoroughly and it meets all the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

[50:27] The proposal to alter the building is actually going to restore it and adapt the reuse of the building to so that it can last for another 100 years.

[50:44] I, I, and the other hand, I share the concerns of the neighbors, even though this is not part of you, but I think it's good to say these things publicly, so when it goes to the next level, people will understand that some of these concerns.

[51:01] I actually really support that there'll be housing for farm workers.

[51:08] The example is the stove ranch, La Patera ranch.

[51:12] It has survived over 150, 2 years because they have workforce housing.

[51:17] They have general multi-generation families live there in work.

[51:22] But all those housing are also very compatible with, when you enter La Patera ranch, you

[51:29] know it's a rant. The homes are compatible with that history. And I think all I

[51:37] leave on the south side of the farm, then very court also right at the edge on the south

[51:44] south side. So anyway, this will go on for the next level, but I think how things should

[51:50] really reexamine to be compatible with the with the land. Thank you in the historical. Thank you.

[52:01] Okay, we'll now go to our Zoom speakers. Michael Abelman, if you'll please unmute yourself,

[52:07] you'll have three minutes to speak. Thank you very much, commissioners and all of you who have

[52:16] I am the executive director of the Center for Urban Agriculture, which is the nonprofit that owns the land.

[52:25] I lived in that house with my family for 20 some years, so I'm very, very fond of it.

[52:30] And I think the plan that our architects and post Hazelstein have helped support is an excellent one to preserve one of the last few

[52:42] historic farmhouses in the Galeta Valley on one of the last continuously working farms in the

[52:49] Galeta Valley. And so I think it's an incredible balance between a commitment to the history

[52:58] of that building and also to preserving it and restoring it which it desperately needs and honoring

[53:08] our ability to use it into the future. I will say related comment to previous speakers.

[53:19] Myself and John Butney and David Van Horne is the lawyer wrote that conservation easement

[53:25] in the mid-1990s and so I'm quite familiar with the details of it and I would encourage

[53:34] folks to, if you're going to comment on that, to try to understand the details of it because

[53:39] from my perspective what we're doing going forward is totally in line with that document.

[53:48] And so I think on the housing front, I think that this is an excellent plan. I'm so excited

[53:55] that it's going to be restored and protected and I appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you.

[54:03] I have no more speakers for this item.

[54:06] Chair, thank you.

[54:10] Thank you.

[54:13] I think I'm going to open up.

[54:15] I do have questions.

[54:17] I just want to make sure we can ask the applicant and the staff questions, fellow questions.

[54:24] But I'll open up to my fellow commissioners first to see if you have any questions that you'd like to ask.

[54:37] No, dear, no pressure.

[54:40] I would just like to point out that our curve view is pretty much on the house as people

[54:44] pointed out.

[54:45] And so that's true.

[54:47] The other commissioner could you please speak into the microphone?

[54:50] Looking, thank you commissioner.

[54:53] Looking historically at the property, the entrance in egress is part of the history too.

[55:00] How do you get to the house? How is it developed over the years? If you look back to the middle of

[55:06] 50s, the access to that house that we're talking about was on the south side, where the

[55:14] library is now. And so when they built the library, they moved it over to where Stoke Canyon is now.

[55:20] So just in terms of the context of the house, it's entrance and egress is part of our concern,

[55:27] more generally involved with the planning commission about how that all works out housing,

[55:33] but again I'd like to stress that we're kind of out of the business of dealing with the

[55:37] entrance of the egress and the housing, etc. We're just dealing with the house itself

[55:42] and the historical context of what they're doing. And it seems I walked a property day,

[55:49] I looked at the three ports and it all seems to be pretty much in line with the limited context

[55:56] to look or do I hear. Thank you.

[55:59] Thank you.

[56:00] Barbara?

[56:02] Okay.

[56:03] So I have a few questions for Tim.

[56:13] So first, and maybe some of these are just yes and no questions.

[56:18] But I want to address and acknowledge some of the questions.

[56:21] I do think, again, I'm going to say that some of the comments, although

[56:25] and absolutely understand concerns,

[56:28] unfortunately, no matter what our personal feelings are,

[56:32] they're outside of our purview.

[56:35] But I do want to ask just a few questions

[56:38] of our expert, Tim, Mr. Hazelteen, to make sure

[56:44] that some of these questions are not within our purview.

[56:47] So, the first one is the use and the agricultural use,

[56:53] And the general landscape in the setting, would you mind addressing that as far as how that might or might not impact the historic?

[57:05] Sure.

[57:10] Let me just thank for a moment.

[57:13] As far as the agricultural use, I think Ms. Murray pointed out that it was a fairly standard feature of farms of the size to have some sort of satellite buildings.

[57:25] This one had the large sort of barn structure that we talked about,

[57:30] most of the land until more or less the mids 20th century,

[57:35] and slightly later was actually much of a was devoted

[57:38] on the north end orchards, which eventually were removed,

[57:44] the last of them, I think, disappeared maybe 20 years ago or so.

[57:49] And from a historic preservation perspective,

[57:51] and this is not to say that Native Oaks are not significant and important and should be retained

[57:56] whenever possible. But when it was an act of farm, from the aerial photos we looked at it,

[58:02] it didn't seem that those oak trees were there. As far as farm use, it's very much a sort of progression,

[58:10] which is common in the Galeta Valley. When it first started being farmed in a big way in the mid-1860s,

[58:17] Most of the crops were dry-farm because they hadn't installed wells, so they grew crops

[58:24] that they didn't have to irrigate.

[58:27] And then when irrigation came in beginning, essentially, and late 1870s, 1880s, rental

[58:35] a long-distance operas, and a prime example, where these,

[58:41] essentially, the still family,

[58:44] transition to growing orchards of various types of fruit, and then eventually by the first

[58:52] couple of decades of the 20th century they had transition to lemon orchards from things like

[58:58] apricots and other fruit and walnuts, which were very, very important crop for many decades

[59:04] in the Galileo Valley.

[59:05] So when you look at these historic properties,

[59:07] we're looking at them in a sort of a transition.

[59:09] I mean, there's a progression.

[59:11] They're rarely the type of crops they grow,

[59:14] or the appearance of the property remains static.

[59:18] And at this point, it's still agricultural land.

