Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-03 packetCity of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION . COMMISSION (,lkzCl�u►��i-� AGENDA Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2003 8:30 a.m.%�� Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue , Type: Regular Meeting The HPC will meet at 8:30 -10:00 a.m. at the Saratoga Historical Museum to discuhvtf items A and B under `Old Business.' Please meet in front parking lot by the Warner Hutton House and Staff will provide transportation to the site. Routine Organization A. Roll Call u.,-k B. Approval of minutes from 6/10/03 k ' If- 6"," 2W C. Posting of Agenda - Pursuant to Government Code-Section-5-4954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday June 5, 2003 D. Oral Communications E. Written Communications II. Old Business 5� A. Historic Calendar > 4�P[, �o 1! avu�i�a�L� o- r:�oL(�1✓ B. Joint meeting with the Historic Foundation to prepare a long term plan for the Historic Park - Report for the September 17, 2003 CC meeting. Discuss Commissioners Koepernik's and Conrado's site survey of historic park. Prepare document for review at August HPC meeting. C. Mustard Walk er P-� , S' �""`�'�`'r rzc,`- _d S 1ter) W% &I`�r D. Heritage Orchard update, E. Adopt -a -Tree - (Staff has received Lwo- interest letters) MQ,�,v m'ut -'j- v-f b4 t -b14 (� F. Review of Heritage Inventory Subcommittee with City Council - meeting a4k f date being finalized..- ;_,�, ew.,et,;�. u►� -; P^'iiOi` III. New Business A. 10:15 a.m. site visit: Review of modification of a home on the Heritage Resources Inventory, 20611 Brookwood Ln. (Henry Jarboe House, 1858) 1ne� B. Review Mills Act Contracts - /hLQ- t *) "- 4 C. Joint meeting with the Planning Commission - August 5, 200 to discuss Village Historic District, Heritage Tree Ordinance, Historic P k and Historic Preservation v p al. nnA-u�C" ^� t IV. Items Initiated by the Commission ti A. Retreat.- /rw � - �� a►ti B. Village Historic District - PC V. Items Initiated by the Secretary Design of the Austin Way Sign designated the new Heritage Lane VI. Items to be placed on the next Agenda Adjournment 9:00 a.m. Tuesday August , 2003 — Community Development Department Conference Room at City Hall City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Date: Tuesday, June 10, 20038:30 a.m. Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting The HPC will meet at 8:30 for a site visit to 15320 Peach Hill Road. Please meet in the front parking lot by the Warner Hutton House and staff will provide transportation to the site. I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call: PRESENT — Bailey, Ballingall, Conrado, Koepernik, Lowdermilk, and Peck. ABSENT: Grens GUESTS: Joan Pisani, Jill Hunter, April Halberstadt B. Approval of minutes from 5/13/03- Minutes Approved 6 -0 C. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday June 5, 2003 D. Oral Communications - None E. Written Communications - None II. Old Business A. Mustard Walk and Historic Calendar — The HPC.discussed the calendar and decided to ask the Historic Foundation to finance the project. B. Orchard information sign or newspaper ad? Limit spending to under $600 - This item was discussed and the HPC decided to not spend money on either project. C. Heritage Orchard update — Item discussed D. Library Grand Opening Booth — Item discussed E. Adopt -a -Tree - Item discussed F. Review of Heritage Inventory Subcommittee with City Council — . Subcommittee is working on arranging a meeting with Council. III. New Business A. Review addition to house at 15320 Peach Hill Road, (Carey House, 1929) — Approved 6 -0 with the condition that the materials match the existing house. B. Review Mills Act Contracts — In progress (Koepernik and Conrado) C. Joint meeting with the Historic Foundation to prepare along term plan for the Historic Park - Report for the September 17, CC meeting — The Park Plan will be reviewed in detail at the next HPC meeting to be held at the Park. D. Joint meeting with the Planning Commission — Item discussed IV. Items Initiated by the Commission A. Retreat — Item continued for discussion at the next meeting B. Village Historic District — Item continued for discussion at the next meeting V. Items Initiated by the Secretary Design of the Austin Way Sign designated the new Heritage Lane — Sign is being completed VI. Items to be placed on the next Agenda — The HPC discussed topic for the next agenda VII. Adjournment 9:00 a.m. Tuesday July 8, 2003 — Community Development Department Conference Room at City Hall �6- uco- 1 ` HIP, pa47-" LIS LAA. AAA 0-,D a -�- cto- , (-,s P-L"Sck-� 1v �-�-� 6Att dAIqqk- 'UA4A LLp A_*.h" McWILLIAMS HOUSE Date: 7/01/03 Following is a report to the Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Saratoga. It