HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-08- HSPB minutes
Παγε 1 οφ 7
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING
Minutes of Regular Meeting -Tuesday, February 8, 2005 8:15 a.m.
Large Conference Room, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
ROLL CALL
Present
This Meeting
Present
Yea-to-Date
FY 2004-2005
Excused Absences To-Date
William “Bill” Scott, Chair X 6 0
James Hayton, Vice Chair X 5 1
John Williams O 5 1
Jim Isermann O 5 1
Sidney Williams X 5 1
Kenny Cassady X 3 1
STAFF PRESENT:
Jing Yeo, Principal Planner
Loretta Moffett, Senior Secretary
* * * * *
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 8:18 a.m.
* * * * * *
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The Agenda was available and posted in accordance with state and
local procedures for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning
Services Department counter by 4:00 p.m., Thursday, February 3, 2005.
* * * * * *
PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments.
* * * * * *
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Two sets of Minutes to approve: November 9, 2004 Corrected Minutes and
December 14, 2004 Minutes. There were no minutes from the January 2005 meeting due to lack of quorum.
November 9, 2004 Minutes: M/S/C (Hayton/Isermann) to approve as corrected - 5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 0
Abstentions.
December 14, 2004 Minutes: M/S/C (Hayton/Isermann) to approve as presented - 5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 0
Abstentions.
NOTE: Audio Cassettes and DVDs of the HSPB Meeting are available for review. Minute format is more
action related and not verbatim.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: Chairman Scott no updates but will comments at the end of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: N O N E
AGENDA ITEM #1: DISCUSSION OF PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED SMOKE TREE RANCH HISTORICAL
STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT Staff member Jing Yeo reported that Tracy Conrad would present information on this item.
Tracy Conrad introduced herself as having been a 4-year HSPB member, currently a Planning Commissioner,
and a Smoke Tree Ranch homeowner. Ms. Conrad discussed the history of the Ranch and gave an update of
current happenings at the Ranch and is here representing Smoke Tree Homeowners and to gain an
understanding with HSPB that what transpires at the Ranch is acceptable and to receive Board input. A Short
History, aerial photo, photo of the entrance, and copy of the 1982 Architectural Survey Form were handed out.
Maziebelle Markham was the original founder of the current concept of the Ranch whose idea was for a
Παγε 2 οφ 7
“cordial community” about camaraderie and open spaces and enjoying the desert. That has been preserved
and continues today. Most of the private homes have been drastically altered through the years. The Ranch
houses are California Ranch style of simple board and batten with shake roofs. Olivia Heath was the
unofficial historian of the Smoke Tree Ranch. Of the 400 acres, there are only 85 homes and guest cottages,
with some staff housing. The Ranch layout was to preserve the view, to be open desert, and planting trees
was precluded. Today no grass can be seen from the street, it’s all in the back yards of homes and hidden
from view. An aerial of Palm Springs was shown depicting how the rest of Palm Springs has grown verus the
Ranch. The original stables and entrance were off Smoke Tree Lane, but were moved about 40 years ago
with the gate being closer to Highway 111 to allow for development of Smoke Tree Plaza. Relocating the gate
back to it’s original site is now underway. Sign is the same today and style of architecture has been
preserved. There are plans underway to renovate some of the board and batten cottages. The school house
is of historic significance more for what happened there than the building itself since it has been drastically
altered.
There has been an approval for movement of the gate, and the desert will be re-naturalized where the road
had been added. There are plans for interior remodeling of cottages, which is not under the purview of HSPB.