[59:22] It still contributes to the setting of the historic house

[59:24] and has this historic value.

[59:26] But if this is important to say that if you look at that landscape

[59:33] and he went back to 1890. They were different. Other changes were the channelization of the drainage

[59:40] at the far east end of the property, which is in generalised in concrete. I just can't remember

[59:45] the year that took place, but originally there was a seasonal drainage there. So we're comfortable

[59:51] with, I should say, the changes because the overall property as a whole will

[1:00:00] Still convey its important theme, which is agriculture, in a sense, the history of agriculture and the

[1:00:08] glee to valley from its inception and disfarming sometime in the 1870s until the present. And so this

[1:00:15] farm is in a way as a very, it's almost a template of how farming changed in the glee to valley, and now it's

[1:00:21] not profit, and they are obviously our agricultural focus, but they're also focused on education

[1:00:28] and issues of that sort of agriculture and the importance of it to the community and sustainable

[1:00:34] agriculture.

[1:00:36] And that's all part of the history of agriculture in the Glee to Valley.

[1:00:39] I think I'm going to get a little philosophical here, but that's how we look at the property

[1:00:44] holistically.

[1:00:44] Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. As far as the biological concerns or anything from historic

[1:00:53] perspective that you consider would be important to the historic nature of the property.

[1:01:02] Continuing at some, not simply, continuing the primary use of property as an agricultural property.

[1:01:08] Yeah. There's, well, I'm saying, you know, some of the biological concerns where they're talking

[1:01:12] about that dimension, the nesting owls, and things like that.

[1:01:16] Yeah, that's a part of our previous, I guess, completely cool.

[1:01:22] I do, I am very curious about, it looks like, first of all, can you explain to us why there

[1:01:32] there is no presentation on the housing and the employee housing and the potential impact.

[1:01:42] I think I mentioned that but it's very briefly.

[1:01:46] From our preservation standards, especially on a larger property,

[1:01:50] it doesn't maintaining historic integrity does not necessitate freezing a property in time.

[1:01:58] And it was our conclusion that the placement of the staff housing was supportable because

[1:02:06] the scale bulk and basing of the buildings was, let's just say, diminutive enough that it

[1:02:14] was not affecting the historic character of the property.

[1:02:17] I mean, when viewed from the house and the setting of the house, it's also not visible

[1:02:22] from Fairview, which is the primary public view of the property if you're not on the parcel itself.

[1:02:30] And so we thought, it's our conclusion that that's where we need, when we're doing this

[1:02:36] preservation analysis, it doesn't necessarily mean that the build, the new buildings have to look

[1:02:42] exactly like a farm building from, say, 1910 hypothetically. In fact, we don't want them to look

[1:02:51] exactly like that, because it creates what they call a false sense of history, which means

[1:02:55] you go out to a property and you think, oh, look at all these wonderful historic buildings

[1:02:59] and it turns out there's two of them are historic and the others have not been sufficiently

[1:03:05] differentiated in materials and design to allow a sort of a visitor to look at that and go that

[1:03:12] does look different. It shouldn't be so close that you can't tell the difference. On the other hand,

[1:03:17] And it doesn't need to sort of have a bullhorn either.

[1:03:21] So there's a lot of latitude in that.

[1:03:23] But we don't want it to look like a group of 1920s farm workers houses,

[1:03:27] because they didn't exist in that area.

[1:03:30] In fact, we couldn't find much evidence,

[1:03:33] except for the large building.

[1:03:34] We're not quite sure what it was used for

[1:03:36] beyond service and maybe there might have been some housing in it.

[1:03:40] So we didn't want to create like a farm workers

[1:03:43] on-clave that would be mistaken from something from the historic period of the property.

[1:03:51] And then just looking, it looks like there's some screening,

[1:03:57] potentially some vegetative screening,

[1:03:59] screening between trees between the new housing and the...

[1:04:05] Is that correct?

[1:04:06] There's going to be some, I think Adam could speak,

[1:04:08] or directly to the exactly how that's being done, if you would like to.

[1:04:16] landscape between if you're you're not talking about the farmhouse now you're talking about

[1:04:19] I'm talking about the new housing the new housing yes there's a landscape between that and the

[1:04:24] property line okay

[1:04:31] chair if I could have some please staff contacts as well to the line of

[1:04:34] conversation here I think it's important to note and this is something I mentioned in my

[1:04:40] opening remarks so that so our historic resources inventory that was generated as part of

[1:04:47] the larger historic preservation ordinance that we have now, which is great, you know,

[1:04:55] focused on the farmhouse in its, in its review in, in reallys.

[1:05:00] That's the stage for why we're even here at first place. So I think that provides additional contacts as to why we're focusing on the, on the farmhouse. Thank you.

[1:05:12] And there's a gentleman I forget his name that he had mentioned the conservation easement. Mr. Highfield, do you have any.

[1:05:22] You're able to summarize that, does he mentioned,

[1:05:28] or?

[1:05:28] Sorry.

[1:05:28] It summarized what?

[1:05:29] About the conservation easement.

[1:05:31] And if there's any language in it that relates to the historic nature of the farm house,

[1:05:37] it sounds like.

[1:05:38] You may have.

[1:05:39] Yeah, not directly to the farm house.

[1:05:41] It's more the property as a whole.

[1:05:43] Yes.

[1:05:44] Thank you.

[1:05:45] Good evening, Chair.

[1:05:46] I'm Heidi Jones, a land use consultant.

[1:05:48] To speak briefly about the conservation easement,

[1:05:50] the property is governed by the conservation easement.

[1:05:53] And the land trust is the keeper of that easement.

[1:05:56] They have deemed our project consistent with that easement on all facets.

[1:06:00] Every use, every building, everything that is done has to be deemed consistent and they

[1:06:05] have done that.

[1:06:06] So we feel confident that we are consistent with it.

[1:06:08] In terms of historic references in the conservation easement language, I wouldn't think

[1:06:13] given this context that we could say that that a statement like that in the document would

[1:06:21] provide the historic resources report and that's helpful.

[1:06:25] Okay, thank you.

[1:06:26] Appreciate that.

[1:06:29] All right.

[1:06:30] You have any more questions?

[1:06:31] I don't, but did you want to follow up on that or was it?

