HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-13- HPSB minutes Page 1 of 8
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING
Minutes of Regular Meeting -Tuesday, September 13, 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
Year-to-Date
FY 2004-2005
Excused Absences
To-Date
James Hayton, Chair X 1 0
Sidney Williams, Vice Chair 0 0 1
William “Bill” Scott X 1 0
John Williams X 1 0
Jim Isermann X 1 0
Jade Nelson X 1 0
STAFF PRESENT:
Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Loretta Moffett, Senior
Secretary
Edward Robertson, Principal Planner
* * * * *
Chairman Hayton called the meeting to order at 8:17 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, September 08, 2005.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (SCOTT/ISERMANN) 5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 0 Abstentions to approve
the June 14 Minutes as submitted (carried forward from July meeting)
M/S/C/ (SCOTT/ISERMANN) 5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 0 Abstentions to approve the July 12, 2005 Minutes are
submitted.
NOTE: Audio Cassettes and DVDs of HSPB Meetings are available for review. Cassettes will be kept for six months
and then discarded. DVDs of the meetings will be kept indefinitely. Minute format is more action related than verbatim.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: Chairman Hayton no comments until Agenda Item #1.
PUBLIC HEARING: N O N E
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS:
6. CASE 3.2797 – APPLICATION BY ROBERT KUPERMAN TO RESTORE THE BUILDING
FACADE TO ITS ORIGINAL LOOK INCLUDING REMOVAL OF WINDOW PODS, FILL IN
EXISTING WINDOW TO MATCH BUILDING, ENLARGE STOREFRONT WINDOWS, AND
ADD CANOPY AT 849 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE C-1, SECTION 10.
(PROPERTY LISTED ON CITYWIDE HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY).
Staff member Edward Robertson, Principal Planner, presented the applicant’s project.
Page 2 of 8
Applicant Bob Kuperman advised the Board that they are trying to restore the building as close to it’s
original condition as when built (circa 1962), remove three “pods” that are not part of the
original structure, clean-up the front of the building, fill-in an existing window, enlarge
storefront window to about 20 feet, match it to the facade, all to make for better retail space.
The existing exterior brick-work will be matched. Signage will be 6' x 6' and applied to the
building. Color of building will be white. The canopy will be bronze anodized and will
extend about three (3) feet from the building to provide a more modern “Palm Springs look.”
The existing rock columns will remain. Window glass will offer a turquoise-colored
background. The flag pole will remain. Will try to remove the concrete additions, but if not,
will use them as planters. Usage to be retail furniture, antique, accessory store.
Board member Scott read the significant description of the building from the 2004 Historic Site
Survey. ...”modernistic commercial building once served as the Post Office in 1962....”
Feels it’s important for the Board to see the colors. If owner wants it designated as an Historic Site,
would need to apply.
It was pointed out that the building is so far from being in original condition that it probably would not
qualify for designation or plaquing.
Applicant asked about signage and if they had to come back to the Board. They were advised that
the Board has no control over the signage, but Board asked them to work with staff for
appropriate signage application.
M/S/C (J.Williams/Scott) 5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 0 Abstentions to approve Case 3.2797 application
as presented subject to presentation of colors for staff approval.
7. CASE 3.1277 - APPLICATION BY ADAM BURNETT TO REPAINT BUILDING AT 369
NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE CBD, SECTION 15. (GTE BUILDING HISTORIC
DESIGNATION NO. 26).
Staff member Edward Robertson, Principal Planner, presented the project application. Applicant
not present, project moved to later in the meeting when applicant arrives.
AGENDA ITEM # 1 : DEMOLITION OF RESIDENCE AT 816 NORTH PATENCIO ROAD (This part of the meeting is printed as close to verbatim as possible as a question arose after the meeting.)
Staff report handed out to Board before meeting was opened.