There is no firm plan in place as to what will transpire or how these buildings will be altered. Most of the
buildings were built before 1945, some were built after the 1960s. The City requires that HSPB review
anything that is a Class 3 Historic Site, and City staff asked the Smoke Tree Homeowners to commission a
historic survey, which was already done in 1982 and serves as the current city-wide survey which was just
completed. Smoke Tree has been surveyed, the major architectural features are in the colonists’ home, not in
the cottages, and HSPB is now asked for feedback and understanding. Smoke Tree Homeowners are
agreeable to coming back to the Board when there are firm plans building-by-building, mostly for the school
house, if the Board is worried about any particular part of this project. It seems to be a waste of money to
commission a new historic survey, as the Ranch is one parcel and the same information will be given as
shown in the 1982 Survey. The Ranch has their own guidelines as to renovations and is very historic-minded.
The Ranch has retained Jim Cioffi as their architect and Marvin Roos is the land planning consultant.
Chairman Scott read from the recent survey....”this district appears to meet the level of significance necessary
to for individual national register of historic places or California register...” and asked if that is something
Smoke Tree Ranch is considering?
Ms. Conrad indicated she would ask the Ranch Board if they would be interested, but they have really
shunned any recognition all these years.
Chairman Scott indicated that the survey called out one building in particular, “Rock Two/2L” building,
commonly known as the Slocum house, currently owned by the Carpenter family. Some of the City’s
resources are more than architectural, they are cultural in being built, handed down through families, such as
Disney, and the Board needs to strengthen that connection with history.
Ms. Conrad explained the he was an original owner, his daughter now owns the house and the exterior has
been updated. Mr. Carpenter is important to the Ranch because he was a well-known photographer who had
a large collection of Smoke Tree memorabilia that is displayed in the Ranch House now. It is a private home.
Smoke Tree Ranch is asking the HSP Board for a formal dispensation that they do not have to commission a
formal study/survey and that the 1982 historic survey will suffice with the intent to bring back to the Board
whatever is requested. Plans could be shown to the Board for all the cottages. This is still in discussion
stages. It has been approved to take down the old gate house, when the new one is built. Also it has been
approved to take down the current employee housing which is basically plywood structure.
Chairman Scott asked that this be kept on the agenda as an ongoing “update” item and for staff to advise the
Board when it is appropriate for taking action.
M/S/C (S. Williams/Isermann) to approve that the documents presented to the Board today are sufficient to
proceed and that the current survey be added to the 1982 survey information for this property. 5 Yes, 0 No, 1
Absent, 0 Abstentions.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS:
Παγε 3 οφ 7
5. Application by Bill Hatch to demolish residence at 226 Overlook Road, Zone R-1-C, Section 27.
Staff member Jing Yeo indicated that a brief overview was provided in the Board packet and that the
application is to demolish a home that was listed on the Historic Survey. Photos of the current state of the
home were provided to the Board. At the time the owner obtained a permit to add a garage, this home was
not listed on the Historic Survey. There was mis-communication at staff level with respect to the property and
Class 3 sites. This has been clarified in that all structure demolition of properties over 45 years old must now
go to HSPB.
The permit for the garage addition was issued and finalized in October 2004. At the time, the owner had
discussions with the building department about demolition of the home and was not aware that it was a Class 3
site, but the demo permit was not applied for at that time. The owner continued on with asbestos removal and
the project. The actual demo permit was issued in January 2005. Some pre-demolition work was done
without permits. At the time the permit was applied for, the property had been flagged on the City’s permit
system based as being listed in the 2004 Historic Survey. All properties on that list have now been flagged.
The photos show the roof has been taken off, the chimney collapsed in on the house, and the owner can report
as to the current state of the property and if it contains any original materials, etc. In staff’s review and looking
at the building, there isn’t much left to salvage or to do a historic assessment. Staff recommends that the
Board allow the demolition to continue due to the poor state of the structure.
Bill Hatch, owner of the property at 226 Overlook Road, explained that the initial project was a remodel of the
house. After the architect looked at it, he advised that it was un-reenforced masonry and the structure itself
was not sound. Based on this, decision was made not to remodel, so doors, windows, roof tiles, etc. were
salvaged. When the permit was applied for, it was found the property was listed in the Historic Site Survey,
but there is not much left of the structure and it should be demolished because of safety issues.
