HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-08- HPSB minutes Page 1 of 16
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING Minutes of Regular Meeting -Tuesday, November 14, 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 3 0
Sidney Williams, Vice Chair X 2 1
William “Bill” Scott X 3 0
John Williams X 3 0
Jim Isermann X 3 0
Jade Nelson X 3 0
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Loretta Moffett, Senior Secretary Jing Yeo, 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, October 6, 2005.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Frank Tysen of 175 South Cahuilla, Palm Springs addressed the Board saying he feels we are in an extremely crucial period of Palm Springs history. Developers are descending like locusts and the role of this Board is extremely important. He has some real concerns, and if he sounds critical, it may upset some, but is offering comments trying to improve the operations of the Board. Deeply concerned that after 20 years in Palm Springs and 40 years involvement - - this is the first time he has testified before this Board and hopes for leniency in that he might run over his three-minute allotment. Three issues to bring up: (1) Procedural issue in particular the Orchid Tree Hotel - - the Tennis Club neighborhood is now confronted with a detailed plan by the developer to eradicate a good part of the Orchid Tree and replace it with starkly modern structures. In essence this will destroy a good part of the neighborhood feeling. The developer’s plan is based on a form of discussion with this Board - - specifically a walk-thru by two HSPB members. This made the developer feel secure that it was ok to tear down a good part of the Orchid Tree. The builder presented a historic survey to this Board. The Spanish Style buildings are well over 50 years old and another building is almost 100 years old and are not considered significant because of alternations. The Ordinance establishing the HSP Board specifically does not consider interiors, but exterior changes are considered. The Albert Frey building which had been moved onto the property from another location also has had a lot of alterations, but somehow that passed muster. If all this was applied seriously, then the Kaufmann house would have been gone because there are extensive alterations to that structure. The Ordinance was discussed at length with a staff member of the Los Angeles Conservancy who indicated that developers are trying to minimize the importance of certain buildings. The Historic Preservation Ordinance is clear that the construction should not be impairing the architectural value of the surrounding area. The big issues are that all this “go ahead” occurred without due process, without proper procedure, no solicitation of public input, no public hearings, and no communication with the neighborhood. Communication to the neighborhood came well after all this had been done, and by that time, the developer already had his plans in place. The whole spirit of the ONI (Office of Neighborhood Improvement) is that the developers give early notice of what goes on to the community. That was violated here. Essentially the Board signed a death warrant to the Orchid Tree. If the developer had not been encouraged, he probably would have gone away and another developer might have saved more of the Orchid Tree than is the intention today. Mr. Tysen requested that the Board seriously deal with the issue of informal discussion with the developers and make sure that such does not lead to such situations as being faced today in saving the Orchid Tree. What do you do when new evidence is presented and the developer comes with an official application?