[1:06:34] Well, yeah, I mean, I will follow up very briefly that.

[1:06:38] When we have read the conservation easement when we're preparing the report.

[1:06:44] When they use the terminology of historic can be used in other types of documents,

[1:06:49] like a conservation easement, but it's not used exactly the way a preservation consultant would

[1:06:57] use it, or in any of the previous studies and apologies for me and I forgot to mention a report

[1:07:03] and it was also the survey of the leader that was done many years ago that also identified

[1:07:07] the house as historical.

[1:07:11] But yeah, it's just used in slightly different ways. So historic in that type

[1:07:16] of a document can mean the historic use of the property rather than in a very broad way usually,

[1:07:23] unless it's spelled out specifically in sometimes they are in conservation easements, but

[1:07:29] that's was our understanding of how that intersected with preservation.

[1:07:34] And maybe one last question, maybe either you were Heidi can answer.

[1:07:39] Who was there a phase one arc study done?

[1:07:42] We do not prepare. Thank God. I know you do years ago, but there's a long time ago. So, no, I presume that Heidi could answer that question.

[1:07:55] It may not have been a big share. I'm not remembering, Mr. Highfield. If we did a face when our report, you know, a lot of the land has been previously disturbed.

[1:08:03] So, that's what I was trying to do.

[1:08:04] Thank you, sure.

[1:08:06] Exactly. So we would expect standard condition of approval eventually for discovery.

[1:08:11] But I think by any fact that everywhere we're touching has been disturbed, I don't recall that we had it's not required is that the case correct, yeah, okay

[1:08:22] All right any questions from any of the other yes, Barbara

[1:08:27] So I understand the appearance and material considerations taken into the rehabilitation

[1:08:34] So viewing more philosophically, can you talk about the integration of the cafe into the home?

[1:08:42] Generally from a preservation perspective, it would be considered a adoptive reuse.

[1:08:47] So originally it was a farmhouse, and at one point it appears to have also been multi-family

[1:08:52] farmhouse, but not in a traditional way.

[1:08:54] It was just a big building, big house used by perhaps two families.

[1:08:59] And then of course, more recently transitioned to part, it was part residential and part

[1:09:09] So that use is generally considered supportable because in preservation, sometimes in order for a building to continue in use and to be kept in good repair, it needs to have a function.

[1:09:22] And often nowadays you see many types of buildings including churches and schools and hospitals that are preserved using adaptive reuse.

[1:09:33] And that, of course, means necessarily almost always have to be some changes to meet current code, accessibility.

[1:09:43] But generally, that's considered a benefit if the project meets the standards

[1:09:48] and is preserving the resource for the community's future.

[1:09:52] So generally, not generally, but almost always, there are very few way back up a moment.

[1:09:58] There are very few pure restorations.

[1:10:00] You probably know. In most cases, there's some level of adaptive reuse.

[1:10:07] And I should also point out if the building was used for, like, multi-family housing, because we've done some projects like that over the years, Pam and I, generally it means even more changes, because the building is going to be residential and you have to have a higher bar for safety, access, et cetera.

[1:10:28] So, we feel this is beneficial in a way that if it was surely residential for a couple of families,

[1:10:36] it would mean many more changes and you might not even be able to save some of the features

[1:10:42] because you would need to add more instances of exits.

[1:10:45] We would have to have likely another exterior, exterior stair from the second floor, et cetera, et cetera,

[1:10:52] as you know.

[1:10:53] So, and I know this isn't your purview, but there's, I take a, or a, a potential revenue stream.

[1:11:00] That's a lot of your other project.

[1:11:02] Barbara definitely outside my purview.

[1:11:05] Excellent.

[1:11:06] But I think Heidi could answer it.

[1:11:08] I did, I did have one question.

[1:11:11] Interior, how much of the building is going to be augmented?

[1:11:16] Well, I think most of the, many of the inter features are going to be retained.

[1:11:20] And it has undergone, if you've been inside, you may have been.

[1:11:25] You can definitely see that there have been some alterations, even in this, we'll call

[1:11:30] them the public rooms that most houses had, which would be a living room in a dining room

[1:11:34] in an entry area.

[1:11:36] But if you look at them very closely, you can see changes, including to the really idiosyncratic

[1:11:42] sort of configuration of the staircase, which was a later change that was made,

[1:11:50] when

[1:11:50] This is an example of how those houses like moreover time as their uses change somewhat.

[1:11:56] Do we know how tall and how big the origin of that barn that was there before?

[1:12:01] Unfortunately, all we have is an aerial photos.

[1:12:05] That's why we were searching for a photograph of the property because these are kind of

[1:12:09] estimate and it's outside of the area where you would have a sandboard fire insurance

[1:12:14] map.

[1:12:14] Right.

[1:12:17] And then the footprint, the building footprint, what's the difference between the old barn and the new.

[1:12:25] You know, I don't have that figure in my head right now.

[1:12:28] I think the new barn is the new building is slightly larger, but Adam might be able to answer that.

[1:12:41] Yeah, we could estimate it.

[1:12:43] It was similar, it's sort of a similar aerial.

[1:12:47] It's actually quite a large barn, as it was, and it's just kind of a mystery because there's

[1:12:53] nothing on it.

[1:12:54] It just shows up and then it's gone.

[1:12:59] Heidi.

[1:13:00] Oh, sure.

[1:13:01] Let me share.

[1:13:03] Hold on one second and then we'll let her finish.

[1:13:06] Yeah.

[1:13:06] Chair, just to speak to your question about the cafe being printed to open to the public, it will

[1:13:11] be.

[1:13:11] but is intended to be multi-use for culinary programs

[1:13:15] and for a lot of people that are already on the forum

[1:13:17] attending events.

[1:13:19] And yes, we're a non-profit.

[1:13:22] And as you might guess, farms aren't generating lots of revenues.

[1:13:26] So we'll get to get creative in different ways

[1:13:27] that we can make that happen.

[1:13:29] Thank you.

[1:13:32] Quick question.

[1:13:33] Look at the plans I've seen here.

[1:13:35] Can you speak in here?

[1:13:36] I don't know.

[1:13:36] I know that there was a suite of residences

[1:13:41] in the upstairs area of the of the of the reverb house is that true.

