Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-12- HSPB minutes Παγε 1 οφ 8 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING Minutes of Regular Meeting -Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 8:15 a.m. Large Conference Room, City Hall, 3200 East 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 9 0 James Hayton, Vice Chair X 7 2 John Williams X 7 2 Jim Isermann X 7 2 Sidney Williams X 8 1 Kenny Cassady O 5 2 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 Revised 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 counter by 4:00 p.m., Thursday, April 7, 2005. * * * * * * PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lisa Luisi spoke in behalf Mr. Joseph Luisi, historical preservationist for the Spanish Inn and read his prepared statement - a copy is attached for reference. * * * * * * APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (J.Williams/S.Williams: 4 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 1 Abstention) to approve the February 8, 2005 Minutes as presented. Because of absences at the March meeting, the Board did not have a quorum to approve the March Minutes and they were carried forward to the May 10 meeting for approval. NOTE: Audio Cassettes and DVDs of the HSPB Meeting are available for review. Audio Cassettes will be kept for six months and then discarded. DVDs of the meetings will be kept indefinitely. Minute format is more action related and not verbatim. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: Chairman Scott reported that in the March 8 meeting the Board approved the application for designation of 272 Camino Buena Vista as a Class 1 Historic Site. The City Council unanimously approved that Resolution at their April 6 meeting and that property is now listed as HSPB’s #48 Class 1 Site. There are now 44 buildings (commercial and residential) designed as Class 1 Historic Sites. There are two vacancies on the HSP Board and just a few more days for anyone to submit his or her application. Candidates for Board members will be interviewed starting July 1, 2005. If anyone is interested, please contact the City Clerk’s office. PUBLIC HEARING: N O N E ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS: Architect not here, moved to Agenda #1. AGENDA ITEM #1: OASIS BUILDING REMODEL - UPDATE Project location is 123 South Palm Canyon Drive. The Board has seen a presentation on this previously, it is still in the pre-application stage. There were two letters in the Board packet, one from Eric Lloyd Wright and one from Robert Imber, with comments on this project. Παγε 2 οφ 8 David Christian, project architect, reported that progress is in the same direction as previously presented. The design development drawings are being prepared for formal presentation to the City for architectural review. Renderings in progress were displayed for the Board. An angled stairwell is being added, also adding a fountain at the outdoor dining area and a fountain in the back area. Some site demolition has been done. All development will be more in the character of the original hotel when built rather than similar to the renovations occurring over the years. The back stairway, added some years after the original building, will be removed to open up the wall into a courtyard for dining. Three rooms will focus on three things: One second floor room or the Loretta Young room on the third floor will be devoted to telling the story of the Oasis with original photos, door knobs, doors, original pieces of the building, etc. One of the other rooms will focus on telling Lloyd Wright’s story and show some of his works. The third room will depict old Palm Springs at its peak. The entry area of the 121 building will be a dining room. A guardrail for safety will be needed for entering the tower. Mike Buccino is the landscape architect, and landscaping will be done in such a way as to preserve the view to the tower. Grille work that needs to be replaced will be re-worked as close to the original design as possible. Interiors will be set in the 40's era. Eric Wright (son) was contacted for further drawings - - he had turned everything over to the UCLA archives. The elevator will not show up much, it’s in the back part of the building mass inside the building on the second floor and under the existing building on the first level. Fire code requires two exits, so the stairway must be there. Chairman Scott pointed out the entire building was designed by Lloyd Wright, but only the Tower, Loretta Rooms, and a few guest rooms are designated as a Historic Class 1 Site. The remaining is a Class 3 site and does not come under the same restrictions. It is listed in the Historic Resources Survey. A memo was received from Robert Imber today that makes reference to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation which are federal guidelines, particularly relating to Section 9 in which it says....”new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property in its environment.” Mr. Christian asked that the Board take another look and re-read ...”shall be differentiated from the old, and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the architectural integrity of the property.” This could be interpreted to mean that...exact details can’t be used, but it also says that it should be “compatible.” Chairman Scott asked for Board and audience comments for general input and reiterated that today’s discussion is not asking for any approvals, but generally input and information. Member Isermann stated that the Board previously approved an exploration of the building to determine the condition of the original structures, and