Page 2 of 16
The second issue of concern is having the Board become more pro-active. In the last week or two a gorgeous 1920's two-story Spanish Revival estate in Las Palmas at 816 North Patencio was torn down without a ripple in the community and no one about knew it. It has been heard that the property is to be subdivided into several homes – another wonderful piece of Palm Springs history is gone! We’re about to lose the another building and during the whole learning process of hearings about this project to replace it, never heard a peep out of the Board to protect this building. Spoke to Architectural Resources in San Francisco recently and they made it very clear that one of their recommendations was that many other properties were to be nominated and that this is only the first step. Given the shortage of staff and money, it is suggested that the Board Members do an emergency drive through Palm Springs and put a number of these other properties on the document so that we don’t keep losing out buildings. Finally, Mr. Tysen urges more balance on the Board for the future. Believes there is some imbalance and has heard from the community and that the Board is heavily dominated by Modernist - not sure there is any strong effort on behalf of this Board to preserve the original architecture of Palm Springs. This is perhaps one reason the Frey building was given a better shake than the other Orchid Tree Spanish buildings? For the next appoint, it is important to bring the Board more into balance and bring some people on board who are very fond of the original Spanish architecture. The wonderful character of Palm Springs must be continued he looks forward to some reform along those lines. Suggest a more humane time to meet than 8:15 a.m. – this time is for golfers and dairy farmers. Peter Moruzzi, 5666 San Lorenzo Road, President of Palm Springs Modern Committee, stated that there are a number of items on this Agenda to talk about and would like to talk about them when they come up - what is the procedure? Chairman Hayton explained that the issues could be addressed as they come up during the meeting and that there is a three minute limit for each subject. Peter Moruzzi continued with an overall comment - - a letter was sent on behalf of the Palm Springs Modern Committee (I am the President) suggesting that the Board and other preservation organizations, such as the P.S. Preservation Foundation and the Historical Society, work with this Board in a study session to discuss a number of issues and deal with them in a broader picture that relate to the Secretary of Interior Standards applicable to historic properties, rehabilitation, restoration, re-creation, etc. It’s something that can’t be covered in a public meeting such as this, has to be done in study sessions where you can get into the nitty gritty of details since you’re dealing with the issues all the time. Many of the issues on this current Agenda relate to rehabilitation, re-creation, restorations, etc. and there are specific differences between all of those types of approaches. Demolition creep - as termed by ModCom - is the situation that occurs when a project goes before this Board, through the planning process, and is then issued a permit to do a certain amount of demolition of a historic property. Then during the process of demolishing a portion, much more gets demolished. This will be discussed further regarding the Colony Palms Hotel which was granted a permit to do partial demolition and at this point has been razed to the ground - the north wing of the building is gone. Only the roof was to be removed for the work to be done. Are there any penalties for this kind of action, there is very little follow-up as far as someone from staff from building or planning who goes out to make sure additional demolition beyond the permits does not occur. This should also be discussed in a study session as it will affect many properties. The third item, which is very good news for us here today, is how the Historic Resources Survey would be dealt with by the City’s Planning department and how it would address alterations and additions that come before the Planning department. This can be discussed in another agenda item later regarding the ATM at the Washington Mutual. To summarize ModCom’s thoughts, they received a very encouraging letter from Craig Ewing, the new Director of Planning, and it is very exciting to see the newfound willingness to work with organizations such as ModCom and other members of the community in dealing with complicated preservation issues. The bottom line is encouraging that this new spirit of working together has come into the Planning department in a very strong way at the leadership level. Robert Imber, owner/operator of The Tour Company, read from his notes, and referenced a letter sent some months ago to this Board by Eric Lloyd Wright, son of Lloyd Wright the original architect of the Oasis Hotel and Tower in downtown Palm Springs, and grandson of Frank Lloyd Wright, Sr. Mr. Imber thanked everyone for their often unheralded and difficult jobs done by the Board Members to ensure the quality so treasured in Palm Springs. By word of mouth his business more than doubles every year in addition to a worldwide publication focused on Palm Springs Architecture, primarily mid-century, but
Page 3 of 16