is based on a site walkthrough by Paul Conrado and Norm Koepernik on Tuesday, June 22, 2002. The following items require repair /replacement to occupy the building safely. INTERIOR • Re -glaze and re -hang windows throughout o 6 double hung and 2 casements • Bring bath up to ADA standards? (may not be necessary depending on interpretation of the codes). • Paint interior OUTSIDE • Replace broken and rotten siding to match • Remove rotted deck boards and replace- front and back o Add joist @ front porch center span • Replace front and back steps • Foundation ribbon board rotten - replace • Grout fireplace to siding - fill gaps • Clean and paint exterior • Add foundation vents The following items require repair /replacement to restore the building to it's original, historical condition, and make it a desirable venue. INTERIOR • Remove window A.C. units • Remove and replace electric baseboard heaters with forced air and add A.C. • Move and upgrade hot water heater o Move to outside — add on shed • Remove linoleum floors @ baths o Sand and re- finish floors • Remove carpeting- re- finish floors • Change out fluorescent fixtures • Re -route electrical conduit to under -floor • Build cabinet around phone equipment (to clean up room) OUTSIDE • Front porch not original- restore to original- locate pictures to verify • Add back lean -to at back and open to outside — increase useable space \\Smcr \THE CONRADO\Sta6'Box \Pau1\IiERITAGE PRESERVATIONWcWilliams Housc.doc In reviewing the site layout during the walkthrough, Paul Conrado and Norm Koepernik offer the following suggestions. A professional landscape architect should be retained to review and implement these ideas. SITE • Remove cherry trees • Remove wood benches and walls • Re- design and replace courtyard o Brick, stone, and concrete materials • Add arbor between buildings • Ties buildings together • Creates privacy • Add Gate • Remove all ivy- too much ground cover • Utilize all of the area o Lots of dead spaces • Behind Book -go -Round • At catch basin • Flare entrance at Book -go -Round to make more inviting. • Uphill side of Book -go- Round: create space for gatherings and food service (remove ivy, cut back bank approx. 6', build small retaining wall). Respectfully submitted, �yf Norm Koepernik aul R. Conrado \\Smcr \THE CONRADO \Staff Box \Pnu1 \HERITAGE PRESERVATION\McWilliams Housc.doc Phylis Ballingall UdLU. r-riudy, HuyusE 0, cuU.5 I NM From: Bob Louden To: SANDPHYL cc: Bob Louden .�W1 408 - 867 -7480 P.1 The Saratoga Historical Foundation Board has held a couple of meetings over the last three days to discuss (among other items) future uses for the McWilliams House. It is our belief that the McWilliams House should be used primarily for historical purposes. The buildings were originally designated as part of the Historical Park and their use should, we believe, be consistent with that original objective. The McWilliams House is a fragile building dating to the 1850's which makes it not only one of the earliest structures in the City, but also one of the earliest in the County and the State. Gold Rush era structures are extremely rare. The uses of this building, we believe, should be consistent with the age and fragility of the building and the original intent when it was moved to its present site. We suggest that the primary use of the building should be as a "house museum" furnished with suitable period furnishings (some of which we already have) to show Saratoga residents and visitors how life was lived in Saratoga in the 1850's. Secondary uses could include a meeting room in the back for the HRC and SHF (and possibly other) boards. We believe that plans for a possible future gift shop in the building and various other ideas should be deferred until needed repairs are made and the primary use of the building is well established. We think it might be useful to have a joint meeting of the HRC and the SHF boards early in September to reach agreement on our mutual priorities for future uses of the McWilliams House. Although I will be out of town until August 15th, any questions you may have can be addressed to April Halberstadt in my absence. I look forward to meeting with you and the HRC to discuss these issues. - -Bob Louden 8/7/03 America Online : SANDPHYL Page 1 14vC'. Wt - TA�C A�,C 0- Pt" 6-1� 14L -zo r j O k- Gov„` _ � A?, w� --,� tt AA�� LA.1- CLU X4,- cf A,� P,(ZP4-fA v� �(rAll, i �I 14vC'. Wt - TA�C A�,C 0- Pt" 6-1� 14L -zo r j O k- Gov„` _ � A?, w� --,� tt AA�� LA.1- CLU X4,- cf A,� P,(ZP4-fA v� �(rAll, I WWAIU i s vlj ll" i. City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2003 8:30 a.m. Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting The HPC will meet at 8:30 —10:00 a.m. at the Saratoga Historical Museum to discuss items A and B under `Old Business.' Please meet in front parking lot by the Warner Hutton House and Staff will provide transportation to the site. I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call B. Approval of minutes from 6/10/03 C. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday June 5, 2003 D. Oral Communications E. Written Communications II. Old Business A. Historic Calendar B. Joint meeting with the Historic Foundation to prepare a long term plan for the Historic Park - Report for the September 17, 2003 CC meeting. Discuss Commissioners Koepernik's and Conrado's site survey of historic park. Prepare document for review at August HPC meeting. C. Mustard Walk D. Heritage Orchard update E. Adopt -a -Tree — (Staff has received two interest letters) F. Review of Heritage Inventory Subcommittee with City Council — meeting date being finalized. III. New Business A. 10:15 a.m. site visit: Review of modification of a home on the Heritage Resources Inventory, 20611 Brookwood Ln. (Henry Jarboe House, 1858) B. Review Mills Act Contracts C. Joint meeting with the Planning Commission — August 5, 2003 to discuss Village Historic District, Heritage Tree Ordinance, Historic Park and Historic Preservation IV. Items Initiated by the Commission A. Retreat B. Village Historic District V. Items Initiated by the Secretary Design of the Austin Way Sign designated the new Heritage Lane VI. Items to be placed on the next Agenda VII. Adjournment 9:00 a.m. Tuesday August 9, 2003 — Community Development Department Conference Room at City Hall City of Saratoga . HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:30 a.m. Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting The HPC will meet at 8 :30 for a site visit to 15320 Peach Hill Road. Please meet in the front parking lot by the Warner Hutton House and staff will provide transportation to the site. I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call: PRESENT — Bailey, Ballingall, Conrado, Koepernik, Lowdermilk, and Peck. ABSENT: Grens GUESTS: Joan Pisani, Jill Hunter, April Halberstadt B. Approval of minutes from 5/13/03- Minutes Approved 6 -0 C. Posting of Agenda — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday June 5, 2003 D. Oral Communications - None E. Written Communications - None II. Old Business A. Mustard Walk and Historic Calendar — The HPC discussed the calendar and decided to ask the Historic Foundation to finance the project. B. Orchard information sign or newspaper ad? Limit spending to under $600 — This item was discussed and the HPC decided to not spend money on either project. C. Heritage Orchard update — Item discussed D. Library Grand Opening Booth — Item discussed E. Adopt -a -Tree — Item discussed F. Review of Heritage Inventory Subcommittee with City Council — Subcommittee is working on arranging a meeting with Council. III. New Business A. Review addition to house at 15320 Peach Hill Road, (Carey House, 1929) — Approved 6 -0 with the condition that the materials match the existing house. B. Review Mills Act Contracts — In progress (Koepemik and Conrado) C. Joint meeting with the Historic Foundation to prepare along term plan for the Historic Park - Report for the September 17, CC meeting — The Park Plan will be reviewed in detail at the next HPC meeting to be held at the Park. D. Joint meeting with the Planning Commission — Item discussed IV. Items Initiated by the Commission A. Retreat — Item continued for discussion at the next meeting B. Village Historic District — Item continued for discussion at the next meeting V. Items Initiated by the Secretary Design of the Austin Way Sign designated the new Heritage Lane — Sign is being completed VI. Items to be placed on the next Agenda — The HPC discussed topic for the next agenda VII. Adjournment 9:00 a.m. Tuesday July 8, 2003 — Community Development Department Conference Room at City Hall Maintenance of Home through Replacement of Failing Siding and Windows (South Side) CONTACT INFORMATION Mike & Peggy Johnston 20611 Brookwood Lane (408) 867 -2355 INTRODUCTION This home was originally constructed in 1858 and might have been considered of a style similar to that characterized as "Greek Revival Farmhouse ". This style had various forms, especially dependent upon regional preferences, resources and the amount of money that could be spent on construction. The home has undergone numerous additions and renovations since it was originally built, with elements of the original styling, as well as Craftsman, Victorian and modern day remaining throughout the structure. The last significant renovation took place in approximately the 1940's/50's by Walter and Claire Harriman. At this time, they exchanged a number of windows for windows of this period, inclusive of multi -paned picture windows, double -hung, glass louvered and various casement styles. They removed much of the original siding and replaced it with a tongue and groove style popular at that time. They also added a wing that is primarily board - and -batten construction and is not particularly notable, but does meld reasonably well with the current eclectic nature of the home's architectural styling. The majority of the home was originally constructed with lapboard siding, which is seen both in portions of the attic and the current kitchen area as well as the exterior of the "sitting room" adjacent to the driveway. SCOPE of PROPOSAL The degraded condition of the south wall siding and windows has led us to consider replacing them at this time. This provides a number of advantages and opportunities as noted below: • The wall can be insulated. • Where appropriate, the wall will be overlayed with conventional wood construction sheeting prior to the application of the finish siding, thus providing additional strength to the wall. • Older wiring on this wall can be relatively easily upgraded to grounded outlets with modern -rated amperage wiring, i.e. 12 gauge copper wire. • Lapboard siding to replace the more recently installed tongue- and - groove would be more consistent with the original style of the home. • Failing, inefficient single pane and metal /louvered glass windows can be replaced by double -pane insulated. • A window style can be chosen to bring back a sense of an earlier style. In addition, the proposed window replacements can be opened, greatly increasing 70 � ,i 4-tQ VIII-7 C� Us 86 7 -2 �J-.r- 20611 Brookwood Lane Maintenance Project — Windows & Siding Page 2 ventilation of the home, as opposed to the existing large picture window and the "casement" windows, which were installed as non - opening windows. It is our goal to continue similar replacement of windows and siding around the home to provide a more consistent, earlier style look, while maintaining some of the eclectic non - static nature, which is part of the charm and history of this building. Budget considerations mandate that we progress on this ultimate goal both in stages and using our own labor. Additionally, rewiring of the electric panel area some time ago left a complex and unsightly network of electric conduit on this side of the house. We propose to build a box structure over this eyesore to better protect the wiring housing from the weather, eliminate the need to replace existing siding behind the conduit and electrical boxes, and to be more pleasing in overall appearance. Finally, we are considering converting the existing main electric conduit coming down from the roof to an underground conduit. This is contingent upon cost, which has yet to be evaluated. Doing this would improve the appearance of the side of the building. A U- shaped diversion from the top of the main breaker down to the ground would be utilized and would also be contained within the aforementioned box enclosure. MATERIALS FOR THIS PHASE Windows: See Attachment for current appearance and proposed new window appearance. Brand: Andersen® Styles /Sizes: Ground floor - double -hung, either single or conglomerate, depending on current opening. Second Floor - replacement of existing casement and louvered windows with similar sized (due to ingress /egress codes related to fire) casement windows. These windows would contain tempered glass. (Refer to attached table for additional details.) Specifications: • Sizing — see picture and table for details • Glass - double glazed "High Performance Low -E" • Grilles — 7/8 inch width; cross bar (2X2) pattern on the casement windows of the second floor and in top portion (only) of double -hung windows (see picture for grille pattern). For the ground floor, window grilles to be permanently fixed to both interior and exterior surfaces, without spacers. For the upstairs, grilles to be permanently fixed to the exterior surfaces. We may choose to not have an interior grille or to have an interior removable grille or a permanently fixed interior grille. • Composition: Windows are primarily wood construction. The exterior grilles and window frame are vinyl clad and will be white. • Exterior trim and sills — to be fashioned similarly to the current style of the home. Insulation: A standard rolled wall insulation material of R -13 rating will be used. 20611 Brookwood Lane Maintenance Project — Windows & Siding Page 3 Moisture Barrier: A sheet sealant material, e.g. Tyvek® or equivalent will be used. Wiring: 12/3 plastic cable wiring, (Romex® style) will be used to upgrade the wiring to the existing outlets. Underlayment: Conventional construction paneling will be applied as an underlayment to areas where existing siding is removed prior to overlayment of finish siding. Siding: Western Red or Incense Cedar natural beveled wood siding of C+ or better grade, smooth surface. Exposure surface of lapping to be approximately 4 2 " to 5" after placement. The base of the bevel has a depth of Y2 inch, which is similar to the original lap boards. Attached please find additional information from the manufacturers of the proposed windows and siding. CurrthIL W %ndows SOCA s %de of hov►"e in currer►4- (pAD40.s fake•, 4,0cA4�^ 0. w ;re- Qorder, Gorldl i oh . 