[1:13:47] You mean after it's not the proposed refurbishment?

[1:13:51] Yeah upstairs there is some resonance, right?

[1:13:56] Yeah, it's just a studio, just the one.

[1:13:58] So I wasn't sure.

[1:14:01] Because my niece lived there about 20 years ago.

[1:14:04] To share any photos?

[1:14:06] Again.

[1:14:08] Sorry.

[1:14:10] So anyway, she lived there, and I went upstairs, and so you're going to use some part of it for some living purpose.

[1:14:17] There'll be a small studio, which would just escape my memory.

[1:14:22] And the upstairs, if you've been in there, obviously, if your daughter lived there, and it's quite an idiosyncratically out of rooms,

[1:14:28] that if you look at it closely, you can see how rooms have been sort of shifted and moved over.

[1:14:32] And as I mentioned, there was a sleeping porch on the second floor.

[1:14:35] they got it closed and then there were windows that was sort of jiggered and moved around a little

[1:14:40] bit. It's very typical of a farmhouse. It was about 20 years ago and I couldn't do a pop

[1:14:45] close right now so I remember being there. Thank you. It was used for farm housing at that point.

[1:14:53] Okay. Thank you.

[1:14:57] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:14:58] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:15:00] So, before I close the public testimony portion, do we have any other questions? Yes.

[1:15:15] What exactly questions, part question, part comment. I certainly understand our job is to think about the historical aspects of this project.

[1:15:27] and most certainly the house is the central item,

[1:15:31] but I do appreciate the statements

[1:15:34] that this is a large property that's being preserved

[1:15:39] for largely for its historic value.

[1:15:42] And so that I think it, I feel like it should be within my purview

[1:15:47] as a member of this committee to think about the use

[1:15:51] of the whole property in terms of its historic value.

[1:15:57] value. So this is just kind of a comment. I think in part of the way I'm thinking about

[1:16:03] my role here, that seems to make sense. It's really not just the house, but the properties

[1:16:11] would come within our purview.

[1:16:18] I'm finding it very complex, of course, in the thinking

[1:16:21] through it all today, but anyhow, this is just one issue. I wanted to bring up.

[1:16:27] Thank you.

[1:16:32] Chair, I have a request. Michael Abelman is on the only

[1:16:37] executive director. He's asking if he can make one additional comment and response to some of the

[1:16:41] questions. We haven't closed the public hearing, that's okay, right? Yep, okay. Okay, thank you.

[1:16:48] Is this part of the applicant's 15 minutes? The year of one minute remaining?

[1:16:52] Okay.

[1:16:54] Can you re can he hear?

[1:16:56] Yes, can you hear my friend.

[1:16:57] Yeah.

[1:17:03] Okay, Michael, your unmuted.

[1:17:05] You have one minute.

[1:17:05] Go ahead.

[1:17:07] Yeah, thanks very much.

[1:17:07] I just I think it's important from context perspective to remember that for the 20 some years that I lived and farmed there.

[1:17:16] That land was zone for 52 condominiums.

[1:17:19] And the formation of the nonprofit, which I did in the community,

[1:17:23] coming together to raise a staggering amount of money to save it and the conservation easement.

[1:17:30] We're all allowed that place to be preserved as one of Galita's last historic farms.

[1:17:36] What we're doing now is in fact bringing back more history.

[1:17:40] The land will be formed in a dry farm manner as was historically the case way back when.

[1:17:47] And all of the infrastructure that we are improving, and adding our essential for the operation of that farm in the context that it sits.

[1:17:59] There's one of the reasons that hasn't been able to operate is because it hasn't had the facilities.

[1:18:05] And the policy forces critical so that's all I just I think it's important to understand that you know have that effort not been made in the late 1990s that land would be 52 condominiums.

[1:18:23] Thank you.

[1:18:28] Any other comments before?

[1:18:31] Now I want to say that I appreciate the fact that we're focusing on preserving the historical

[1:18:38] value of the house itself, but I really appreciate that the public comments brought up

[1:18:44] the issue that it is not just the house, that historic, it is the entire property.

[1:18:50] And I think we need to really consider that as a main part of the preservation that we do

[1:18:58] here. We will be focusing on the house, but I think we need to broaden that to include the

[1:19:05] entire property as historic. I remember after moving here in the 1990 that the National

[1:19:17] Geographic actually had an article where they featured this farm and as one of the last

[1:19:24] urban farms, and it was a very complete article,

[1:19:32] and they did a lot of history on it, and

[1:19:34] that was done by the National Geographic, and it was featured in that issue, and that

[1:19:40] was in the 1990s. And then maybe that also brought about this whole commission that came

[1:19:46] about to preserve this rather than go to condominiums. So I think we need to continue

[1:19:53] considering the entire farm as a historic and in real.

[1:20:00] Please give the entire farm the historical relevance that it presents here as one of the last urban farms in this community.

[1:20:14] Thank you.

[1:20:16] In chair activity, if I may just want to.

[1:20:19] So, as mentioned today, in terms of our inventory that we conducted in April of 2022, we passed a historic resource

[1:20:27] formed in some of the inventory of all the potential sites.

[1:20:31] And as city council nominated this site,

[1:20:34] but in particular this site, it was only the house.

[1:20:37] And so, as of right now, the property itself

[1:20:41] hasn't been nominated for historical use.

[1:20:44] It's not identified as a historical use.

[1:20:47] That's the conservation easement.

[1:20:50] That's the eggland.

[1:20:52] On that proper property right now,

[1:20:54] and for the topic of this conversation,

[1:20:55] is only the farmhouse. Thank you. So just to remind her there. So just to be clear.

[1:21:06] Oh, Lisa. Miss, I'm sorry. Miss Prassie.

[1:21:11] Good evening, chair and commissioners. I was just going to misdemean except what I was going to say

[1:21:18] like it is the only thing that has been placed on historic resources inventory is the farmhouse.

[1:21:27] Thank you. Thank you. That's helpful. Yes.

[1:21:33] Question for Mr. Memic is there when you go to the planning commission, you know, you go through all of the sequence and all of the things that you have to go through is there not a historical component of the planning commission.

[1:21:48] Right, that's part of the correct as part of the legal analysis.

[1:21:52] All into the purview of the planning commission and we are limited to the architectural status of the house itself.