all architecture attracting the quality tourist dollars. These people eat, shop, stay in local hotels, and some groups stay many days. Some groups include architectural university students from other countries, groups from art museums in other states, the annual tour for owners of aircraft manufacturers, and other larger investor consortiums for technology companies - - these are just a few of the many groups that visit Palm Springs for its architecture. Each January Mr. Imber’s firm conducts an annual 4-day tour for 25 or more from the Smithsonian Institution. Two weeks ago 75 members of the Frank Lloyd Wright Conservancy were here for a pre-conference to their L.A. conference and included major scholars of Frank Lloyd Wright (FLW), owners of significant FLW homes nationwide, former head of Falling Water, editor of Field Guide to American Houses. This editor plans to return and expand the book as she was not aware of the quantity of important architecture in Palm Springs. The Oasis Hotel adaptive re-use project - the remaining elements of the 1923 Lloyd Wright Oasis Hotel as seen from Palm Canyon Drive are the most intact, tangible records of this eminently important early 20th century American structure. To many others thru-out, it is obvious and imperative the Oasis Hotel project retain original architectural components which are the very reason for which it is valued and important. Must interject to strongly applaud the owners and architect for the historic references and nature of this adaptive re-use project. However, in a discussion with the architect about six months ago, I challenged him to find an alternative to the exterior stairwell then proposed for the north facade side of what was Robann’s Jewelers going up to the upper level. That stairwell is in opposition to several of the ten Secretary of the Interior Federal Standard Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Not aware if this discussion has resulted in moving or removal of the stairway. Pleased to see the new sign at the site says...”Architecture by Lloyd Wright”. The northern elevation from the street thru to the bell tower expresses the will and essence of the hotel that once stood there on nearly six acres. There should be no question that the entire northern elevation should be respected and retained in tact. Numerous experts spoken to believe there are alternatives to where the stairwell might be placed. Sincerely applauds this commitment of the owners and architects to honor the past of the Oasis Hotel. It serves our community, growing tourism, food service, economic needs, and growth. Chairman Hayton thanked those who spoke and reminded everyone here and watching the meeting on television that it really is critical for the public to get involved. The Board Members donate their time to try to save as many of the beautiful buildings as possible, and today implores today’s commentators to return along with other community members. The community wants to see a lot of these buildings preserved and/or have concerns about what comes before this Board. Please keep in mind that City staff is extremely busy and burdened with numerous projects, very lucky in Palm Springs to have the resources and focus on saving buildings and keeping the character alive. THERE WERE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (S. Williams / B. Scott - 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent, 0 Abstentions) to approve the October 11, 2005 Minutes as 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. Minutes format is more action related than verbatim except
where special interest or special meetings are involved. Because of the special interests and importance of the projects on the
November 8, 2005 Agenda, these Minutes have been transcribed about 90% verbatim.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: No report and not able to attend the meeting on the Brown Act presentation and asked if an update is needed on that? Director Craig Ewing reported he was not able to attend the meeting but to follow up on one of the comments from Mr. Tysen, it would be appropriate for anyone who has had communications regarding a project via a site visit or discussions with applicants or other affected parties to disclose that information early in discussions on any project where you have decision making authority. That is one of the responsibilities each Board Member has is to let the public know about any other ex parte communications on any project. Board Member Bill Scott asked for a clarification about issues on the Orchid Tree Inn...he and Jim Isermann were the two members of the sub-committee, met at the direction of the staff, and reported back to the Board. Chairman Hayton reported that he was the sole person to inspect the property on Patencio being part of a two-member sub-committee, and he also reported back to the Board.
Page 4 of 16
Director Ewing explained that the Board made their decisions and there was some follow-up direction. It’s appropriate if there is still any discretion or decision to be made on the project(s), that the Board member disclose any communications. If this is a follow-up and there is no further action required, prudence would suggest that it be reported so that it gets into the record. Chairman Hayton reported that these issues were noticed to be in the works and the Board did have some issues with just having one member inspect the property. However, that isn’t exactly how that played out because there were members of the public and architects who reviewed the Patencio property with a lot of sensitivity before any approval for demolition was issued. PUBLIC HEARING: N O N E ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: 5. Case 5.1076 - Application by Oasis Plaza for the adaptive re-use of a hotel to a restaurant and the demolition of two (2) buildings