asked what was found during this exploration. There is confusion from current rendering to the first rendering as to what is original and what are the additions. Would like to see an outline for clarification. The Board only talked about very few sections of the original concrete being removed which had to do with windows and pass-throughs to the kitchen. Doesn’t recall discussions about cutting off the concrete wall in the front. Previous discussions were very preliminary, even discussed whether the theme should be the 40's or the 20's when the building was originally constructed. Feels the stairway should be different if there is going to be a staircase. Is not in favor of removing any of the concrete, and not in favor of taking structural elements and having them become decorative elements. Mr. Christian stated that the hotel will never be re-opened as a hotel. The plan is really unchanged from the previous meeting, and it’s difficult to proceed when Board Members do not even agree. Steve Lyle, applicant, explained that the parking issue is one very important matter. Calculations show the project is short 42.5 parking spaces, and at $12,000 per space which is the “parking in-lieu” increased fee, that is over $500,000 and will absolutely kill the project. It’s not feasible to spend $500,000 for a parking in-lieu fee when that amount should be spent on the project itself. This project is already heading seriously over budget. The idea of removing two of the buildings...one of the buildings, housing 15 units, was not designed by Lloyd Wright, the architect is unknown and it is in terrible condition. Five units of the other building that houses ten units were designed by Lloyd Wright, and the architecture above was an addition. There is no parking in the HSPB Minutes - April 12, 2005 Meeting Παγε 3 οφ 8 area for those hotel rooms and the rooms themselves are so small that it is doubtful anyone would want to stay there even if there were renovated. It makes more sense to demolish these two buildings, save the only features worth saving ( the embossed concrete panels), and display them in the re-hab project for public viewing. No one has seen these panels in virtually 20 years because these rooms are in such poor condition that only caretakers stayed in them. The idea of having a parking lot continuous from Tahquitz Canyon to Arenas makes a lot of sense; it would add 46 parking spaces, which would satisfy the parking issue and the project could move forward without the parking in-lieu fee. That exorbitant fee has already killed many of the projects in Palm Springs. Members were reminded to look at preserving and restoring these types of structures in such a way that the public can continue to enjoy them; however, there is a big difference between commercial renovation projects that reflect the needs of today’s market. It’s important not to lose sight of the huge cost of doing business today and if the re-use is not successful, there will be historic buildings sitting vacant. Residential property can continue to be used in it’s original restored state. Flexibility is a necessity in today’s market. Board Members are very pleased with this renovation and it’s integrity. The removal of the existing trees have opened the view into the tower area. Preference would be to have the stairway not look like the existing building. The stairway should be a very light, open structure, with materials sympathetic to the design, but not look like Lloyd Wright designed it. Applicant should bring back the detailing of the stairway, detailing of the overhang, and a new elevator shaft where it touches the historic structure ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: 5. CASE NO. 5.1012-PD-300, TTM 31104: APPLICATION BY NEJAT KOHAN AND HORMOZ RAMY (SPANISH INN) TO RENOVATE THE HOTEL, CONVERT HOTEL TO CONDOMINIUMS, AND CONSTRUCT A NEW CONDOMINIUM BUILDING AT 640 NORTH INDIAN CANYON DRIVE, ZONE R-3, SECTION 11. Staff member Jing Yeo reported that the scope of the application is for a condo conversion at the Spanish Inn which entails renovation of the existing buildings and construction of a new building on the property. The purpose of the Board today is to review the architecture and materials in relation to the historic significance of this site. Whether or not it should be converted to condos will be up to the Planning Commission and City Council and is not a issue here today. This property is not designated, but it is listed on the Historic Resources Survey and qualifies as a Class 3 Historic Site. The application was not included in the packet as it was not entirely accurate. The architect will explain the elevations and the structural details of the project. Skip Goodell, Architect for the renovation, restoration, and addition of the condominiums for the Spanish Inn, explained that this is a Conditional Use Permit application rather than a Planned Development as originally submitted. The existing building is very old and part of it is non-conforming as a two-story structure with a ten-foot property line that should be 24-foot away from the property line. Another two-story part of the building is ten feet from the PL. In order to meet the standards and codes, the application was changed to a CUP for a non-conforming approval of the existing structure with a new building to be added...forming Complex A, Complex B, and Complex C. Complex C is a new conforming structure and features underground parking for 26 vehicles. A 15-foot high living area will be added on top of that structure, but height will not obstruct any mountain views and it conforms to the Spanish character. The revised