[1:22:00] Although this is all very interesting, but there is a historical component of the planning commission.

[1:22:07] Thank you.

[1:22:10] So I actually have a question along that line.

[1:22:14] So when Mr. Hazelstein and Dr. Post were assessing the property, was it limited to the building

[1:22:23] or was there, can I ask, since we were still, yep.

[1:22:30] Yeah, maybe I'll start off there.

[1:22:33] But yeah, you know, given this property has a historic resource on site, which is the

[1:22:39] house, that was the core information that we needed as part of this study, right? So in particular,

[1:22:47] the primary information in the study wasn't related to the conservation easement, wasn't related

[1:22:53] to the eggland, as a historic resource, they had to conduct, just on the historic resource.

[1:22:59] Thank you. And my understanding, so I am, you might as well step up because I'm going to ask you

[1:23:09] For those that are in the audience, I'm a professional archaeologist, so I do understand

[1:23:15] Secretary of Interior standards.

[1:23:17] I just like Mr. Hazel Timo say he's not going to do archaeological investigations anymore.

[1:23:22] I would not do an architectural history or serve as an architectural historian, but I do

[1:23:29] know that part of understanding the structure and his structure, you do need to consider

[1:23:36] the setting of the structure, so if you could just speak to that as it relates to the land itself.

[1:23:44] Sure. And in fact, in the report, when we applied the, well, one is if you review the historical overview

[1:23:51] and sort of chronology of changes and alterations to the property, we provide a very, as detailed as was possible with the information.

[1:24:00] when things took place, how they changed it.

[1:24:04] And that information was relevant to us applying standards.

[1:24:08] And we did apply the standards for setting.

[1:24:13] And as we noted in the report,

[1:24:16] and as I mentioned earlier,

[1:24:19] the placement of the new buildings and their overall scale

[1:24:22] bulk and basing met the standards,

[1:24:25] which means they weren't placed so close to a historic building

[1:24:28] that they were going to impair the setting.

[1:24:30] It weren't placed in a way that blocked the view

[1:24:34] of the setting from the house,

[1:24:37] a few were standing in the house or around the house.

[1:24:41] And the overall, I'll say, apart, I did some repeating myself.

[1:24:45] It's skill, bulk and massing.

[1:24:47] They're appropriate.

[1:24:48] They're not introducing materials like maybe it could be

[1:24:54] something that was very, like aggressively modernist.

[1:24:57] Let's see, Spanish, Colina Revival.

[1:24:59] So...

[1:25:00] The overall appearance of the buildings and their placement in the context of the historic house and its setting did not reach a point that it would create, would impair the resource.

[1:25:13] Okay, thank you.

[1:25:15] I don't know if that made sense.

[1:25:16] That's exactly what I was asking, just because I do think it's important, you know, our role as the commission is to also explain why we make the decisions that we do.

[1:25:29] what we're looking at and the purview of what we're looking at and why yours, what the purview of

[1:25:35] your job as the architectural story and it's important to understand that because then also I think

[1:25:41] it also gives the public an opportunity to understand what their purview is and if they don't agree

[1:25:47] with a project in which way they can do that in in a successful or at least give themselves

[1:25:54] of that shot. So I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that what we're looking

[1:26:01] at is the structure, the historic nature of the structure, and the potential impacts, whether

[1:26:06] it's be the actual direct impact or the indirect impact by the surrounding structures that

[1:26:13] are proposed to be built. So. Thank you, Chair. All right. Any other before I close the public testimony

[1:26:27] it's fun with me. I don't think I'm okay with that but I think he spoke maybe

[1:26:36] well we've put two minutes up. Sure, and in that case we do have Steve Nelson

[1:26:39] who also has his hand up so I'm going to take other public speakers. Okay.

[1:26:44] So Jeff, a close to public testimony. I have it. All right. So let's give

[1:26:47] what's your name? Sonny. Sonny. Yes. Sonny has him. Two minutes. Thank you very much.

[1:26:52] Yeah. I said what I said with the assumption and the understanding of their

[1:26:56] will be a future hearing specifically on staff housing? Is that correct?

[1:27:01] Yeah, that would be plan and commission, right?

[1:27:05] Correct. Correct, yes. Okay. And then also, is there a time in which that the people

[1:27:11] who are for the project versus the people who are have concerns about the projects have

[1:27:16] more equal time to give their their their their statement? It seems that people like

[1:27:23] myself up here and stress to try and get out what you have to say within three minutes versus

[1:27:29] someone who can get up and calmly elaborate and go on and on about the positive nature of

[1:27:35] you know why it should all go well. So this is my first. Yes I understand and I'm going to give

[1:27:41] just my comment on that and just correct me if I'm so you know the way the system works is that

[1:27:50] The applicant has the 15 minutes to present, and if they use those 15 minutes, that's been

[1:27:58] they've been, Mr.

[1:28:01] Our clerk has been watching the time.

[1:28:04] Now our questions, we have that been asking questions, because we want to make sure that we

[1:28:09] are making the best decision that we can within our purview.

[1:28:14] So it may seem that they got a little bit more time, but that was because we had questions

[1:28:18] that we really were legitimately asking of an expert.

[1:28:23] And some of the questions I asked,

[1:28:25] I knew some of the answers too,

[1:28:27] but I wanted to make sure that everybody understood

[1:28:29] what our purview is,

[1:28:31] and also wanted to make sure,

[1:28:33] because we're all come from different backgrounds,

[1:28:37] and all of us are professional.

[1:28:38] So I think it's important.

[1:28:40] And ultimately, it's important

[1:28:42] that we're making a decision based on the law,

[1:28:45] the rule of law, and what we're required.

[1:28:48] And what is like Secretary of Interior standards like Mr. Hazel teen spoke about so it might seem like they get more time

[1:28:56] But a lot of it is just clarification and then also I will say personally

[1:29:02] All the comments that were sent. I took the time to read those comments every single one of them

[1:29:09] And you know as a community member myself

[1:29:13] I'm very sympathetic, but there's so much of it.

[1:29:16] It has totally outside of our purview.

[1:29:19] So I do encourage everyone to definitely

[1:29:21] find these other avenues of speaking about the project.

[1:29:26] That are within the purview of some of your concerns that we cannot deal with.