7-en ce, ) iiiiiiii, lb propose cl A > w 6 tooN�� 1t son i f Re-P 1Qce_w1en4 W;07dow5 current windows proposed replacements Ground Level Andersen - wood interior, vinyl clad exterior; High Perf. Low E double glazing; exterior trim and sills to match current style of home a. style 3 & 4 double hung, no grills double hung with grillwork pattern as 5 picture window with grills indicated in diagram; permanent 6 casement with grills (painted internal and external grills shut) b. size 31415 replacement windows to match current dimensions (or smaller if manufacturer must size down to fit opening) 6 replacement window smaller than current opening; plan to approximate dimensions of window 4d current windows proposed replacements Second Story Andersen - wood interior, vinyl clad exterior; High Perf. Low E double glazing; exterior trim and sills to match current style of home a. style 1 a, 1 c, casement, no grills (painted shut) casement with grillwork pattern as in 2a, 2c sketch; permanently fixed external grills; internal grills may be 1b) 2b louvered glass permanent, removable or omitted b. size replacement windows to match 1 & 2 current dimensions (or smaller if manufacturer must size down to fit opening); must be large enough to meet egress /ingress standards. c. placement 1 & 2 top of set 1 is installed a few will aspire to align both windows sets inches higher than top of set 2 so that top and bottom levels are all and bottom of set 1 is installed a the same few inches higher than bottom of set 2 400 Tilt -Wash Andersen® 400 Series Tilt -Wash Double -Hung Window Features Page 1 of 1 FRAME Exterior outer frame members are treated with water - repellant preservative and covered with a pre- formed rigid vinyl PVC cladding, minimizing maintenance and providing an attractive appearance. Andersen® tilt -wash windows are available in four neutral colors. Specify white, sandtone, Terratone® or Forest Green color. ® For exceptionally long- lasting performance, sill members are constructed with a solid wood core and FibrexTm composite material exterior. Sill ends are protected and sealed with weather resistant covers. Natural wood stops are made of treated, clear pine that can be finished to match the interior decor. On white prefinished interior units the stops are white foamed PVC. A factory- applied rigid vinyl anchoring flange on the head, sill and side of the outer frame helps secure the unit to the structure. An extruded rigid patented vinyl jamb liner and fin provide a protective seal against the outer frame members. Exclusive patented slide wash assists make it easy to tilt the sash into wash mode position. ® Weatherstripping throughout the unit provides a long- lasting, energy - efficient, weather - repellant seal. For the top and bottom rails, an encased foam material is used. The head jamb liner and sill have a rigid vinyl rib that the weatherstripping material compresses against. At the check rail, compressible vinyl bulb material is used. Side jamb liners use leaf type weatherstripping with foam inserts. SASH IS A Polyester stabilized coat with a Flexacron® finish is electrostatically applied to penetrate all exterior surfaces for maximum protection and a lustrous finish. 10 Wood sash members are treated with a water - repellant wood preservative for long- lasting protection and performance. The interior of the sash is clear pine for staining or painting. GLAZING 0 A rigid vinyl or CPVC glazing bead with a flexible lip,combined with silicone glazing, provides superior weathertightness and durability. 0 High - Performance- and High - Performance SunTm Low -E glazing deliver optimum insulating performance. (Glazing option must be specified.) High Performance tempered glazings also available. Product Guide Page 1 OVERVIEW COLORS GLAZING HARDWARE ART GLASS GRILLES WARRANTY 0 0 S e r-1' es Andersen® Divided Light Grilles Removable. I Grille-s. Fi nelig ht "Grilles „ Andersen© Divided Light "['he Andersen (g - 400 Series divided light program offers a wide array of grille options to obtain a traditional look for the home. From standard patterns to custom designs, the grilles you need are offered through Andersen. Andersen 200 series grille options are also available on 400 series products. Permanent Exterior Permanent Exterior Permanent Exterior Permanent Interior Permanent