Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: January 25, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan Approval of Minutes: Meeting of January 11, 1989 BURGER/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 6-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Roy Mollard, Applicant in Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 1, noted the length of time his Application had taken; now the Item was being continued to the Meeting of February 8th. Planner Jacobson responded that Staff had requested additional information since a variance would be required for square footage in excess of that allowed; the variance application had been made. He had informed the Applicant of the continuance. Report of Clerk on Posting of Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on January 20, 1988. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-88-080 Mollard, 13977 Albar Ct., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,930 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling in the NHR zone dis- trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to February 8, 1989, at the .applicant's request to submit additional plans. 2. SD-88-013 Rivoir, 20411 Hill Ave., request for building site approval on two parcels measuring 27,704 and 28,837 sq. ft. in the R-1-20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued to February 8, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 3. SD-88-015 Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Dr., request for tentative map approval for a two- lot subdivision; lots to be 24,216 and 20,130 sq. ft. in the R-i-20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued from December 14, 1988. 4. DR-88-087 Lohr, 14801 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,194 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 5. .AZO-88-009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14-25.110 (d) and 15-80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. 6. AZO-88-010 City of Saratoga, amendments to the City Code Section. 15-06.280 concern- ing gross floor area, Section 15~18.020 adding financial institutions as a permitted use in the PA zone district, and fencing. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. Chairperson Guch noted that Consent Calendar Items 1 and 2 were being continued. Commissioner Kolstad requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4. The City Attorney requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 JANUARY 25 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 AND 6. Passed 6-0. 4. DR-88-087 Lohr, 14801 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,194 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Kolstad noted the expanse of the south side of the house and asked that landscap- ing be added; also, the addition of street trees to the front of the site would enhance the property. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission and stated that Condition 10 addressed landscaping; Staff could be directed to insure that landscaping screening along the southern property line and in the street area had been installed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. John Edwards, Project Manager, commented that landscape screening ~vould be installed on lots in this subdivision; he questioned why this lot was singled out for consideration. He noted that the property owners decided what ground cover and landscaping would be planted. Commissioner Kolstad asked that two trees to soften the south side and a street tree in the front horseshoe area be planted. Applicant was agreeable to this request. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 6-0. KOLSTAD/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-087 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION AMENDING-CONDITION 10 TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING TO SOFTEN THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND PRESERVE PRIVACY AND ADDING A STREET TREE IN THE FRONT HORSESHOE AREA SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. Passed 6-0. 5. AZO-88-009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14-25.110 (d) and 15-80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. The City Attorney reviewed discussions on the Amendment; during the revision process, additional policy considerations arose which he wished to bring to their attention; in (h) Garage sprinklers: - The expansion of the garage only, would trigger a requirement for a sprinkler system; thus the question arose, if the residence was in the hazardous fire area, would the sprinkler system be attached to the early warning system? He felt that it should not; if the home already had an early warning system, the garage should be linked into the system. Audible warning devices: the distinction between attached and detached garages had not been discussed. The Ordinance now read that if the garage were attached, the audible ~varning device would be required; if the garage were detached, the device would not be required. Was there a distinction between attached and detached garages with respect to the early warning system? ff the garage were detached, and the house had the early warning system, would the garage have to be connected to the system? He recommendation was that it would not; the garage would still have the sprinkler system. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 P.M. Passed 6-0 Consensus reached to accept the City Attc/rney's recommendation; amended language to read, Where the garage is attached to a dwelling located in the hazardous fire area, and such dwelling is required to be equipped with an early ~varning system, then a garage sprinkler shall be required." BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AZO-88-010 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION AMENDING LANGUAGE IN (h) GARAGE SPRINKLERS TO READ, "WHERE THE GARAGE IS ATTACHED TO A DWELLING LOCATED IN THE HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA, AND SUCH DWELLING IS REQUIRED TO BE EQUIPPED WITH AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM, THEN A GARAGE SPRINKLER SHALL BE REQUIRED". Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 JANUARY 25 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. DR-88-100 Prolo, 19841 Glen Una Dr., request for design review approval to construct V-88-043 a 2,013 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing two-story home for a total of 6,822 sq. ft.; and a variance to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on this site by 2,342 sq..ft. in the R-l-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from January 11, 1989. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Memorandum of January 25, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M. Ms. Fanelli, Representing the Applicant, stated that this was an unusual circumstance in that the site was surrounded on three sides by streets and was abutted by on! .y one neighbor; this physical circumstance protected all parties involved from privacy intrusion or ~mpact on the view shed. In addition, the accessory structures were physically separated from the main structure, and while they were counted in the total square footage, they did not contribute to any visible impact the addition would have. Applicants believed the Findings could be made and the neighbors were in favor of this request. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. Passed 6-0, Commissioner Siegfried stated that he.had made a site visit; while it was always difficult to make a variance finding, the intent of the Ordinance was to prevent impacts on the neighborhood and on the view shed. He did not feel that impacts would result from this request. Furthermore, in any remodelling, the site in question and the existing structures had to be taken into account. He did not feel that precedent would be set; the property was flat and surrounded on three sides by streets and while more visible from the street, the residence was set back from adjacent homes. There was mature landscaping on-site. He was persuaded by the fact that most of the excessive square footage was in an existing garage which was well separated from the home. He favored approval of the Application adding that the addition would compliment the existing roof line of the home. Commissioner Tucker noted her consideration of this Item over the past week and she agreed with much of what Commissioner Siegfried said; howevcr, she felt that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. While the property was unique in that it was a double corner lot; the Commission had to be sensitive about what was allowed on corner lots. There had been discussion on other applications whether two-story houses should be allowed on such lots. While the site in question was not impactful since there was significant vegetation on the perimeters of the lot, she was concerned regarding the setting of precedence. The request was for a 33% increase in the allowable floor area; the necessary Findings could not be made. Commissioner Burger noted that the existing garage was well removed from the home; if the garage were not considered, the home would be about 600 sq. ft. over the allowable square footage. The existing garage would not seem to impact the request for an addition to the home. Commissioner Tappan noted that the Applicant had been victimized by an over-improved garage. Commissioner Siegfried acknowledged that the Applicants did get some benefit from this garage; however, the question still came down to the fact that there were existing accessory structures on the property, the addition proposed for the home was less than could have been requested if these accessory structures were removed. Finally, would the additions really impact the area; he felt not. Commissioner Burger concurred; she wished the Commission maintain a sense of practicality and allow what was acceptable to the neighborhood and would not impact the area. Commissioner Kolstad understood the Ordinance intent was to eliminate excessive bulk; he was not opposed to granting variances or making allowance for additional square footage if such were an enhancement to architectural interest, eliminated the perception of bulk and was practical. SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-043 MAKING THE FINDING THAT UNIQUE PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PROPERTY, NAMELY, THE SITE WAS FLAT AND SURROUNDED BY MATURE LANDSCAPING; IN ADDITION, THE SITE WAS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY STREETS. THERE WERE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON-SITE, WELL REMOVED FROM THE MAIN STRUCTURE; THE PROPOSED ADDITION WAS LESS THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, IF THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WERE REMOVED Passed 4-2, Chairperson Guch, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution to be presented on Consent Calendar, February 8th. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JANUARY 25 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued SIEGFRIEDfrAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-2, Chairperson Guch, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. 8. DR-88-083 Kcrmani, 15187 Bluc Gum Ct., request for design review and variance ap- V-88~047 proval to construct a 6,200 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The variance request is to cxcccd the maximum allowable floor area by 200 sq. ft. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslic reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:11 P.M. Ms. Fanclli, Representing the Applicants, commented as follows: - Noted that the Applicant had every intention of meeting all of the Design Review Guidelines - While the Applicants and their architect completed the design, the Guidelines changed - Applicants wcrc told when an application for design review was submitted, that the squa.rc foot- age cxcccdcd that allowed and a variance application would have to bc made - Allowable square footage was cxcccdcd by only 200 sq. ft; to remove the excess would require a total rcdcsign of the house; thus, Applicants had filed a variance application - House met all other requirements of the Ordinance - Viewed from the surrounding homes, this house would have no impact on the view or privacy of adjacent homes; none of the neighbors would scc the full, frontal view of the house - Cited Staff Report, Design Review Findings, that the "design of the proposal should bc compli- mented for incorporating elements c;., &~c Residential Design Handbook .... " - With respect to the required Variance Findings: ~ Design of the residence was planned under the prior Ordinance which allowed 6,200 sq. ft. ~ No information was given regarding the possibility of a new Ordinance at the time of the staff conference; the Applicant only discovered the change after submission of the pl.ans ~ The physical characteristics and its location as the last lot on the cul-de-sac, isolated it from the vie~v of the surrounding homes ~ Proposed house conformed to the size of other homes in the area Commissioner Tappan questioned the assumption that a reduction of 200 sq. ft. would necessitate a total rcdesign of the house. Ms. Fanclli rcsppndcd that other than eliminating a room at the end of the house, reducing each room would impact the foundation. Commissioner Kolstad felt that the structure could bc reduced 200 sq. ~. without a total rcdcsign; with respect to the landscaping, hc questioned the species of trees proposed. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:22 P.M. Passed 6-0 Chairperson Guch was favorable to the design and noted the architectural variety of the roof line; in addition, only 80 cu. yds. of cut and fill was required. However, she felt the square footage could bc reduced by 200 sq. ft. without a total rcdcsign of the house and was reluctant to grant a variance for the minimal amount of square footage in excess of that allowed. Commissioner Siegfried concurred and noted the'difficulty of making the necessary Findings. Commissioner Kolstad also was favorable to the design proposed; however, hc asked that the house bc reduced to conform with current Ordinance requirements. Hc did not feel a Study Session was required; the applicant could present.an application showing the 200 sq. ft. reduction. Ms. Fanclli asked that if they found they could not reduce the square footage, the Item could be discussed at a Study Session. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-083 AND V-88-047 TO FEBRUARY 8, 1989, FOR PROJECT REDESIGN WITH A TENTATIVE STUDY SESSION DATE OF JANUARY 31, 1989. Passed 6-0. 9. DR-88-103 Szc, 14780 Masson Ct., request for design review and variance approval V-88-045 for a new 5,207 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The requested variance is from Ordinance 15-45.030 to allow 5,207 sq. ft. where 4,284 sq. ft. is the maxi- mum floor area allowed. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JANUARY 25 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director Emslie reviexved the Report to the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Gerald Fazekas, Architect, concurred with the Staff Report; Applicants xvere amenable to sug- gestions of the Commission on adding architectural interest to reduce the perception of bulk. Commissioner Kolstad suggested adding hip elements to the roof to reduce the perception of bulk. TUCKER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:34 P.M. Passed 6-0 Commissioner Tucker stated she xvas happy to grant a variance; the slope was created unnaturally and the house would not impact adjacent homes. TUCKER/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-045 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-103 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, ADDING A CONDITION THAT THE ROOF BE CHANGED TO A HIP ROOF WITH GABLE ACCENTS SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. Passed 6-0. 10. GP-88-002.1 Passantino, 13100 Saratoga Ave., consideration of an amendment to the ZC-88-003 General Plan and Land Use Map to change the designation from M (limited industrial), to M-10 (medium density residential) and rezoning of property from L-I (light industrial) to R-l-10,000 (single family residential). Properties are currently developcd with one single family home on an 18,200 sq. ft. parcel. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from December 1.4, 1988. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 25, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried was favorable to the General Plan Amendment; however, he suggested removing the light industrial zoning while holding any proposed zoning change in abeyance until such time as the property owner wished to present an application. Mr. Passantino, Applicant, stated he was reluctant to change the current zoning; he cited the history of this property and incidents from his family life. He was favorable to the above suggestion. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE TI-IE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 6-0. The City Attorney agreed that it would make sense to accept Commissioner Siegfricd's suggestion. Planning Director Emslie suggested that no action be taken on ZC-88-003 at this time with the direc- tive that any development occurring on this property be accompanied by an appropriate zone change at the time of the application. However, hc recommended that action be taken on GP-88-002.1 SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF GP-88-002.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION. Passed 6-0. 11. AZO-88-007 City of Saratoga, consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning the minimum site area requirement for the MU-PD (multiple use planned development), Section 15-21.030 and 15-21.150. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continucd from December 14, 1988. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum of November 29, 1988. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the MU-PD designation was developed with the Paul Masson site in mind; he had received a phone call from Ms. Carol Machol who was concerned that provisions made for this site could be applied to other sites sometime in the future. Chairperson Guch thought there was no other property similar in size to the parcel in question. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JANUARY 25 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney responded even if a site of similar size came into existence, application for a re- zoning would have to be made and heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. He asked that the record reflect there was no intent on the part of Staff to have this .Ordinance apply to any other property nor was there any other property contemplated at the time the action was taken. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:55 P.M. There were no speakers. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 6-0 BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO-88-007 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. 12. AZO-89-001 City of Saratoga, consideration of an ordinance repealing Article 15-20 and other provisions of the City Code relating to the Limited Industrial zoning district. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum of December 1, 1988; he asked that Section 8 be amended to read, "Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, any site which is then classified as a limited industrial district shall automatically become and remain an unclassified site having no specific district designation, pending further action by the Planning Commission". The Public Hearing was opened at 8:58 P.M. There were no speakers. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:58 P.M. Passed 6-0 SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO-89-001 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION AMENDING SECTION 8 TO READ, "UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, ANY SITE WHICH IS THEN CLASSIFIED AS A LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BECOME AND REMAIN AN UNCLASSIFIED SITE HAVING NO SPECIFIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION, PENDING FURTHER ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION". Passed 6-0. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. Discussion of Planning Commission retreat agenda and selection of agenda subcommittee. Commissioners Siegfried and Kolstad were selected for the agenda subcommittee. 2. Upcoming Planning applications and projects Planning Director Emslie stated that he would inform the Commission of upcoming items. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Letter from Ronald Hay, President, Parker Ranch Homeowners Assoc. re: vehicular access between Parker Ranch and Star Ridge Courts and response from Planning Director. A representative of the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association reviewed the letter submitted; she requested direction of the Commission on how to proceed with necessary actions. 2. Minutes of I~eritage Preservation Commission of January 4, 1989, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: Nr3ne. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. aro CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: Tuesday, January 17, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Robby, 13536 Cocciardi Court Planning Director Emslie informed the Commission that the applicant had decided to reconsider his design in order to comply with the standards of the Second Unit Ordinance. B. Reichardt, 13150 Saratoga Avenue The applicant presented color renderings of the preliminary design for the attached single family section of the 25 acre project on the former Paul Masson winery site. The applicant was presenting defined architectural concepts to obtain input as to whether or not the design was in keeping with the Commission's objectives for the project. The Commissioners were generally in favor of the design but expressed concerns about not being able to see it in its entirety. The applicant agreed to bring a more complete proposal to the January 31st meeting. C. SD-88-006 - Saviano/Bowie, 13602 Pierce Road The Planning Director summarized the staff report prepared, which discussed issues identified by the City Council in response to additional information not considered during Planning Commission hearings. The Planning Commission considered that both policy issues and issues specific to the 3-lot subdivision were present in .Council's request. The Planning Commission concluded that the policy questions were separate from the site specific issues of the subdivision. Discussion of the site specific issues then ensued between the applicant, Ralph Saviano, the area residents, the City Geologist's representative, staff and the Committee. The representative from the City Geologist's office presented the options of stabilizing the slide area, which were not available when the Planning Commission considered this subdivision. The Geologist reported that the slide was reparable and would improve a potentially hazardous condition which may affect neighboring properties. The Commission then discussed the possibility of approving the 3-lot subdivision with the condition that the slide area Committee-of-the-Whole 1/17/89 be permanently repaired before the Final Map would be approved. Another option was to approve a 2-lot subdivision and have the applicant re-submit for the third lot once the repairs had been. It was agreed that the issue should be taken up before the City Attorney as to how best to address it, and that approving a three-lot subdivision with a condition to repair the slide would provide an incentive to the developer to improve a potential hazard endangering adjacent structures. The condition to provide a foot path through the subdivision was then discussed. Commission members were in agreement that to require the applicant to provide a foot path through the 3-lot