[1:29:29] It makes good sense.

[1:29:31] I'm missing the timer for there.

[1:29:33] There are other things.

[1:29:33] But like you said, in whole it was a 15 minute presentation.

[1:29:36] I think it was fair.

[1:29:38] We did ask a lot of questions.

[1:29:40] My neighbors. I'm a resident of 20 years on VFU or so. And my neighbors were able to obviously tie in the staff housing to the main farmhouse a bit, but mine was more directly specific to the staff housing and the north east. So I just wanted to respect that. Thank you.

[1:30:00] I think you'll be able to address.

[1:30:03] Yeah.

[1:30:04] Chairman David, thank you for answering this question.

[1:30:07] Yeah, you were correct, right?

[1:30:08] So the applicant had a few minutes.

[1:30:10] I included the rebuttal.

[1:30:12] The clerics office did time that.

[1:30:15] And then given the questions, obviously, you had a question for the applicant.

[1:30:19] And they have the ability to answer that question to the degree that you wish.

[1:30:24] And then, yeah, I think bringing it up in terms of the next steps after this, after decision is made here this evening.

[1:30:32] And there are multiple public hearings that members of the public will have the ability to address, you know, more broad planning concerns like traffic and housing and noise, etc.

[1:30:45] So those public hearings will occur. This project will go to the design review board as well as the planning commission.

[1:30:51] Yeah. Sounds great. I look forward to attending reading. Thank you very much.

[1:30:58] Okay.

[1:30:59] Do I have Steve Nelson, I'll just have a seat. Steve Nelson, if you please unmute yourself, you'll have three minutes to speak.

[1:31:07] Hi. This is Janet Walker. I'm sitting here right next to Steve Nelson, who is my husband.

[1:31:13] And I would really appreciate the opportunity to chime in in this conversation.

[1:31:18] I was very interested in the discussion of the historic farmhouse and I am going to

[1:31:26] confine myself to that. Some of the points that Mr. Hazelstein brought up were quite interesting

[1:31:33] such as steps going up to a porch and not steps leading right into the farmhouse. So that all

[1:31:40] seems to be quite interesting valuable with a great deal of potential. But then this issue of adaptive

[1:31:48] reuse is your main to the restoration of the farmhouse itself. So there's the cafe, and then I think

[1:31:56] there was an awning over a patio, but then in the conditional use permit application itself,

[1:32:02] there was a discussion of the cultivation of the event space. And the take it was discussed that

[1:32:10] it would be quite a few events, and I think the words large was used, although I may be mistaken

[1:32:17] on that. But I do think it was there. And so then if you have large, then you need amplification

[1:32:23] and so on. So it seems like the farmhouse and its restoration is being prepared for conditional

[1:32:31] reuse. But that reuse is radiating beyond the building itself and maybe even beyond the

[1:32:40] where the cafe would be. So I guess I'm noticing a contradiction between focusing on the house

[1:32:48] of the house, but then all these other implications that the restoration of the house is intended

[1:32:58] to enable. And those are my concern as a neighbor of the farm. If there are going to be these gatherings

[1:33:05] which the restoration is facilitating.

[1:33:11] Oh, well, you saw something like that.

[1:33:15] Okay, one way.

[1:33:15] Yeah, you can look.

[1:33:17] Okay, thanks.

[1:33:17] So what is their nature?

[1:33:20] And at what point will, you know, the immediate premises

[1:33:24] around the farmhouse say what would have been the farm yard?

[1:33:30] At what point will those large events be?

[1:33:35] the numerator discussed for the permitting process.

[1:33:41] So how does the farmhouse conditional adaptive reuse and then all these other proposals fit together?

[1:33:51] I guess that is my question because I don't feel I currently have enough information about all that to think through the issue of the building.

[1:34:03] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome, Mr. Mimik. Can you address that?

[1:34:09] Chairman, David. Thank you. So yeah, the use question specifically, you know, the application is a

[1:34:14] conditional use permit. And so the review authority is the planning commission. So those use questions, those

[1:34:20] conditional use stuff of questions as well as those broader planning questions and use

[1:34:25] questions will be the purview of the planning commission. Thank you.

[1:34:29] Is there any one who can different, excuse me, my allergies?

[1:34:35] Is there any one who can differentiate between what the house is going to be used for versus the other proposed structure?

[1:34:42] Because I gather there's there's two separate things going on there.

[1:34:47] So yeah.

[1:34:49] Thank you Vice Chair Re-liner.

[1:34:52] So you know, I've stated in the staff report as well as in the, our presentation as well as the applicant's presentation.

[1:34:56] and so pursuant to you the Secretary of Interest.

[1:35:00] And there's this is a rehabilitation project, right? And so as part of that rehabilitation process to rehabilitate, not necessarily the initial use or the compatible use, right? And so again, this is question more is CUP, conditional use permit and planning commission per view, but in terms of rehabilitation of a project, you know, consistent with the Secretary of Interstate Interior Standards, we're looking for a compatible use.

[1:35:30] Right? In terms of our discretion, you know, an associate used use along with, you know,

[1:35:38] arm, educational, you know, workshops,

[1:35:44] that's obviously what the applicant is going for

[1:35:45] that associate use.

[1:35:49] I don't think I asked my question. Well, my understanding is the cafe is part of the house,

[1:35:54] but there might be another structure that would potentially have the option of holding

[1:36:00] larger gatherings that I understand that correctly.

[1:36:02] That's why I think we may be, I'm just, there may be a mixing of understanding what

[1:36:10] the house might be adaptive used for versus.

[1:36:16] So adaptive.

[1:36:17] Chair McDivit.

[1:36:18] I didn't notice we have a Lisa Prossi complaining manager online as well.

[1:36:26] Hi.

[1:36:26] Good evening.

[1:36:27] So, Commissioner Villender, yes, there is another structure proposed on the property and I think Mr.

[1:36:35] Highfield could probably respond to that in terms of what that structure is going to be or is what is proposed for the uses of that structure.

[1:36:45] But what I believe was described by, sorry, I'm blanking, by the applicant's team.

[1:36:56] of what was going to occur in the house with the other, with the function said, been described tonight.

[1:37:02] That is what's proposed within Mr. Mimics said.

[1:37:05] That would be actually how it gets used.