Staff member Edward Robertson reported that staff had reviewed and walked thru the project. It
has been extensively remodeled several times from build date of 1937, very little of the project is
original, and most renovations were done without permits so documentation is not available. The
applicant wishes to demolish all structures on the property with the exception of the tennis court and
pool to construct a new residence.
Chairman Hayton reported that he represented the Board in viewing this property. The building
does not appear to have any relevance to what is being done, since it’s been modified so many
times. The landscaping, hardscape, and grounds are stunning. He concurs with the staff
recommendation outlined in the report.
Member J. Williams indicated that the report was just given to the Board this a.m. and no one has
really had an opportunity to review it. He asked about actual square footage of the house.
Page 3 of 8
Applicant Jim Cioffi, Architect for the project, explained to the Board that the 3,783 square footage
is probably the original and the 4,564 is the current structure. Permits were not obtained for the
1974 remodel, so the Assessor would not have a record of what additional footage was added.
Chairman Hayton pointed out a letter from the former owner indicating the current structure is not
even recognizable by her now because there have been so many renovations.
Board member Scott has lived in that neighborhood for some time and there is some history about
that property being called the Maybelline House as it was supposedly built by the Maybelline
fortune. It is a two-story house and if it is demolished, all that can be replaced is a one-story house
under current ordinance. There were a few two-story houses before the code laws were enacted,
and it would be grand-fathered in if the house was kept with the second floor. But, if it is
demolished, they would have to start all over. Everyone needs to understand that.
Jim Cioffi explained that he toured the property yesterday with Jim Hicks who grew up in this
neighborhood, his grandfather built some structures in the neighborhood, and the Alva Hicks estate
was mentioned several times at the meeting last week, but there is no substance to that theory that
Mr. Hicks had anything to do with this property. He theorized that it is possible before he was born
that his grandfather may have worked on it or built it, but he does not think so. The property next
door was referred to by someone as being the Hicks estate and it is not. The large estate to the
north was owned by George Cameron who built The Cameron Center in the late 50's and 60's and
remodeled that property extensively at that time as well.
Board member J. Williams commented that...”we’re presented a packet of information as we walk in
here today to make a decision to demolish a 1937 structure. Which may or may not be significant
as most of the Board members have not had a chance to see it. This is a Class 3 Historic Site, and
there is great concern.” This Board needs to be very careful about allowing buildings to be
demolished - - the purpose of this Board is to take a look at these sites and make a decision. We
do not really know what’s there, have not seen the property, nor do we have full information.” He
doesn’t really feel qualified to make a decision today. In future, this information needs to be
included in Board packets so that members have the weekend to review the information.
Chairman Hayton viewed this property with staff and indicated that he is comfortable with approving
the demolish after viewing this property, but only having one perspective in touring the property
does have it limitations (member Sidney Williams was not able to be there). The part that is
significant are the grounds – in this instance, they are as important as the building.
Board member John Williams said it is one of the grand old estates in Las Palmas and this is a
fairly hasty decision for the Board to make when five of the Board members have not seen the
property or project. Don’t want to hold up progress, but pictures show wood beam ceilings, and
other defining features.....maybe they aren’t original, but again, maybe they are.
Chairman Hayton indicated that the applicant is looking for a quick decision because the property is
in escrow and he’s not sure the applicant would be comfortable with this Board taking more time,
but also not sure of their requirements....can this be extended to the next meeting or would this
negate their purchase deal.
Mr. Cioffi explained that they did not want anyone to feel uncomfortable with this situation, but the
committee was asked to review it, they were there last week, Mr. Hayton was there, the other
committee member could not be there due to illness in the family, so the property was reviewed
with the committee and staff in good faith. Mr. Cioffi stated, “As a resident of over 50 years and a
professional architect in Palm Springs, there is no saving grace to this property. The grounds are
HSPB Meeting Minutes Tuesday
September 13, 2005
Page 4 of 8
magnificent and most of that will be preserved by the new owner as it was a primary feature of the
purchase. The home itself is not recognizable as anything but a remodeled 1970's mess. Mr.