for a parking lot at 121 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zone CBD, Section 15. (Oasis Tower Class 1 Site #10) Staff member Jing Yeo, Principal Planner, reported this application is by Oasis Plaza and the site plan is posted for review. This building is tucked in between the Stewart Williams’ commercial building and Mercado Plaza. The elevations are also posted showing the proposal for the four major elevations. This project is for the adaptive re-use of the Oasis Hotel which has not been in operation for some time and basically asks for preservation of the actual concrete structure of the building. What is being replaced are the doors, windows, some of the wood that has deteriorated, the roof that has been changed to a standing roof - material choices are meant to allow re-use of the building and to prolong it’s life. Excepts are two or three areas where saw cutting has been proposed, one for a new door and another for an opening into a new kitchen addition - both areas pointed out on the drawings displayed. The proposal is for demolition of two existing buildings shown in the reduced site plan (buildings pointed out on the displayed site plans). One building is a one-story called the West Casita that was built with the original Oasis Hotel complex and the other was built much later - these two are to be replaced with a surface parking lot to serve the restaurant and building to the north. A Historical Assessment and Evaluation of Character Defining Features was prepared and included in the Board packet. An addendum was added at the end of that report specific to the west casitas and evaluation of significance. It is important that the Board review all the materials provided in their packets. To summarize the report, it categorizes the features of primary significance, secondary, cursory and modifications defined as compatible and/or intrusive. The primary and secondary features should be preserved. The modifications have their various categorization. At the back of the report there is an evaluation of the proposal in relation to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation that compares them with whatever standards the consultant determined that the proposal met, which should help in terms of making a decision on this particular application. This Board is being asked today to make a recommendation regarding this project within the Board’s purview as it relates to the historic significance and integrity of the projects. Board Member Isermann asked about the saw-cutting of the concrete and if there was also concrete being removed at the top of the proposed stairway. Board Member Scott clarified that the Board is also being asked the right to demolish the rear two buildings – those west buildings are listed on the Historic Resources Survey so they are a little more significant than just being “extra” buildings. Staff member Jing Yeo explained that the Board is being asked to consider the project as a whole which is the rehabilitation of the Oasis building (front building) and the demolition of the west rear buildings. David Christian, Architect, explained that the project has not significantly changed from the last presentation to this Board. The general character is essentially the same – the ground floor will be “open plaza” with dining areas and courtyard in the rear. There will be transition areas to display photographs and history of the original building and examples of Lloyd Wright’s work. The concrete through-out the building has been looked upon as “sacred” and the developer is trying to make very few saw-cuts or modifications. One of the saw-cuts takes the high existing window opening down to the ground. Another comes through the kitchen wall in the back and one on the second floor to facilitate traffic from the elevator to the restaurant. There is a angled stem wall to be brought down about four feet. Those are the four saw-cuts into the concrete. A lot of the original wood through the building will be replaced as it is heavily deteriorated and modified. The nice detailing in the Tower has been
Page 5 of 16
completely boxed in and this is being reconstructed based on old photographs. The roof material was originally thin cedar shingles that only lasted a short time. The new roof will be “patina” copper shingles that will be in the “spirit” of the original, but will not come apart over time. Many of the other elevations will be patterned after the original photographs. Color scrapings were done down to the original concrete, very hard to tell original colors, but appears to have been a pale peach color which will be a by-color of the building and a pale medium olive. No color photographs of the original building were found. The elevator is inside the connection of the Stewart Williams building and the FLW building. One change to the stairway is that it is now more in the character with the original structure’s details. The original direction was to make the stairway stand apart from the original building, now it seems to be more characteristic of the original so that it’s not something that “jumps” out at you in an extreme manner. There is not enough critical mass of the structure for retail, so the use is more conducive to restaurant use. Fire code dictates that if there is a stair in the back there has to be a stairway in front to get people out of the building. The main problem concerns people needing to see a way to get upstairs...if they can’t see an easy way up, they will not go out of their way to look, and that restaurant probably won’t survive. The Tower stairs will be of the