Interior Removable Interior For Easy With Spacer Cleaning Product (;aide OVERVIEW COLORS GLAZING HARDWARE ART GLAS! 4 o Specify High- PerformanceTm Low -.E or High - Performance Low-E Sun I m vlazings, or choose from a wide range of options including High - Performance tempered insulating glass. (For safety, all Andersen* patio doors feature tempered insulating glass.) For a complete list of ;lazing options and their availability, contact your Andersenk supplier. Andersen High- PertormanceTM glass is '51, more efficient than ordinary double -pane glass in the heating months. and 41% more efficient in the cooling months. Siding for.your house and home /,ucfNSF ,- Durability Western Red Cedar: the eternal home siding With a grown- in -the- wood preservative oil that resists moisture, decay and insect damage, real cedar siding is born to afford lasting, beautiful protection. It's also exceptionally stable: lies flat, stay straight, holds fastenings tightly and provides a firm base for many types of paints and stains. First Nations Totems and Longhouse Page I of I Real Cedar is Lazy 5 I Search San Franscisco Gingerbread Victorian Check out some older homes with original wood siding in sound condition in your can bet it's real cedar. That's because imitations have limitations. Classic New England Colonial West Coast Comtemporary Many man -made sidings have contrived to look like cedar, right down to the fake' embossed "knots ". Some even offer "warranties ". But value- conscious homeowner no fine print can match cedar's century of proven performance. Web site design and development Graphical Speaking MCITY OF SARATOGA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SUB - COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA DATE: Monday, July 28, 2003 — 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City of Saratoga Administrative Conference Room (adjacent to City Manager's Office), 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: HPC and City Council Sub - Committee Joint Meeting to discuss Criteria for Reviewing Historic Structures, and Mills Act Contracts PARTICIPANTS: City Council members Norman Kline and Ann Waltonsmith Heritage Preservation Commissioners Paul Conrado and Norm Koepernik Saratoga Historical Museum Curator April Halberstadt STAFF: Planners Livingstone and Vasudevan AGENDA 1. Discussion of Criteria for reviewing Historic Resources (update of Heritage Resources Inventory) 2. Review and finalize standard Mills Act Contract 3. Direction to Staff regarding follow -up actions. ��.ov CITY OF SARATOGA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SUB - COMMITTEE MEETING MEETING SUMMARY DATE: Monday, j my 28, 2003 — 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City of Saratoga Administrative Conference Room (adjacent to City Manager's Office), 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: HPC and City Council Sub - Committee Joint Meeting to discuss Criteria for Reviewing Historic Structures, and Mills Act Contracts PARTICIPANTS: City Council members Norman Kline and Ann Waltonsmith. Heritage Preservation Commissioners Paul Conrado and Norm. Koepernik Saratoga Historical Museum Curator April Halberstadt STAFF: Planners Lata Vasudevan AICP and john Livingstone AICP The following is an outline of issues discussed by participants during the above - mentioned meeting. This meeting commenced at 3:05 and ended at 5:15 p.m. • The Heritage Resources Inventory is not comprehensive because not all of the historic structures in the City have been. identified. The main concern set forth at this meeting is that property owners and potential buyers of properties need clear information on procedures they would need to follow if they proposed to modify /alter /demolish a structure which may be historic. • It was further noted at the meeting that Chapter 13 `Heritage Preservation' section of the Municipal Code makes only a few references to the Heritage Resources Inventory. Specifically, Chapter 13 expressly describes formal processes for reviewing alterations to historic landmarks, lanes and districts but no formal process for review of structures in the Heritage Resources Inventory. A comment was made that Chapter 13 requires revisions as a follow up. Planning Staff described current procedures for reviewing impacts to structures that may be historic. They are as follows: (a) For major additions, remodel or demolitions, Staff checks the age of the structure. (b) If the structure is over 50 years old, it conducts a site visit and takes photographs. (c) The photos are presented at the weekly planning Staff meeting. (d) If Staff feels that the structure may be historic it requires that applicants submit a historical analysis prepared by a state certified licensed historic architect. It was