Hicks, who is very involved in historic preservation here and a long-time resident agreed yesterday
that the house is just awful.”
Board member J. Williams indicated his respect for Mr. Cioffi and his architectural expertise, and
going on his word that there are no saving features, assuming the Board gets to that point, he will
go along with the Board. But in the future, the Board needs to have information in advance when a
decision such as this is requested.
Chairman Hayton explained that when one Board member cannot attend such a viewing in future,
another Board member will be notified. If the applicant is comfortable and it does not affect their
time frame and/or escrow, otherwise, this Board has had the opportunity, as far as the applicant is
concerned, to have inspected this property and enough information has been supplied so that they
can move forward and stated “I am comfortable moving forward today.”
Board member Scott indicated that Chairman Hayton has viewed the property with City staff and is
comfortable with Staff’s recommendation that property be demolished. But, procedurally,
documentation should have been presented to this Board earlier for better review and information.
It is not correct for us to carry this to next month’s meeting.
Board member J. Williams agreed, but wanted to make a point about better procedures. It’s
extremely frustrating to be given information and asked to make a decision in 15 minutes to
demolish a 1937 structure. The Board needs to be more involved in this process.
Board member Jade Nelson asked what will replace the demolished structure.
Mr. Cioffi indicated that no decision has been made as to the replacement, but it will be a
single-family dwelling. The lot is 1.52 acres and will not be subdivided.
(M/S/C/ Scott/Hayton) 5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 0 Abstentions) that Agenda Item #1 - Demolition of
residence at 816 North Patencio Road be approved.
AGENDA ITEM #2: MEDIA OUTREACH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE - MEMBER JOHN
WILLIAMS. Board member Williams reported that an article written and placed in the newspaper by Lee
Husfeldt about the availability of the 2004 Historic Site Survey about a month ago resulted in the
sale of about 25 surveys.
AGENDA ITEMS #3: HISTORIC SITE PLAQUE SURVEY UPDATE - STAFF Northing to report.
AGENDA ITEM #3: DISCUSSION OF CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
(Chapter 8.05 PSMC), DUTIES, ACTIVITIES, ETC. Nothing to report.
AGENDA ITEM #4: PALM SPRINGS PRESERVATION FOUNDATION - VICE CHAIR SIDNEY
WILLIAMS. Board member not in attendance.
HSPB Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 13,
2005
Page 5 of 8
AGENDA ITEM #5: PALM SPRINGS HISTORICAL SOCIETY - MEMBER JIM HAYTON At such time there is an issue regarding a home where the history is needed, that would be a good
time for staff and this Board to contact the Society for their input and information.
AGENDA ITEM #6: PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE - MEMBER JOHN WILLIAMS Board member J. Williams reported that ModCom has two functions coming up - a luncheon on
Saturday, October 1, from noon to 2 p.m. the Lifetime Achievement Award and 2005 Architectural
Awards to be held at the Coachella Valley Savings Building #2 (a 1956 E. Stewart Williams
building) currently occupied by Washington Mutual Bank, cost is $35. Saturday, October 15,
ModCom will hold its 2005 Home Tour, cost is $95. Both are available on website at
www.psmodcom.com.
AGENDA ITEM #7: ARCHITECTURAL & DESIGN COUNCIL-P.S. ART MUSEUM - MEMBER
ISERMANN Board member Isermann advised there was nothing to report today.
BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS: Staff member Edward Robertson reported a Board and Commission Training program to be
presented for all Commissioners and Board members on Thursday, September 29 at 2 p.m. in the
Council Chamber to focus on the Brown Act, Political Reform Act, Conflict of Interest, Ethics of
Political Officials, Public Official Lobbying, Meeting and Parliamentary Procedures. The meeting is
a must for all new Commissioners and Board members. RSVP to Cindy Berardi, 760-323-8355.
Copies of this notice were distributed to all Board members in attendance.
Chairman Hayton returned the meeting to Architectural Approval #7.