same design as originally constructed and are accessed only from the second floor. The landscape plan is to give two experiences: the first to be from Palm Canyon Drive plant forms that will give a low-canopy and will not obstruct the view of the Tower. The back area will be in the realm of Queen Palms ringing the area and lower areas will be smaller shots of colors to climb the base of the Palms....to give the appearance of being there for many years. The upper floor will have a small surrounding planter conducive to private dining or private parties. Most of the tree forms will be in large pot containers so growth is contained. Project will try to bring this property back to life in a way that is as sensitive as possible to the original building and maintain the historic value in a way that it will succeed. Chairman Hayton explained that this is an important adaptive re-use project of a heavily deteriorated building. The question becomes what will be the end result? Will it be both profitable and retain some of the original feel. This project may require some compromise and this needs to be realized by those involved in any decision making. Board Member Isermann asked about the north elevation and that it appears to show more than three or four feet being cut at the top of the staircase. The staircase will probably be the most contentious issue of the project and the Board needs as much information as possible regarding the staircase. The character defined features show that the view down the alley is mentioned several times as being preserved, by removing that huge storefront, this allows an unobstructed view that is breathtaking. The staircase may take up the space of what the storefront was. David Christian explained that the stem wall is higher than what the height of the stair will be. If that wall is left, it will block more of the view and does not change the view of the Tower. Two things have been done in the re-design of the stairway: (1) gotten away from the glass rail; (2) the new wood element is more in character with the original wood lattice. The rail detail needs to be changed so that it is currently acceptable to the building code and will be done in the character of the original building, but will be discernible from what was original. Chairman Hayton asked about “phasing” of the project – what needs to be moved forward first and what follows? Could one item move forward with the Board’s approval and the other item be re-studied? The Board needs to really be able to visualize the end result.... could a computer-generated rendering be prepared to show the end result? David Christian explained that if the buildings in the rear cannot be demolished, there will be no place to park, so that will stop everything. That’s the reason for this joint application. Board Member John Williams asked about the retail space that was Robann’s (no longer there) and is the plan still to expand that area? What is the wall separating the old Robann’s from the new Robann’s. It was mentioned that the third floor deck will be for private parties - - when there are no private parties, will that be available for guest tours? If the stairway is flush with the building, would that open up more of the view corridor? David Christian answered several questions posed above and advised that the developer will be looking for a new tenant; however there is a possibility of some renovations/expansion for retail business. The wall separation was part of the original building, but had been enclosed some time ago. One of the things that has never happened and may be a tremendous opportunity here in Palm Springs
Page 6 of 16
is to have a building that celebrates all the history of Palm Springs. This is the building that would do that very nicely and it will have historical displays on all levels to encourage interaction with the public. There will be access to the Tower, but it starts on the second floor and may not be convenient, but can’t imagine that the restauranteur would decline access. There is no ground floor access to the Tower and the premises will be secured when closed. The view corridor is not really impaired by the angle of the stairway. Board Member Nelson asked what steps are being taken in the materials to withstand the volume of high traffic? David Christian explained that the materials will be similar to “period” correct, such as the tile will have the look of “period” correct tile. Restaurants get beaten up, but these materials are substantial. Trying to take a “snapshot in time” of the building which was such a focal point of the 40's culture. The paint will be lime-based so after it’s been up a year or so, there will be slight modulations in the color – very subtle but gives a richness to the appearance. Board Member Scott asked about the facade on the Robann’s side – under the owner’s assessment, it indicates there were major modifications to the original storefront and the recommendation is to remove the intrusions and restore to original. The color is rather shocking and not what would be thought of as the original color - has there been a historical assessment done of the original paint colors. It’s almost assured the wood was painted, but perhaps not the concrete, but the Lloyd Wright building should not be painted the color of the Stewart Williams’ building. Mr. Christian explained that while going through this application submittal, Robann’s decided not to renew their lease. The owner is now looking for a new tenant and not knowing who that tenant or their demands may be, this has not been addressed. This HSP Board