site plan reflecting the CUP application discards the potential of a street calming in the neighborhood. Original construction of the Spanish Inn started in 1939, stopped for a while, and then progressed a few HSPB Minutes - April 12, 2005 Meeting Παγε 4 οφ 8 years later. It’s use has been apartments and hotel and has gone through bankruptcy and several ownerships, one being Alan Ladd. It is now owned by Nejat Kohan and Hormoz Romy, and financing is in place with sufficient funds to restore and renovate the entire project that keeps within the old Spanish character. The arches, old iron columns, details around the columns, tiles, textures, were looked at to bring unity to the entire project and help identify it as the Spanish Inn. The old flimsy stairways have already been taken down. One of the roofs has been re -roofed using the old tiles with the goal of keeping the character of the old tile roof in tact. Stucco walls have been refinished, re-colored, and waterproofed. Over 300 windows have been replaced keeping in the original style and color. Exterior doors have been replaced. A material board was passed around. There will be similar arches thru-out the project with a solid identifying entry tower/arch. Railings are in bad shape, they will be replaced along with the balcony with old Spanish characteristics of yesteryears. The 32 foot hi x 16 feet wide tower is exempt from the height restrictions because it is a “tower” and an entry element. The tower and arches are for looks only, there is no habitable space in them. More detail will be created over the windows of the existing buildings and across the front, pilasters will be constructed to take away from the “institutional” look of the wall, and to add a look of strength. Goal is to bring Complex A up to the same level of architecture as Complex B, with Complex C also in harmony with “B”. There will be 18 one-bedroom condos, 2 two-bedroom condos, and 18 hotel rooms. There are 23 existing hotel rooms, but when the street calming is approved, additional property will allow the 23 units as they exists today. The condos will participate in the hotel management and re-act as one project. Board questions and concerns were: Why not use landscaping on the Indian Canyon Drive side rather than add architectural features to the original building? What about the towers and restoring to original integrity, why not keep to the concept of the interior “enclave” rather than the massive elements? Focus should be on the architectural style issues, not that it is now being decided that the original structures should have been built differently. Be to the original structures, the decisions made during original construction should be accepted as opposed to second-guessing what should have been more decorative or more interesting. It’s a Class 3 and this Board can’t tell you that nothing can be changed, this Board can only express opinions and reservations. If all the changes discussed are made to this project, there will be no remaining historical integrity or value as nothing will be original. Something beautiful and restored will have historic hues with new importance even though it is not a Class 1 Historic Site. The tower is too overpowering even though it could be very interesting, but may be too overpowering for a really great existing building. This is a great project and the Board is really pleased, but there are a couple of things that may be too strong. If push comes to shove with the budget and something doesn’t get built, what will go that was approved by this Board. Painting such a broad picture is great, but what if budget cuts come into play. Mr. Goodell explained that if the project is to be kept “the way it was” - Complex B has some capitals and tile work; Complex A is a two-story ‘naked’ structure and needs a pilasters; Complex B has a balcony overhang which depicts a connotation of strength, but is actually rather weak. Goal is to “grab” some of the really good elements and include them in finishing the entire project in a historical quality, flavor, and culture. The elements of this project are not being constructed just for marketability - many of them are details from days past – pilasters, tile, stucco, capitals, bases, ironwork – things that are of historic quality. Most of the project is being restored with a few additions that will make the project viable and significant. The roof of the tower will be a designed ceramic tile. It was drawn taller on the renderings than the palm trees, but in actuality the trees are taller. Funding is available and the loan has been increased to respond to today’s market. Tom HSPB Minutes - April 12, 2005 Meeting Παγε 5 οφ 8 Doczi is the landscape architect, Joe Luisi is the historic consultant, and the project will move forward as discussed today. Each category discussed has the necessary funds to do the job. Staff Member Jing Yeo will look at how the towers meet the building codes and heights for clarification. Nejat Kohan, applicant, contractor and part owner of the Spanish Inn, read a July 2003 Management Summary prepared by CRM Tech who performed a historical/archaeological study on two parcels of urban land, one of which is a building and project collectively known as the “Spanish Inn.” (Copy attached for review.) Staff Member Jing Yeo advised that this application is being brought before this Board as a consultation issue of a Class 3 site, it’s listed on the survey. It can be approved by this Board with suggestions, which can be included in the project’s Conditions of Approval. When it gets to the Planning Commission or City Council, they can require it be brought back to