Chairman Scott asked about the notifications sent out to all property owners of potential historic site properties.
Mr. Hatch advised that he could see not getting one of the notices, but they did not receive any notifications
and was not aware of this survey. They did check to see if it was in the architectural review area when they
built the new garage because it is different than the house. The roof tiles roof, rafters, doors, and windows
were given to the carpenter to use in a house he is building.
Chairman Scott asked about the drawing that was with the documentation and if it was prepared for the garage
construction, which indicated that the original residence would be kept and the renovation would be an add-on.
Mr. Hatch advised that was the original plan, but then learned that the structure was not sound and would
probably cost 30% or more to strengthen and re-enforce the masonry. The architect felt it would be unsafe to
proceed.
Chairman Scott read for the record from the 2004 Historic Site Survey...”built in 1928, the residence is set on a
sprawling lot and designed in Spanish Eclectic style. The house is a single-story and has a low linear facade
distinguished by a deep veranda. The roof is cross-gabled with a moderate pitch and covered by arched red
tile, eves are extended well beyond the wall planes, rafters are visible. Two plain white stucco chimneys arise
from the roof, one on the south elevation and one in the center of the house. Exterior walls are finished in
white stucco, windows are large openings of multi-light grids. The main entrance door is located in the center
of the south main facade. There is a multi-light door within the gable wall of the east elevation on the north
side. A long wide driveway runs the length of the south side of the property from the street to a small garage
behind the house to the southwest. The house is surrounded by large lawns, groves of trees and bushes,
ribbons of cement walkways and fronted by a horseshoe-shaped driveway.”
Mr. Hatch indicated that the horseshoe-shaped driveway was put in two years ago. The replacement structure
will be a new house in the Craftsman style, not Spanish Eclectic and will match the existing garage.
Board members were concerned as to how this happened? The whole point of the survey was to prevent
things like this from happening and if the homeowner never received the notifications, is it clear now that all the
owners of properties on the survey have been notified and are aware? There was a lot of news and local
coverage, public meetings, several notices, etc., it’s difficult to imagine something didn’t get through.
Παγε 4 οφ 7
Occurrences such as this are just not acceptable and the message must get out to the Planning and Building
departments and the public.
Jing Yeo responded that staff does everything possible to be sure the owners are notified. There were over
300 property owners in the survey, records were checked and in this instance, notifications were sent to 226
Overlook Road. As to what happens to the mail, staff has no control after it is in the mail. It is cost
prohibitive to send all notification certified. In this instance everything possible was done to notify all owners.
Mr. Hatch commented that he agreed it was hard to believe not one notice came through. He looked at all the
notices and got copies from Planning, and has now been working with the City through the entire project. It is
not in the architectural review area, so there was no problem about the garage’s architecture, and the only
stipulation was to have an asbestos survey and have it removed, which was done. Nothing was every
brought up through all this process it was a potential historic site. The concrete block walls are all standing.
Board members agreed that this was truly an unfortunate circumstance and a learning process for the
Planning department that properties need to be identified that are both on the survey and built prior to 1945
(Class 3 sites) and whenever an application comes across the counter it be appropriately forwarded to the
Planner coordinating historic property and to the HSP Board if necessary. Technically this was a demolition
and a permit should have been obtained prior to any form of demolition. Although this sometimes happens, it
is not acceptable particularly on a historic property. When a listed property is being renovated and additions,
plans need to come before the Board prior to any work or permits.
The Board is now being asked to approve the final demolition of the building. The property is red-flagged and
a stop-work order has been issued. This Board needs to take action.
Member S. Williams asked if the architect was from out of town. Judging from Member Hayton’s comments
about the number of un-reenforced buildings in this area, it‘s unfortunate that the architect didn’t contact
someone in this area who is familiar with other structures that are still standing and are quite serviceable and
functional.