will be re-approached when the new tenant and their requirements are known. Without the tenant, trying to put the stairway inside that space would be extremely difficult, almost to the point of having to make it an open air situation. Trying to work the stairway in there, more of the existing wall would have to be removed and there is a headroom issue as well. This would be taking an original shop or retail area and turning it into a stairwell. The scrapings of all the paint indicate a multitude of the buildings being painted since construction. It’s a valid point that the buildings not be the same color. Vice Chair Sidney Williams asked about the stairway detail being horizontal and since the stairs are the more contested issue of this project, there needs to be more clarity about the stairway. Blocking the view can be mitigated as much as possible, putting the stairway against the building or putting it inside. Mr. Christian invited everyone to come down to the building and view in person the entire project as it won’t be settled here. Essentially the stairway has to be here of this project won’t happen. Then it’s a matter of working within the context to try to arrange it in a way that is the most compatible with the building, has the least interference with the view corridor, etc. Chairman Hayton expressed the importance of seeing this in a phase process. Without parking there is no basis for the project so the removal of the rear buildings are of first importance. In terms of the points brought up by Board Members such as landscaping, stairway, colors, etc. it would be ideal to have a workshop on the site, and/or a sub-committee. The Board needs to keep in mind this is a critical building and needs to be a win-win deal. Mr. Christian explained that the arched sign is a means of establishing signage. Currently there is a very prominent Robann’s sign, and there is another large Robann’s sign on the side. With the tenant out, there might be another way of looking at this element. The plans were for a very light metal frame holding some type of sign. An alternative would be to set something on top of the building, but that seems to be more intrusive than the archway sign. Vice Chair Sidney Williams asked that if Robann’s is no longer there, why not push the restaurant right out to the street and include that commercial space, perhaps the staircase can be inside? Mr. Christian explained that the problem is not getting people into the ground floor areas, the problem is getting people to the upper floor. This project is basically two restaurants, one on top of the other and they need to have independent access. As to the phasing, if there is some way to move forward on the demolition, then phasing could possibly work. Chairman Hayton asked the Board to consider a phased approval with demolition of the rear buildings to enable the project to move forward.
Page 7 of 16
Board Member John Williams asked the Board to look a the drawings A 3.2 in the Board packet and pointed out a space of about 12 inches between the building and the top of the staircase, then the staircase extends out at an angle – if that staircase was right up against or closer to the building, why would that not open up more of a view corridor? Steve Lyle, developer/owner, explained that the stairway will not block the Tower, the wall that is coming out is taller than Robann’s building and that is what blocks the Tower. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Robert Imber read from notes and stated he is even more compelled to implore this Board, Architect, and developer to do the right thing and reconsider the location of the stairway. The Tower is not the single most important thing in this project, the entire northern elevation is historically important. The plaque in the sidewalk is also important as you can read the plaque and see the Tower at the same time. He stated that he will support doing this project in phases and does not oppose the demolition of the rear buildings. He applauds the stellar nature and commitment of the developer, owner, and architect for what they are trying to do to bring in a successful project here in Palm Springs. Peter Moruzzi, of ModCom, stated that ModCom has been working with the principals of this project for many months, and only hd this morning to review it. The historic fabric of the Oasis Hotel includes the first story of that so-called “West Casita”, the second story was added later and the Spanish aspect of it is not appropriate to the original Lloyd Wright design. But to simply conclude, without deep consideration, the demolition of that extremely original piece of historic property is inappropriate. When dealing with something where much of the Hotel has been demolished over time. The reality is that there is not much left of the original Hotel – its all on the southern portion of the parcel. This is one of the last original pieces and ModCom is concerned about review of the materials and opportunity to discuss in more detail supporting the demolition of that 80+ year old part of the Hotel. It’s not something that should be decided in a piecemeal basis and this Board should not vote on that part of the project today and then come back later for the other issues. It needs to be bundled together and ModCom, as a preservation organization, would like the opportunity to comment on the historic assessment that was prepared. There is no issue with the northeast corner, which is not original fabric. Granted, this is a very difficult project for the principals involved, there are very good intentions, and they have