HSPB if there are major historic concerns. M/S/C (Hayton/Isermann) approve Case 5.1012-PD-300, TTM 31104 to renovate the Spanish Inn hotel, convert the hotel to condominiums, and construct a new condo building at 640 North Indian Canyon Drive, Zone R-3, Section 1 subject to reconsidering the homogenization of the existing buildings with respect to detailing and restudy the mass and height of the tower and new structure. Roll Call Vote: Board members S. Williams, J. Williams, J. Hayton, J. Isermann, and B. Scott all voted Yes. (5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 0 Abstentions) AGENDA #2: 1081 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE - SEEBURG BUILDING UPDATE: Staff Member Jing Yeo reported that the update today and the Board packet contained a copy of the application and letter from Greg Trousdell itemizing the renovations (attached for reference). Plans were posted and Lance O’Donnell, Architect for the project, was introduced for further details. Mr. O’Donnell, O’Donnell Escalante Architects, reported their office had been hired to prepare documents and to give the project a sense of architectural completeness. Architecturally, the building is being cleaned up, restoring some of the components, .such as painting the facades, sandblasting one of the walls to the natural finish, remove the existing canopy, etc. At the last meeting some Board members felt that it has some architectural character. It will be replaced with a more compatible canopy that will be repeated around the back of the building. An awning on the second level window is being considered, but no decision has been made. It is a light-weight, transparent, steel structure with an underslung metal deck. The mass of the building is being pulled out with variations in colors. The stone wall installed some time in the 1960's will be removed. The heavily tinted glass will be changed to clear glass with glazing to match the glazing above. Some concrete will be removed and a low planter installed. The entry will be moved to the northern side of the building with a small entry type patio. The oval shaped planters would not allow entry into the new doorway, so they will be removed and replaced with rectangular planters. The carport covers are very simple structural steel. The proposed opening of a section upstairs has been reconsidered, focus now will be on the key elements of restoring the building. Member Sidney Williams reported that Stewart Williams did not know who had designed the later additions. HSPB Minutes - April 12, 2005 Meeting Παγε 6 οφ 8 Board concerns are: If removing the canopy brings the building back to it’s original look, then there shouldn’t be a canopy at all. The existing canopy was added in about 1959 which is before some of the Class 1 sites were even built. This canopy was specifically pointed out as one of the significant features in the survey done by Architectural Resources Group from San Francisco. These are very qualified people who make decisions about buildings’ significance. The canopy was not original, but it does have a time element as to when it was added. Several felt it is important to save that canopy because it adds an interesting dimension to the building that the new canopy does not. At the last meeting, the applicant indicated that “if the canopy stays, it stays” - now these plans show it being removed. The issue of the canopy - - everyone talks about that canopy. Robert Imber emphasized that when his tours drive by, all the people remark about that canopy. With the uptown gaining more visibility and more shops going in, the Planning Commission is trying to encourage more store openings on the main street. Some members do not support the move of the entry to the north side of the building. The project is great otherwise. Member S. Williams feels that the direction of the drawings and plans as they are progressing is in keeping with the Clark and Frey design, and that the integrity of the architecture is preserved by this approach and the canopy does not fit the architecture of the building. Mr. O’Donnell indicated that entries to the original structure were entries off the North Palm Canyon side of the building, and uses were more in line with a five and dime shop, pharmacy, or had more to do with retail, and it was more logical to open up to the main street at that time. Because of the changes in that section of town, it is not as much about the walk-in traffic now as it is about the “presence.” Moving the entry to the north side of the building eliminates the need to have several smaller entries and provides a more uniform appearance for the whole building. The existing canopy does have some unique characteristics, but it is not compatible directly with the type of tenant (Palm Springs Modern Homes) and their product is more straight line architecture. Perhaps a place could be found for the canopy, it does not fit with the current plans for the renovation and restoration. Mr. Trousdell pointed out that there will be visibility of people working inside the building because of the windows, the new entry design, and offices being an open-space environment. A second door may be added for exiting purposes. This ties the entrances together and makes more of a formal statement on Via Lola. A lot of the uses in that area are basically offices. Public Comments on this project: Scott Kennedy from Palm Springs Mod Com - - has seen many people taking photos of the canopy, know its not complementary to the Frey design and originality of the building, but it is an endearing little canopy and a lot of people in town care about it. Jade Nelson of OrbitIn