[1:37:08] We'll be a decision for the planning commission when they consider the conditional use permit.

[1:37:16] And I just wanted to say, this is exactly similar, exactly.

[1:37:20] but very similar to the conversation you had two months ago about the adaptive reuse of the

[1:37:28] Barnes-Sau Rio Grand Gas Station, how they were and that's going to be converted to become part of

[1:37:36] at San Piper and if the public who is in the audience, if you want to observe planning commission is going to

[1:37:44] that are the sample type or item next Monday night.

[1:37:49] So they will be looking not only at how it's adaptively

[1:37:54] reused and repurposed, but in the larger context.

[1:37:58] So I just wanted to share that this is not something unusual.

[1:38:04] And hopefully I've answered the question,

[1:38:06] and maybe Mr. mimicking explain more about the other building

[1:38:09] that is proposed with the project.

[1:38:11] Thank you.

[1:38:14] chair and commissioners I can share the site plan so we can sometimes a picture is better.

[1:38:24] So this is the site plan that we were looking at earlier zoomed in a little bit. So the farmhouse is

[1:38:29] towards the bottom of the screen and then the proposed multi-function barn is to the north.

[1:38:39] The proposal proposed use for the new multifunction barn is multi-function.

[1:38:46] There's a

[1:38:47] space, there's a proposed commercial kitchen, there's dry goods storage, there's refrigerated

[1:38:55] storage, there's more storage on a on a masonine or moft area above. So it truly is a multi-function

[1:39:05] space as the name would imply. So I hope that helps provide some additional context there.

[1:39:18] Okay, so I think I'm gonna, I think we've, we've had our fill of, okay, questions and okay, so I'm going to close the public testimony portion of the hearing and thank everyone who has taken the time to come here and make your comments and ask questions.

[1:40:00] And for the project staff also, thank you for taking your time to answer them diligently.

[1:40:08] So, the next step is commission deliberations and comments.

[1:40:14] So, I think this is just an opportunity for each of us to, I think a lot of us have already said some portions, but to give an overview of what our thoughts are.

[1:40:27] And even ask each other questions or deliver it so that we can decide whether or not we're going to make a motion.

[1:40:36] I'm going to open that up to my fellow commissioners.

[1:40:50] Okay.

[1:40:51] I just wanted to get a little more clarification of preservation of the House exterior and also the interior of the House.

[1:41:03] And I understand that there's going to be multi-user

[1:41:09] on the inside of either office building, office space and kitchen area,

[1:41:15] and that sort of thing, which I don't have a problem with, because

[1:41:19] but will the interior of the house still maintain its historic look?

[1:41:25] And I'm just concerned that it's just going to be dry walled in white wash,

[1:41:30] And I would like to see that the interior of the house

[1:41:35] does have some integrity for its historic value.

[1:41:40] My understanding from our questions to Mr. Hazelteen

[1:41:45] and Mr. Highfield is that very little change

[1:41:52] inside the house is going to occur.

[1:41:55] this is going to be refurbished to the extent that they can, that there are some portions

[1:42:02] that may not be able to be rehabilitated.

[1:42:07] I think I remember Mr. Hazelstein saying that they were going to keep the windows and there

[1:42:14] was going to be some change to the door, but the door was not, you know, the elements that

[1:42:21] going to be changed for not consistent with the original look anyway,

[1:42:28] so to me it sounds like

[1:42:31] the farmhouse is going to stay in a practical way as practically as it can in as historic

[1:42:40] in Asia as it can.

[1:42:43] I'm using like like materials when available things like that and from what I agree my understanding

[1:42:51] was that they aren't aiming to wide-washing anything inside and they want to retain as much as possible

[1:42:57] of these existing structure moldings, things like that.

[1:43:02] And in the other, I know that we were given so much to go over, but just to point to the summary

[1:43:08] and conclusions of the post and Hazelton report, it does say that it's recommended that a historic

[1:43:15] preservation treatment plan for the farmhouse prepared to guide its rehabilitation after the

[1:43:20] project has received, conceptual design approval.

[1:43:23] So if it is approved, the project is approved and is going to move forward.

[1:43:28] One of the mitigations I would consider a mitigation is to a qualified architectural

[1:43:35] story and will create a treatment plan that will make sure that the historic structure

[1:43:42] will retain its characteristics as much as possible.

[1:43:49] So, and that's, I know that is there to preserve the house and elements of the house that are historic as much as possible.

[1:43:57] So, to me, you know, as, and that's why we use qualified architectural historians or qualified archaeologists so that they number one are bound by ethics of their profession to do the right thing for the historic structure and number two that they actually know what that means.

[1:44:13] they know how to create a plan to make sure that the structure retains its historic nature,

[1:44:20] as much as possible. It's much as practical.

[1:44:27] Any other? I just think, if I understand correctly,

[1:44:33] yes, they are going to have a cafe. I'm sure we can move closer to them. I understand they are

[1:44:40] I'm going to have a cafe in the house and I understand the adaptive use need for that.

[1:44:47] I mean, I think that, and I, and this is, again, I'm stepping outside our purview,

[1:44:53] but I understand the community, especially the neighbors around there, they're concerned about no-

[1:45:00] I always traffic things like that. But if I understand correctly, what is going to be done to the House is somewhat limited. It has an educational component, the teaching kitchen, things like that.

[1:45:13] So from that perspective, and I think some of the other large usage is might be in a subsequent building, I find it appropriate.

[1:45:22] we've taken into account the materials, the appearance of the structure, the rehabilitation

[1:45:27] consideration, outside and inside. To me, it seems like a reasonable proposal.

[1:45:39] Anyone else want to make a comment? Or deliberate?

[1:45:48] I think I agree that the terms of what's going to be done with the house that it's a reasonable amount of change in order to keep it functioning and I think that's quite good.

[1:46:07] I, this is kind of a totally separate random thought, which I probably should have made earlier,

[1:46:15] but I presume when they repair the house and it's going to be largely taken apart,

[1:46:21] because it's in such bad shape in order to be able to reconstruct it.

[1:46:25] At that point, they may learn a lot of things about the way the house was originally made

[1:46:33] possibly where the porch was or how it was constructed and all of these things, hiding

[1:46:38] behind the clap boards. But I certainly, I think the plan has to be to some degree adaptable

[1:46:47] to the new knowledge that will be gained when it's under reconstruction.

