HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-12- HSPB minutes
1
City of Palm Springs
HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
of Tuesday, September 12, 2000
Studio B, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way,
Palm Springs, California
REVISED TO REFLECT CHANGES REQUESTED
AT HSPB MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 2000
Call to Order: 8:15 a.m. by John Harrell, Chairperson
Roll Call:
Members Present: John Harrell, Tracy Conrad , Hal Meltzer
Jim Isermann, John Connell, Karen Pirozzi
Members Absent: Carl Prout
Staff Present: Hope Sullivan, Principal Planner
Anita Graves, Secretary
Posting of Agenda: The agenda was posted in accordance with state and local
procedures on September 8, 2000
Public Comment: John Williams of Inn Dulge, Palm Springs - commented on his
concerns regarding the status of Ralph’s (Alpha Beta ). He
stated that the City Council had denied the applicant’s request on
a vote of 4 - 1, due in part to the size of the project. He further
commented that the Mayor and Council had not heard from the
2
Historic Site Preservation Board; stated Councilmember compared
size of the proposed new drugstore with the current Ralph’s,
suggesting that the new drugstore could be located in the existing
supermarket and a new supermarket be built. He encouraged
the Board to do something rather quickly to encourage the
designation process.
Douglas Chirmside, 1540 Mel Ave.,stated that he supports the
same sentiments as Mr. Williams. He was attracted to Palm
Springs because of its climate, environment, and its world famous
architecture. He is from Scotland where there were no
supermarkets in the 1960's.; in London in The Photographer’s
Gallery is an exhibition of Palm Springs desert architecture,
including this Albert Frey supermarket. He cited examples of how
other countries have suffered for wrong decisions in failing to
preserve historic interests.
Barry Lawlor, 1545 Sanchez St., San Francisco - a citizen for two
months from Ireland, expressed his passion for design and
architecture. He stated that he is dismayed that the Board has
not taken action to preserve this Frey building. He asked the
Board to please consider the importance of the action to preserve
this building and that the August issue of “Interior Design”
contains pictures of the Tramway Station.
Public comments were closed.
Approval of Minutes: June 13, 2000 meeting minutes - Motion made to approve by
Member Pirozzi; seconded by member Meltzer; Vote: 4-0; (1
absent, Members Connell and Isermann abstained); with
correction of vote format noted.
3
July 11, 2000 meeting minutes - Motion made to approve by
Member Meltzer; seconded by member Pirozzi; Vote: 4-0; ( 1
absent, Members Connell and Isermann abstained)
August 1, 2000 work session minutes - Motion made to approve
by Member Conrad; seconded by member Meltzer;
Vote: 3-0; ( 1 absent ; Members Connell, Isermann, Pirozzi
abstained)
Chairman’s Report: Introductions:
Each of the Board members introduced themselves and gave a
brief summary of their background, including their interest in the
matter of historic preservation.
Chairperson Harrell introduced the City Manager, David Ready,
expressed his understanding of the passion for historic
preservation in Palm Springs. He stated that “ good architecture
like great literature is a treasure and needs to be preserved” and is
happy to work with the Boards in the City.
Chairperson Harrell asked the City Manager to assist Palm Springs
to become a certified local government. Mr. Ready stated that
he would look into it and get back to the Board on that issue.
Break in Agenda:
Architectural Approvals:
1. Francis Stevens School - Update.
Reuel Young, local architect and Dana Raskin from Risk Management
4
presented to the Board the plans for the remodel of the school since the fire in
June. The main area of remodel is the southeast wing east of the breezeway (
there was smoke damage and charring west of the breezeway), which is the most
extensively damaged area involving the removal of the roof structure, interior
finishes except hardwood floors to remain; based on the original plans there is to
be like quality, kind, etc. as to insurance coverage limitations.
Photos of the building were passed around to the Board showing all exposed
wood areas to be removed, tiles to be removed and replaced, wood rafters
containing lead to be removed, roof structure to be repaired and stabilized.
The first phase of work includes removal of hazardous material; removal of and
stabilizing of damaged walls; preparation of documentation for general
contractors to bid for repair according to original.
Additional work includes the 2' x2' concrete scored walkway to be replicated,
replaced and repaired. Minor modification for ADA compliance.
Board member Conrad expressed delight and gratefulness for the work to be
completed and that although the S - tiles were not well thought out when
replaced, in the 70's, and they could be replaced now with a more appropriate
material. She expressed that she is pleased that work will be done correctly.