Mr. Hatch explained that at the time, they were not aware there was any historical significance to this property,
so getting in touch with someone local architect just never came up. The remodel would have saved a lot of
money over new construction, but when the architect explained that the structure was not sound and cost
would be prohibitive trying to remodel off the existing shell.
Jing Yeo referred that to the owner, who has indicated this replacement will not be any larger in terms of height
and mass of what was there before. In terms of floor area, the current footage is about 1,500 sq. ft, the new
structure will be about 3,000 sq. ft. It sits on an acre of land, so there is ample room for doubling the size of
the house.
Chairman Scott asked what would happen if the Board did not take any action on this. Could it be appealed
to the City Council?
Jing Yeo explained that it could be appealed to the City Council. The owner cannot do any work on the
property as it stands right now because of the stop-work order.
M/S/C (Scott/Cassady) moved that the application to demolish the residence at 226 Overlook Road be
accepted. There was a roll-call of the Board: S. Williams - Yes, J. Hayton - No, Mr. Scott - Yes, Mr. Isermann
- Yes, Mr. Cassady - Yes. The demolition is accepted 4- 1.
Mr. Hatch asked if this had not been accepted, what could be done with the property. To try to restore it,
wouldn’t the house have to be demolished and then rebuilt to reenforce the walls, etc. It was unreal when the
garage was built as to the amount of steel and reenforcement materials it required.
Chairman Scott explained that the HSP Board’s denial could be appealed to the City Council for their decision
and/or restore the house to where it was before demolition started. The original plan submitted when the
garage was built showed an addition to the building. There are applications from people who want to add-on
to their historic properties and those are generally accepted, but an actual demolition is a severe thing to do to
Παγε 5 οφ 7
a cultural and historical resource. There are a variety of steel inserts that can be installed for reenforcement.
When a historic property is involved, certain codes can be applied differently than it was new construction.
AGENDA ITEM #2: INTRODUCTION OF NEW OWNER OF THE RACQUET CLUB - PROJECT
OVERVIEW - STAFF Jing Yeo asked owner Michael Mueller to discuss the project. Today’s purpose was not to present plans for
the project, but to give an overview of this important property and introduce Mr. Mueller and his project team
who will be working closely with staff and the Board in terms of restoration of the Racquet Club property.
Board Members Scott and Hayton, Scott Kennedy from Palm Springs ModCom, and staff walked the site with
the new owners.
Mike Mueller of Mueller Design, Inc. introduced himself and Scott Jones, new owners/architects of the Racquet
Club, and Bob Mainiero, Civil Engineer for the project. They assured the Board that they take historic
preservation very seriously and hired JAG Architects to prepare the Historic Report which was distributed to
each Board Member. Palm Spring basically started with the Racquet Club, which probably makes it “the”
most historic site in Palm Springs. This report gives an overlay of Who’s Who when the Racquet Club was in
it’s heyday. Albert Frey had a heavy hand in a lot of the structures. The Racquet Club has deteriorated over
the years. JAG Architects has outlined a preservation code and tries to bring the luster back into this Club.
Mr. Mueller indicated the project team is very anxious to get moving on the restoration and renovation of the
Bamboo and Bogert Rooms, and possibility build a spa facility on the site. A tennis club is a business of the
80's so that idea will not be entertained. Modern look condos and townhouses will be constructed in their
place. Four buildings that emulate the style of the two existing townhouses architecture are planned. There
are 12 tennis courts that line the facility that will be replaced with townhouses. The historic pair of tennis
courts directly behind the restaurant area will be kept and restored. Possibly a hotel/condo concept that may
be privately managed, but not of the Marriott-type group. The bungalows will be made into single-family
residences with pools. The existing giant trees will be maintained, a few are falling down and those will be
taken down, but the ambiance of openness will be kept. Probably an additional 65 units on the property which
is currently under-density for the ten-acre size. The gardens will be brought back to their original condition
and introduce water features since there is access to the Whitewater supply.