CASE 3.1277 - APPLICATION BY ADAM BURNETT TO REPAINT BUILDING AT 369 NORTH
PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE CBD, SECTION 15. (GTE BUILDING HISTORIC DESIGNATION
NO. 26). (This part of the meeting is reported as close to verbatim as possible as questions arose after the meeting.)
Staff member Edward Robertson reported that contact had not been made with the applicant, but
staff member Michael Blumson, Assistant Planner, stated that staff is not sure as yet of the scope
of the entire project. Materials were passed around for Broad review re the awning that will cover
the side staircase, colors of the proposed repaint of the building. Staff requested the applicant do
a photo simulation of the paint colors, and applicant is asking for a color recommendation from the
Board from a selection of three various shades of brown, since the green has been ruled out. The
original color of the building is unknown, it is currently white.
Board members were concerned about the original color of the building, it is a Historic Site, and
before a decision is made it is important to know the original color. One Board member stopped at
site on way to today’s meeting, painting is already being scraped. He pointed out that it would be
very difficult to determine the original color. A specialist would have to be hired to test each paint
particle/scraping – assuming there hasn’t been a new plaster job to the front of the building.
Members were also concerned about the time frame in not wanting to hold up the project for
HSPB Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 13,
2005
Page 6 of 8
another month, some felt the building should be painted the same color as it is now. It was
suggested that perhaps Sally McManus of the Historical Society might recall the original color or
may have a photo on file showing the original color. It was further stated that the Board should be
receptive to the applicant’s wishes so that it serves to make a successful enterprise in this location.
Two Board members had problems with all colors submitted, unless one of the colors was original
to the building.
Planning Director, Craig Ewing, asked the Board if the original color, regardless of what it is, is
acceptable? If that is the case and staff or applicant is able to determine the original color, that
could be Board approval. This might allow expeditious processing of the project. If the original
color cannot be determined then it will remain in the Board’s purview.
Board members were also concerned about the canopy and it’s location on the building. The
currently proposed canopy is an addition and would be installed on the north side of the building.
Based on the drawing, a canopy is shown going over the stairwell which is not appropriate unless
there was one there originally. Such an addition would obscure the architectural design.
A subcommittee was suggested and John Williams, Bill Scott, and Jim Isermann volunteered to
serve and work with staff and applicant regarding the paint colors and canopy. Staff was asked to
try to determine the original color as quickly as possible.
Board member Scott pointed out the issue about the landscaping re the project at 816 North
Patencio Road and read that...”neither the Board nor the staff has the authority to compel the
owners to keep the landscaping on the property...” This is also being dealt with on the General
Plan Update as to whether landscaping has any kind of ordinance or law that controls what people
can do with landscaping on their private property. This Board should discuss this at some future
time.
Board was concerned that no photos or materials were available that documented the original
structure, and the Board does not have time to do that research. The Board needs to be provided
with that type of information is they are expected to make expeditious decisions relative to
demolitions, re-painting, etc; and applicants need to be prepared that this type of process may take
longer. Applicants also need to show up at these meetings. Normally, if the applicant does not
show up, the project is not heard. Perhaps there is a brochure that applicants are given so show
what this Board requires in order to expedite processes such as heard today. Waiting a full month
can make or break a deal, but applicants and staff need to provide the Board enough time and
information to make good decisions.
Planning Director Ewing explained that staff is needed to do that kind of research, and Planning
Services is down three positions, but now in midst of trying to staff-up. It will then be necessary to
train staff what to look for. If the Board’s general position is to go to original colors, we need to
know that so staff is trained to reflect the Board’s values. The issue on Case 3.1277 regarding the
re-painting and canopy at 369 North Palm Canyon Drive - - will this be coming back to this Board
at the next meeting for final action or is the Board’s final action today?
Board member J. Williams recommended that the sub-committee be given the authority to approve
the colors.