pointed out at the meeting that the current system of review by Staff is working well. However, future Staff may not be as cautious about reviewing the potential historical significance of structures. A comment was also made that the burden of proof and costs related to review by a licensed historic architect should be the City's — not the applicant's - responsibility. The average cost of a historical review is $3,000. • The general direction provided at the meeting was to not update the Heritage Resources Inventory. Rather, the idea presented at the meeting was to develop a list of all structures in the City of Saratoga that are over 50 years in age. The list would be developed froln data presented in the City's GIS database, and would be updated annually on January 15`. Such list would be widely available to the public and posted on the City website and would be called, "Potential Heritage Resources List." Placement on this list would mean that additional steps would be required for any alteration of a structure on the list. It was noted that such list may not cover the ages of all structures on. a particular property. A statement regarding the comprehensiveness of this list should be stated on the actual list. The new establishment of the "Potential Heritage Resources List" would be one of three lists. The other two lists are the existing "Heritage Resources Inventory" and the "Designated Landmark Structures." • Participants at the meeting specified that a property that fell into any one of the three lists would follow the same procedure shown below: 1. An applicant proposes any alteration /demolition of a home that is on any one of the three lists. 2. This triggers HPC review of the project. 3. The HPC snakes a determination regarding historical significance. If the HPC feels that a structure may be historic, it will either review and approve the proposal, or will require further review by a licensed historic architect prior to commencing the planning approval process. If the HPC feels that a structure is not of any historic significance, the applicant can continue with the normal planning and building approval process. A question was raised at the meeting regarding placement on the Heritage Resources Inventory. It was discussed that the HPC could put a structure /resource on the Inventory at any time. The property owner has the option to not be included in this list or on the "Designated Landmark Structures" list. The property owner could "opt out" of both lists by approval of the Planning Commission (and may be appealed to the City Council). It was noted that there are properties /resources that should be removed from the Heritage Resources Inventory because they have been altered significantly. • In conclusion, a question was raised as to whether the proposed list of all structures over 50 years in age and the process by which properties on this and the other two existing historic lists is reviewed should be a policy or incorporated in the Municipal Code. After the meeting, Staff contacted the City Attorney who indicated that an ordinance would be required. • The participants at this meeting did not have the chance to discuss Mills Act contracts. A follow - up meeting has been scheduled for Monday August 11, 2003 at 3:00 (Administrative Conf. Rm). END OF SUMMARY Planning Staff's Recommendation for the Review of Potentially Historic Structures While Staff understands the merits of establishing a `potential' list of historic structures, referral of all structures over 50 years in age to the HPC would impact Staff's workload and would inconvenience applicants since reviews would be delayed until HPC's monthly meetings. The current procedure for reviewing potentially historic structures has been working well. Staff would continue to present applications to the HPC involving structures on the Heritage Resources Inventory List, Landmarks List or any structure deemed significant by Staff. Furthermore, Staff feels that the burden of proving whether a structure is historic should be with the applicant. Therefore, Staff recommends that the applicant continue to be responsible for covering the cost of any specialized review needed for a proposed project if Staff feels that a property may be historic. This specialized review is similar to the required geotechnical reports or arborist reports for which the applicants are responsible for paying the costs. Having the City cover the cost of specialized historic review — which on the average costs $3,000 — would be financially burdensome. In sum, since the current procedure for reviewing structures over 50 years in age has been working well, Staff is not in favor of the procedure outlined at the meeting. Staff looks forward to discussing this with the Subcommittee on August 11, 2003.