Board members asked to be kept updated and made aware of all restorations and suggested that all
members personally visit the site, important to read this report, and be aware of what is planned for the project.
There is a lot of historical information about the club, the architectural changes and additions, such as those
made to the Bamboo Room which started as a small element when first built. This item will be kept on the
agenda for on-going updates.
ITEM 6 IN THE ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL SECTION OF THE AGENDA HAS BEEN PULLED.
AGENDA ITEM #3: INTRODUCTION OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPER OF THE ORCHID TREE INN -
PROJECT OVERVIEW This item was pulled, that information is not available today.
Staff advised of a new pool at the Carey-Pirozzi house, but it was not known that it would be submitted today.
It will be on the next Agenda.
AGENDA ITEM #4: 2005/2006 WORK PROGRAM Traditionally the Work Program stays pretty much the same, the Public Information Program has been added.
The Historic Site Survey has been completed, but “The Survey may be updated from time to time” needs to be
kept as this is a working document that will be added to as resources become known. The last paragraph of
the Historic Preservation Information Program ...”overview of current historic and community outreach
program” fits in very well with the preservation program brochure. Board members are encouraged to reach
out to those you know whose properties are listed on the survey to try to get them to have their properties
designated as Class 1 sites.
Member S. Williams reminded the Board that an earlier suggestion was to work with the Preservation
Foundation to develop another “Guide” which could be specified in the Historic Preservation Information
Program.
Παγε 6 οφ 7
Jing Yeo reported that staff realized there was a flaw in the system in respect to Class 3 sites since alterations
to these sites do not require the HSP Board’s approval. The Ordinance only says in the event of a demolition.
Anyone who issues a permit is now well aware to watch out for these properties that include minor demolition.
The survey properties are all flagged in the City’s permit system, so no one can issue a permit without
Planning review. The Class 1 and 2 sites have been flagged for a long time in the permit system. The
safeguards are now in place to ensure that today’s demolition example does not happen again. In terms of
the Board’s Work Program, it might be helpful to develop a procedure with respect to Historic Site Survey
properties. None exists now, they have been taken on case by case. It is not in the Ordinance, but it should
be a procedural/policy item that is fair to property owners but would address this Board’s preservation
program.
Member Isermann suggested a letter be developed that goes to new owners of Class 1 sites notifying them
that they now own a Class 1 Historic Site and include a copy of the designation. Except for the owner directly
involved, no one has ever been given a copy of what the designation means. There is a plaque and often
times it is in the escrow, but the new owners do not have copies of the actual designation of the property.
Chairman Scott explained that often times staff is not aware when property changes hands. If Board
members are aware of new ownership of these properties, they could advise staff.
Jing Yeo explained that it has been done at one time where all Class 1 and Class 2 site owners were sent a
letter letting them know about the designation of their properties. A draft letter is available and staff can follow
through when that information is known.
Chairman Scott indicated that will be added to the Work Program and that procedure will be developed over
the next couple of months. Members Scott and Hayton will work on this and present to the Board.
AGENDA ITEM #5: MEDIA OUTREACH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE - BOARD MEMBER JOHN
WILLIAMS In the absence of John Williams, Jing Yeo reported that the update was the color tri-fold brochure available at
no charge in the planning department, front reception area of City Hall, and has been distributed along with to
each Board member, the Visitors Center, Palm Springs Historical Society, and the Palm Springs Library.
The Architectural Guide has also been distributed to the same organizations for sale.
AGENDA ITEM #6: HISTORIC SITE PLAQUE SURVEY UPDATE - STAFF Jing Yeo reported that nothing has been done since the Ingleside Inn plaque was discussed and approved at
the last meeting, no order has been placed as yet because of staff’s workload, there are five (5) plaques with
language approved that will be ordered as soon as staff can coordinate.