[1:46:55] So it's just a small

[1:46:56] thought.

[1:46:57] Again, I'm limited with my knowledge of architectural historians work, but I do know that there

[1:47:03] some element to a sort of preservation plan that does allow for that.

[1:47:07] Yep, flexibility.

[1:47:09] All right.

[1:47:10] Any others?

[1:47:13] Okay.

[1:47:14] I just, I'll finish off with my comments.

[1:47:18] Again, you know, I do sympathize certainly with everyone that has some issues with, with the use or no ways or any other kind of concerns that have been brought up today.

[1:47:32] I will say that, you know, our purview is limited to the historic nature of that farmhouse.

[1:47:42] I believe that the applicant has done and their professional professionals.

[1:47:50] I've done a good job at great job at assessing the historic nature of the farmhouse

[1:48:00] and kind of walking the applicant through the process

[1:48:03] of practically preserving the building.

[1:48:09] There's so many buildings that are,

[1:48:11] unfortunately, fallen to disrepair

[1:48:14] and have been demolished through neglect.

[1:48:17] And, you know, there are options sometimes

[1:48:21] for buildings like that because it's going to be expensive.

[1:48:26] For sometimes applicants to just say,

[1:48:29] this is too expensive, it's not feasible for us to save.

[1:48:32] And so I do believe that this is a really good,

[1:48:36] happy medium as far as the building itself goes.

[1:48:41] I do believe that also with his stored nature of a structure,

[1:48:45] you know, we try to close our eyes.

[1:48:48] I think all of us do is people, not just professionals,

[1:48:52] close our eyes and think what was it like

[1:48:54] back in the late 1800s when that structure was built.

[1:48:57] And some of us may wish that it still looked like that.

[1:49:01] But there's quite a bit of the area that does not look like it did any more.

[1:49:06] And so what we're looking at is what is the impact is that impacts considerably more than what is already been done.

[1:49:14] I believe that it is not.

[1:49:18] As far as the archeological sensitivity of the area, somebody had very smartly brought up

[1:49:27] that, you know, and it made logical sense to me if there's going to be monitoring that obviously

[1:49:32] there's architectural or archeological sensitivity and tribal sensitivity.

[1:49:36] That is the case.

[1:49:38] This whole area has a very rich history of prehistoric and historic activity in this area.

[1:49:46] It's my love, it's what I've built my whole career on.

[1:49:51] But monitoring is typically a mitigation to make sure that if there is anything there that we don't need.

[1:50:00] I don't know about that that can be protected by having qualified professionals monitor the disturbance to make sure that if something is discovered, it's handled properly.

[1:50:10] So it's not necessarily a specific evidence that that specific property has any specific archaeological sensitivity or tribal sensitivity, it's just that there is a potential that that could happen.

[1:50:26] And if there is something there that it needs to be treated appropriately and that's why you know qualified professionals they're monitoring along with tribal representatives, so I'm satisfied from a historic perspective that the project is treating the farmhouse correctly and that there's not going to be damage in fact I'm thrilled there are so many projects that the buildings just fall apart.

[1:50:55] And this building is going to be saved because of this project, so if it is approved, which is exciting.

[1:51:04] There's not a lot of structures like that here in Galita anymore.

[1:51:09] Farmhouses are few and far between.

[1:51:12] So I think it's nice not as far as the adaptive reuse that allows revenue to be brought in to make sure that that historic structure is

[1:51:24] it retains its nature and in a way that it's structurally sound.

[1:51:31] So,

[1:51:34] and continue to do so I have a revenue stream to keep it that way.

[1:51:38] So, and the cost of that is not cheap.

[1:51:42] So it's great that it's happening.

[1:51:44] So I'm going to open it up and see if we have just a reminder

[1:51:50] That the recommendation from staff is that the Historic Preservation Commission recommends that the planning commission

[1:52:00] find that the proposed adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the farmhouse portion of the Fairview Gardens

[1:52:05] Conditional Use Permit project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment

[1:52:11] of Historic Structures based on the findings in attachment A.

[1:52:15] our choices are that we can either make a motion to accept to accept that recommendation

[1:52:22] or make a motion to move that recommendation forward or we can make our own recommendations

[1:52:29] that we feel we want to make or we can amend the recommendation make a motion to do that

[1:52:36] so I'll open that up to my fellow commissioners.

[1:52:39] Yes.

[1:52:39] I'm hard to leave.

[1:52:41] Are you going to close the public hearing to make that motion?

[1:52:43] Thank you.

[1:52:45] Thank you.

[1:52:45] You keep me honest.

[1:52:46] So I'm going to close the public hearing and now I will open it up for any motions.

[1:52:55] I'm over the way except the motion has written by staff specific to this very specific

[1:53:02] part of the CUP.

[1:53:03] So someone who has you do want to read it again or you read it there.

[1:53:09] Does he need to when he makes this motion read that?

[1:53:12] heard as staff recommended it. Yes, I was written on the staff. I think that's sufficient. Okay.

[1:53:19] Thank you. As in as in section 8.1. The very reached there. Yes. So I moved the we accept the

[1:53:26] very reached as written in 8.1. Okay. Do we have a second? All second.

[1:53:37] Work preservation commission

[1:53:38] members. If you please use the small tab in front of you to pressure vote, I will now do a

[1:53:44] call vote. Commissioner Goodson and

[1:53:50] also state your vote for a

[1:53:51] belief please.

[1:53:57] Yes. Commissioner Link.

[1:54:03] Commissioner Preston. Yes.

[1:54:06] Commissioner Roberts. Yes. Commissioner Villets.

[1:54:17] Is that here?

[1:54:18] Commissioner Villainer? Yes. Commissioner Big Divit. Yes.

[1:54:31] Thank you,

[1:54:39] So that will take us to item B, commissioner comments.

[1:54:44] Are there any other comments from commissioners?

[1:54:50] Just thank you to everyone who came tonight.

[1:54:53] And then item C, adjournment.

[1:54:55] So if there is no objection, we'll now adjourn the meeting.

[1:54:58] Hearing no objection.

[1:55:01] The meeting is now adjourned.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Agenda

Transcript