Board members asked Mr. Young and Ms. Raskin questions on materials, time
and the insurance settlement proceeds. The question of shortfall was discussed
and whether or not the insurance coverage is adequate for completion of the
project. Ms. Raskin will be going to City Council on September 20 and will
discuss the damage removal, clean up and lead abatement.
Staff member Sullivan stated that phase II would be more appropriate for
the Board to consider as far as restoration.
5
The Board asked that the minutes of the meeting reflect the sentiment of the
Board and that phase 1 is the responsibility of the City Council. The Board asked
that it be pointed out to the City Council that clean up should not be calculated
into short-fall.
Board member Meltzer expressed concern with the matter of adequate
insurance coverage and the possible shortfall. Staff member Raskin commented
that the insurance proceeds are to make the building “whole”, but not sure at
this time if it covers the concerns of the Board in quality of restoration.
Staff members Sullivan and Raskin will get together in the next 30 days to see if it
can be determined what the insurance will cover and report back to the Board.
2. Lykken’s - Mr. G’s Toys - 180 North Palm Canyon - Facade Improvement-
Staff member Sullivan gave the staff report on the proposed facade
improvements, which includes painting the upper portion yellow, lower portion
red, but the roof would not be changed. Mr. Goldenberg, the applicant,
addressed the Board regarding the application, he is in Palm Springs after 17
years in the Desert Fashion Plaza, chose to remain in Palm Springs because it
has history, but has a desire to change the facade of the store to make it more
exciting and more competitive.
The applicant and Board discussed the proposed signage and graphics; while
there is a need to makes some upgrades, the Board cannot support the color
change nor the application of tile to the exterior. Staff member Sullivan stated
that she has spoken to Jerry Ogburn, Downtown Development manager and he is
willing to work with the applicant to make the facade exciting without color
change. Board made suggestions that could make the exterior moreappealing
while not adding tile or changing the color as drastically; that a 3-dimensional
6
signage may work.
The Board stated that anything applied to the building would not be appropriate,
but that features on the inside could be made attractive; also the need to leave
the arch and roof as is, but would support the applicant on store front windows
enhancement.
Motion was made by member Conrad and seconded by member Meltzer for a
restudy and that applicant not apply color or objects to the colonnade. Vote:
6-0; (1 absent ) in favor.
3. 600 Panorama - Applicant desires to build a privacy wall.
Staff member Sullivan reported that the applicant proposed a 6 ft. - privacy wall
be built 12 feet off property line to serve as a separation between carport and
garden area.
After a brief discussion with the consultant from the applicant regarding
height, style and color, with the Board members, member Conrad made a
motion to approve the application, it was seconded by member Meltzer.
Vote: 6 - 0 to approve ( 1 absent).
4. Louise’s Pantry - Update
Staff member Sullivan reviewed with the Board, the Historic Site Preservation
Board conditions of approval for this project. A new rendering as requested at
the previous meeting was presented by applicant, John Wessman, encompassing
the requested changes of conditions. Board members discussed with the
applicant the proposed colors and the applicant stated that while the colors on the
building were not the colors of 50 years ago, he would caution the requirement
of the “same color”. The Board thanked Mr. Wessman for his cooperation in the
Board’s request regarding the application and the requested changes that were
incorporated.
5. Chairman’s Report
Board member Harrell reported that he had met with Doug Evans, Director of
Planning and Building and and asked that the Director set up a work session
with the City Council.
7
Suggestion was made by the chairman that each Board member take on the
assignment or stewardship of buildings and / or sites that each one is interested in
and feels important.
It has been suggested that all printed information coming from the staff prepara-
in be done on 3-hole punched paper and notebooks be provided for members to
keep track of agendas and minutes.
There will be a special mailing to the Board of the agenda regarding the National
Trust meeting in Los Angeles.
The Board was reminded of the orientation session that is to take place on
September 21.
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. O’Donnell House and Tie-down resolutions were handed out to the Board.
Chairman Harrell has requested that the draft resolution be included with
the staff report and the application package, so that the process can move
along more quickly.
A. Easmor - Tie Down Resolution was read by Staff member Sullivan
and the wording was discussed with the Board. The Board asked
that r oad maintenance be conducted to protect the condition of the
Tie - down.
Motion was made by member Meltzer recommending to forward
the resolution as presented to the City Council, seconded by Karen
Pirozzi. The vote was 4- 0 ( 1 absent; members Connell and Isermann
abstained because they had not been present at the public hearings on
this proposal.)
B. O’Donnell House resolution was read by Staff member Sullivan and
the wording was discussed with the Board. It was requested by the
Board that photographs of the interior features become part of the historic
record of the property, in this case, both the interior and exterior are
noteworthy.