AGENDA ITEM #7: DISCUSSION OF CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (Chapter 8.05
PSMC), DUTIES, ACTIVITIES, ETC. Nothing to report
AGENDA ITEM #8: PALM SPRINGS PRESERVATION FOUNDATION - MEMBER SIDNEY WILLIAMS Modernism Weekend is coming up February 18, 19 & 20. Postcards were distributed. Opening reception,
seminars, book signings, and a February 19 fundraiser.
AGENDA ITEM #6: PALM SPRINGS HISTORICAL SOCIETY - MEMBER HAYTON The Board was reminded of the Society’s 50th anniversary being celebrated and encouraged everyone to
attend. There will be showing of old footage of Palm Springs at the Plaza Theatre, Huell Howser will be
hosting. Invitations were handed out. So many of the events’ costs are out of range of some of our citizens
who are on limited incomes, wish there was a entry level fee to most of these.
AGENDA ITEM #7: PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE - MEMBER JOHN WILLIAMS In John Williams’ absence, S. Williams reminded everyone of the fundraiser on February 19 and the Grace
Miller House.
AGENDA ITEM #9: ARCHITECTURAL & DESIGN COUNCIL - PALM SPRINGS DESERT MUSEUM -
MEMBER ISERMANN
Παγε 7 οφ 7
Annual Symposium is Saturday February 12 subject is the Arthur Elrod, famed Palm Springs designer, and
afternoon tour is sold out, but tickets are available for the morning lectures starting at 10 a.m. - $35 for Desert
Museum members and $50 for the general public, prices include a box lunch. The Symposium Speakers are
Arthur Elrod, Harold Broderick, Paige Rense, with panel discussion by Brad Dunning, Charles Hollis Jones,
and Leland Lee.
BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS: As a member of the following, Chairman Scott reported that the General Plan Steering Committee has
selected a consultant, The Planning Center, with Dick Ramella is the principal planner. Research has begun,
and the overall schedule is two years. There is a lot of potential for public input throughout the process.
The Downtown Urban Design Committee will hold a public workshop and design working group at the Hilton
Hotel from 8:30 a.m. into the afternoon to develop ideas and gather input for guidelines regarding the
development and maintenance of downtown Palm Springs.
Jing Yeo reported that this is not designed-focused, there are many people on the committee who do not have
design backgrounds. It is intended to gather information for a draft workbook that will address design and
business interest. All interested residents are encouraged to attend. The morning workshop is open to the
public. The afternoon workshop will start at noon and continue until completed with limited participation by the
downtown committee, architects, and others who have current downtown projects. The public is welcome to
attend and watch, but will not participate in this afternoon session.
Chairman Scott reported there is some demolition of the Oasis Hotel as approved by this Board, including
removal of the trees, which makes the building stand out. Board members should visit the site, the tower is
easier to see, detailing of the building stands out more. Work on the Colony Palms is underway as approved
by the Board for interior demolition. Member Hayton and Scott met with a potential new owner of a property
listed on the Historic Survey to discuss their plans. That sale may not go ahead, so it will not be mentioned
further right now. Board member involvement at the beginning is a good thing.
Several Board members have driven by the Visitors Center sign and were happy that the BIA sign has been
moved, the VC sign concept is fine, but may be too subtle, letters need to be larger, hard to see, contrast in the
coloring might make it more visible, but definitely a big step forward. Those members who have not yet seen
the sign should drive by and give their comments to Jing Yeo.
Jing Yeo reported that Shev Rush has resigned, staff has officially turned this in to the City Clerk’s office. The
position will be advertised and the position will be filled within the next couple of months.
Chairman Scott will attend the City Council Cabinet Meeting February 9, so will report the HSPB is one short
and request guidance in appointing the new member.
There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned at 9:33 a.m. The next meeting will be March 8,
2005 at 8:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Loretta Moffett
Recording Secretary