subdivision may not be warranted. The Planning Commission requested that safety, security and the recreational aspects of the trail be analyzed and included in Council's report. D. DR-88-100, V-88-043 - Prolo, 19841 Glen Una Drive The discussion concerned the design review and variance to construct a 2,013 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing two-story home for a total floor area of 6,822 sq. ft. This would exceed the allowable floor area for this site by 2,342 sq. ft. Steve Emslie presented a report of the adjacent properties to show the size of the proposed residence relative to the surrounding homes. It was generally agreed by the Committee members that the proposed 6,822 sq. ft. home would not be out of context within the surrounding homes, but were concerned about justifying the findings for the variance. The item will be discussed at the January 25th Planning Commission meeting. E. Miscellaneous Items The Director reported on the status of the parking lot lights and signage at the Saratoga Oaks Shopping Center. The lights were not approved and will require a site plan modification from the Planning Commission in order to remain. Staff will also ensure that the lights remain off until proper approvals are given. II. ADJOURNMENT e · <" Stephe~ Emsa~le Planning D~rector 2 CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 18, 1989 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Warner Hutton House, 13495 Sousa Lane, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting I. Routine Orqanization A. Roll Call Present: Voester, Cameron, Heid, Ansnes, Mitchell Absent: Landsness, Koepernik Staff: V. Young B. Approval of minutes of 1/4/89 M/S Voester/Cameron to approve the minutes of 1/4/89 submitted. Passed unanimously. C. Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda was posted at City Hall on 1/13/89. D. Oral and Written Communications Secretary Young noted that she received a call from Ms. Passantino, daughter of owner of house on Saratoga Avenue near Paul Masson Winery, wanting information on heritage inventory. Chair Heid will continue working on this item. Chair Heid reported that he had been asked by Don Eagleston to inspect the secondary structure at 20600 Lomita Avenue, to verify that it was not historic and could be demolished. He also noted that he had received a call from Marie Rose Gaspar regarding the possible architect of her house, a Henry C. White from San Francisco. Chair Heid further shared that he was doing architectural work for an addition to the Missakian House on Bonnie Brae Lane, a house in the Inventory; he noted that it was a screenporch enclosure, using horizontal siding to match the original and similar windows and doors. The Commission expressed appreciation at seeing the plans and gave their concurrence on them. II. Old Business A. Recap of Joint Meeting With City Council Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes - 1/18/89 Page 2 Chair Heid stated that the meeting was very successful, with good discussion by all. The Commission decided that the issue of historic districts should be explored~ it will be put on the next agenda. There was discussion on the membership changes to the Ordinance. Commissioner Ansnes announced that she had moved out of the City limits. The Commission felt that although the Ordinance stated that the Council needed to be notified and the vacancy filled, the Council should be asked to allow Ansnes to continue serving until the Heritage Ordinance revisions were finalized. Further consideration should be given to appointments of people not living within the City limits, but who have a Saratoga. address. V. Young noted that the Ordinance was scheduled for Council public hearing on February 1, 1989. Commissioners agreed that there was not enough time to study the Ordinance further before the February 1, 1989, meeting. There was a M/S Voester/Cameron to have Chairman Heid send a memo to the Council requesting that the public hearing on the Ordinance be continued for two weeks and that Commissioner Ansnes be allowed to continue serving until the revisions are finalized. Motion passed unanimously. B. CLG Grant Application - Status Report Secretary Young reported that the amount requested would be $12,000 and that it was on the Council agenda tonight for approval. C. Upcoming Workshops Secretary Young reminded Commissioners of the workshop at DeAnza on January 27. She asked those who wanted to attend the networking meeting on February 17 to notify her soon, III. New Business A. Commission Work Program for 1989 The following items were agreed upon as Commission work items for the next year: 1) Update the Inventory - complete preview property forms for review the first meeting of April, add to list in July-August. Chair Heid distributed his form for 20250 LaPaloma. Heritage Preservation Commission. Minutes - 1/18/89 Page 3 2) Letter to Inventory properties to encourage designation. Perhaps do in conjunction with an open house or other publicity event. 3) Continue monitoring Warner Hutton House move. 4) Explore possibility of establishing heritage districts and lanes. 5) Publish Inventory (CLG grant). 6) Finish heritage ordinance amendments. 7) Develop regulatory and financial incentives for preservation. Take a more proactive role. B. Plaques for Casa Tierra and Brandenberg House Secretary Young noted the plaques for the two designations were received. She will follow-up with a letter' to property owners to schedule the events. IV. Items Initiated By The Commission Commissioner Voester asked about the status of the title searches; Young will report at next meeting. She also asked about the status of the redwood tree at March- Metzger property. Young noted that the application to remove the tree had been approved by the Planning Commission, with a condition that the owner provide the replacement value of the tree in other landscaping on site and in the Village. V. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Va~ler~~e~oun ~ Secretary t~~ommission