It was also stipulated that the City Council direct the City Clerk to
submit the resolution to the County Recorder for recording, so that
the public is aware of the designation.
Motion was made by member Meltzer and seconded by member
Pirozzi to forward the resolution as presented to the City Council.
Vote was 3-0; ( 1 absent; members Connell and Isermann abstained
8
because they had not been present at the public hearing and member
Conrad abstained due to being the applicant.)
2. Cody Gas Station - North Palm Canyon
The Board discussed the fact that alterations have been done on this
property, but it is not a designated site. While the canopy is the
is the defining feature, which is the issue of the alteration, the Board again
stated that it is not a designated site. The Planning Commission has
heard the proposal, requested a restudy to leave canopy as is.
Board members directed staff to let the owner know that this is a William
Cody project and to make the owner aware of the designation process.
3. Alpha - Beta ( Ralph’s) - Sunrise Way and Ramon Road
It was reported to the Board that after considering the applicant’s proposal,
the City Council denied the proposal, not on historic grounds, but it was a
design driven denial. Chairman Harrell stated that if the Board wished to,
it could pursue designation process. No discussion followed.
Member Isermann made a motion to direct staff to schedule a public
hearing for next meeting, Member Connell seconded the motion.
Vote: 6-0; in favor ( 1 absent; 0 abstained).
4. Plaques - Update
Staff member Sullivan reported that the wording for the purposed plaques
is not completed yet and will be forwarded to the Board. and also that a
local company to provide the plaques is being sought. There are 5 sites
designated for plaques with the appropriate funds set aside.
5. Ordinance Update
The Board was reminded that during the August 1, 2000 work study
session, the Board voted to defer action on the ordinance, because it
would lose preservation controls. The wording in the present ordinance is
much more conducive to the
Board’s goals. Chairman Harrell discussed the timeline of the ordinance
redraft to date.
The Board reiterated that the new draft for the ordinance did not give an
automatic designation. Further discussing centered around the
issues of Class 3 designation and the proposed survey. Currently, Class
3 designation includes structures constructed in 1945 and prior. Giving
9
automatic designation would provide a “flagging only” alert to the staff,
this serving as an early warning device.
The concern of the Board is that there is no “real teeth” in the existing
ordinance in regard to the survey and Class 3 alerting device.
The Board understands that the staff does not have access to any kind of
alerting at this time; Member Conrad stated that she would like to
look at past minutes to see what notation was made In regard to the
statement that there would be no road block to flagging in the Building
Department computer system surveyed properties once the survey was
completed. Discussion by the Board members ensued to define the need
for the Class 3 designation to clearly be a non-regulatory device, a early
warning alert to help those seeking permits to know early in the process
the potential historical significance.
Staff member Sullivan noted that the benefit of Class 3 designations is the
same as a surveyed property. A summary of the discussion was that there
seems at this time, that there is no real protection for Class 3 designated
properties, same as surveyed properties; the value of having Class 3
properties is the same as surveyed properties; currently there is no public
hearing on this Class 3 category and this is a due process obstacle.
Chairman Harrell suggested that a rework of the two sections of the
ordinance to take the survey out of a regulatory function and into a
resource function and include a date category for designation.It was
suggested that this is a good subject to take to work session.
6. Survey - Update
In the 1980's the City prepared a survey of over 450 properties as a
resource too, but mid-century structures were not included. There was a
request mailed out to various individuals to suggest their top 10
recommendations to add to the list of 450 plus sites.. Staff member
Sullivan stated that there would be a cost to Survey 450 properties and
that the California Register of Historic Places criteria could be used on
both the old survey and new list. Member Conrad stated that the
California Register of Historic Places Criteria is too rigid a criteria and
that the Board could cut down the survey from 450. The Board should
decide what goes on the survey - start with the 450 existing and then
determine what stays on and draft ordinance criteria using Structures of
merit and Historical/cultural and historic resources as a guideline.
The objective is to cut down the list from 450 including the Top 10 list.
This will be a good workshop project. Staff member Sullivan will pursue
obtaining cost estimate for City Council on completing an updated
10
survey.
MEMBER CONCERNS:
1. Lady of Solitude Church - Alejo Road
It has been noted that this Class I building has been altered.
The question was asked as to whether or not a permit had been
issued. Staff will investigate.
2. Member Isermann proposed that he would like to participate in
formalizing a work program.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40A.M. TO THE FIELD TRIP.
____________________________________
Hope Sullivan,
Principal Planner