HSPB Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 13,
2005
Page 7 of 8
It was pointed out just what the Board has jurisdiction over - -“just the facade of the building and
any additions should be in keeping with the original design.”
Planning Director Ewing suggested that the Board needs to make an approval at some point of this
project to cover procedural and legal issue so it will be known who did what and when the decision
of the Board was actually taken. He suggested that the Board approve this project today subject to
final confirmation of the canopy and colors by the sub-committee.
Board member Scott pointed out that there are two restaurants going into the building, they have
already been before the Architectural Advisory Committee who sent it back to HSPB, and to delay
this project another month could be perceived as Palm Springs being unfriendly to business. The
owner needs to get on with this project.
Planning Director Ewing suggested....”Approve the project subject to final confirmation of the colors
and canopy by staff in consultation with the sub-committee.” In this way, it will not come back to
the Board, the staff and committee will then pick the colors and canopy. This action would be final
today if submitted in this format; otherwise, it will come back next meeting.
More discussion was called for by Board member Isermann.
Board member J. Williams reminded the Board that time is critical, disappointed that the applicant is
not in attendance. There is an existing canopy on the front of the building and another canopy on
the north side and back is not a problem.
Board member Isermann stated that his first choice in colors would be the original color if that can
be determined. He is not in favor of the additional canopy which could lead to further restoration
work, not trying to slow down the process of opening the businesses, but applicant chose to open a
business in a Class 1 Historic Site and that building itself is a draw for any establishment going in
that location. Does not feel there is an advantage to obscuring or somehow diminishing a Class 1
Historic Site. It’s okay for the subcommittee to make the determination, but as a member of the
committee wants everyone to be clear how he feels just having the information now available.
Chairman Hayton has an issue with the large canopy with a “lobster” on it and asked if that will be
recovered or how it will effect the new canopy?
M/S/C (J. Williams/Scott) to approve the colors and canopy of Case. 3.1277 subject to final review
and approval by staff in consultation with the subcommittee of Board members Scott, J. Williams,
and Isermann. Roll call of Board: Members Isermann, Nelson, J. Williams, Scott, Hayton voted
Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 0 Abstentions.
ADDITIONAL BOARD AND STAFF DISCUSSION:
Board member J. Williams read from the front page of the staff report regarding the house approved
for demolition at 816 North Patencio....(fourth paragraph, second sentence)...”Historic integrity is
defined as “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical
characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period”, and asked where the
quote comes from? He questions that quote because almost every residence in Palm Springs that
was built before 1945 has had changes, additions, and probably illegal additions - - still
uncomfortable using that as a rationale of tearing down a house. Need to look at more than
HSPB Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 13,
2005
Page 8 of 8
whether it has changes and additions and illegal additions - - that would probably qualify every
house older than 1945 to be demolished.
Director Ewing agreed that any quote should be referenced, especially if it is code related, providing
section numbers, etc. Difficulties being faced and value judgment will have to be made at some
point as to how far a project has gone in terms of remodeling so that it no longer has historic
authenticity. Staff could provide all the definitions in the world, but it will eventually come down to a
judgment among the members of the Board to say...”this is not far enough, not a big enough
change yet for the Board to abandon it’s historic designation”....or it has changed too much. This is
what the Board was asked to do on this property at 816 North Patencio Road and this may be
something the Board will be asked to do continually to know ‘how much change is too much
change.’ What may need to be explored is what happens when the Board authorizes demolition of
a structure that may have a few historic elements, but not enough to preserve it. What options
does historic preservation talk about, such as doing a photo survey before the building is taken
down. This can be kept in the archives to take advantage of in terms of tools for future use.
Discussion followed regarding various items covered earlier in this meeting - - making last minute
decisions, not enough information, time to do research, etc. It was further noted that when a
member of a committee cannot attend a site inspection, that person needs to notify staff who will
work with the Chair to find an alternate, so inspections, site visits, etc. are made by the right number
of people.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 a.m. The next meeting will be
October 11, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
Loretta Moffett
Recording Secretary