Hotel commented that he sees the canopy every day as he walks by it, it is part of that sit, fits the site so well, is part of the cultural beauty and diverse architectural elements in Palm Springs, and likes it’s quality. Hopes that it will be incorporated into the restoration of the building and design. Staff Member Jing Yeo reported that in re-checking through all the building permits, they are very vague. HSPB Minutes - April 12, 2005 Meeting Παγε 7 οφ 8 Greg Trousdell indicated that barring a lot of expense, the owner will probably give the canopy to whoever might want it. Removal of the rock needs to get underway and other work needs to be started. Member J. Williams asked for clarification as to what the Board can actually do about applications involving modification or renovations to properties listed on the Survey. Feels this canopy can be saved and would like to see the applicant work a little harder to try to save that architectural aspect of the building. Approves of everything else, but not removal of the canopy or the moving of the entry to the north side. Jing Yeo reported that all applications for modifications to properties that are listed in the Survey will be brought to the HSP Board for direction, suggestions, etc. The Board’s general consensus is that this new direction is a good one. Perhaps the partners could be persuaded into having the entrance on Palm Canyon Drive, and if there is no solution to saving the existing canopy, it is hoped the owners will offer to save it or give it to someone for future use. There was a “yes” verbal vote from Board Members Hayton, Scott, S. Williams, Jim Isermann; with John Williams voting “no” for removal of the existing canopy. Movement of the entry to the north side is not supported by the Board Members and a re-study is requested. AGENDA ITEM #3: MEDIA OUTREACH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE - BOARD MEMBER JOHN WILLIAMS Member J. Williams suggested press releases for the latest Class 1 Historic Site designation at 272 Camino Buena Vista (Neel House) and another release that the Historic Site Resources Survey is available for purchase at City Hall for $30.00. Staff Member Jing Yeo advised that a press release was issued about the time City Council approved the Survey. Ms. Yeo and Lee Husfeldt will draft another release about the survey. There was a small article in the newspaper about the Neel House being designated when it was approved by the City Council. AGENDA ITEM #4: HISTORIC SITE PLAQUE SURVEY UPDATED - STAFF Staff member Jing Yeo reported that five (5) plaques have now been ordered at a cost of approximately $3,700. The current budget is now depleted so no other purchases can be made during this budget year which ends June 30, 2005. The five (5) plaques are: O’Donnell House, The Willows, Fire Station No. 1, Ingleside Inn, and Ship of the Desert. Ms. English’s plaque is being worked on and Sally McManus from the Historical Society who reported the McCallum Adobe and Miss Cornelia’s House do not have plaques. Board members J. Williams and Chairman Scott will check on those two, there may be plaques and they just need to be moved into a better location. AGENDA ITEM #5: DISCUSSION OF CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (Chapter 8.05 PSMC), DUTIES, ACTIVITIES, ETC. Chairman Scott asked about the 2005/2006 Work program and procedures for dealing with specific properties that are listed on the Historic Survey when they come before the Board, such as the HSPB Minutes - April 12, 2005 Meeting Παγε 8 οφ 8 Seeburg Building, the Spanish Inn, etc. What exactly is the Board’s role, how to say yes or no, etc.? Do other cities have procedures, perhaps the Architectural Resources Group could give direction as to where this Board could obtain procedural language to adopt for future processing of these applications. It is the Board’s understanding that when a listed property comes in with a minor request for replacing windows, roofs, etc. it comes before the HSPB Staff Member and it is processed without coming to the Board. But, when an application is more of a major renovation or modification, the application is brought to this Board. AGENDA ITEM #6: PRESERVATION FOUNDATION - BOARD MEMBER SIDNEY WILLIAMS. Nothing to report. AGENDA ITEM #7: PALM SPRINGS HISTORICAL SOCIETY - MEMBER JIM HAYTON Nothing to report. AGENDA ITEM #8: PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE - MEMBER JOHN WILLIAMS Modern Committee met last Saturday, April 9, 2005. They have established a “watch list” of projects in Palm Springs that includes the Racquet Club, Oasis Hotel, Orchid Tree Inn, Seeburg Building, 1000 North Palm Canyon Building, and the Spa Hotel. ModCom meets every second Saturday of the month and the public is invited to attend. Chairman Scott encouraged ModCom and the Preservation foundation that when they see agenda items such as the Oasis Hotel, members should attend these HSPB meetings and participate. AGENDA ITEM #9: ARCHITECTURAL & DESIGN COUNCIL - PALM SPRINGS DESERT MUSEUM - MEMBER ISERMANN The next lecture from the series is Saturday, April 23 at 6 p.m. Michael Matlzan, L.A. Architect will talk about his work that includes MOMA Queens and Kidspace Children’s Museum in Pasadena. $5.00 for ADC members and $10.00 for the general public. Tickets are available at the Museum’s Box Office. BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS: No board reports. No staff reports or updates. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:56 a.m. The next meeting will be May 10, 2005 at 8:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Loretta Moffett Recording Secretary