really come forward with sensitive adaptive re-use, and dealing with successful restaurants in downtown Palm Springs is a difficult issue. It is not the intention of this organization or anyone else’s to just put in roadblocks, but it was known this project would be difficult – just by the nature that it’s a Class 1 Historic Site. It’s unfortunate that this process does take time and will ultimately be a great final product, but there needs to be continued work until everyone understands the implications of every aspect of the project, including the demolition. It is requested that the demolition process of this project not be approved today. Mr. Christian explained that if the project is being separated into two phases (demolition, stairway, etc.) and in going toward the key elements as far as whether the stairway happens where it is designed, “it ain’t going to happen.” If talking about that as one element, another location for the stairway will not be looked at. Will be delighted to take another look at tri-angling it, change the detailing, opening up the planter elements, etc. This project needs to be it’s best, and the key issue is the stairwell. Board Member Scott stated that the latest design of the stairway almost mimics some of the vertical elements of Lloyd Wright, and asked why the project going in that direction? Mr. Christian answered that there are two philosophical interpretations of the various ordinances that govern historical buildings. One is that you try to totally isolate the new elements from the design of the original or secondly go more in the character of the original building. Frankly, the glass rail would be glaringly inappropriate for this project and would undoubtedly generate a wide base of criticism. The stairway needs to be more in character of the original building so it’s not such an eye catcher. Chairman Hayton again pointed out that the stairway of this project is such a contentious critical issue that perhaps a story board to show the height of the stairway would give everyone an idea of what is being proposed. There is one side of the community that is very concerned about total preservation, then another side of the community stresses “do-ability” but no project can move forward without parking. Could there be phasing to allow input related to the stairway, landscaping, and other issues? Mr. Christian advised that if these buildings have to stay and there is no parking space, there is no project. Those have to be addressed first or jointly with the front, otherwise there is no point in pursuing this building. If there is a strong decision to not allow the demolition, there is no need to talk about the
Page 8 of 16
stairway. If the buildings are demolished, then the parking lot can be immediately developed and become a functioning parking lot. If given approval for the demolition, the parking lot could conceivably start tomorrow. Board Member Isermann agreed about the stairs, but not willing to vote one way or the other without clarification about the stairs. The other issue of concern is about the paint, he is not willing to approve a paint that will basically become a faux finish. That is not in character with the building to look aged, it should look like when it was built. In terms of separating the demolition from the remainder of the project, not in favor of that until the stairway issue is resolved. If the stairway is a make or break issue, he is not comfortable with the principals walking away from the project after demolishing the buildings and not restoring the other buildings. It would be a lost opportunity for someone else. Staff member Jing Yeo clarified that if the Board chooses to go forward today with the phasing, please understand that the Architectural Advisory nor Planning Commission have not seen this project as yet. A demolition permit cannot be issued regardless - - it will not occur. A project cannot be brought to the Planning Commission with buildings already demolished where there is still a Conditional Use Permit to consider. Right now the application is deemed incomplete, which means that it has missing issues needing clarification - - none that are before the Board today. There is the technical review that has to occur with Engineering, Building, and Fire (as with other projects). An environmental document still has to be prepared. It has to go before the Architectural Advisory Committee, then ultimately to the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Sidney Williams commented that it appears everyone would appreciate an on-site visit to discuss in more detail and understand more thoroughly such issues as visual site-lines, stairway, landscape, etc. Board Member John Williams asked if the Board decided on a site visit today and then makes a decision at the next meeting, is that going to throw everything back a month or will the project continue, etc.? Is there a way for a motion today, then after looking at the site, the Board could make a decision or take action short of the next meeting? Staff member Jing Yeo advised that certain sections of the EIR can proceed. This project alone takes a considerable amount of time. Clearly the stairway is a significant issue, a number of emails have been received focusing on that issue, which indicates a major concern that needs to be resolved before the EIR is completed. Director Craig Ewing advised that if any action is taken it has to be at an agendized meeting either here today, the next meeting in December or hold a special meeting, as long as agendas are posted and notices are provided. It could be approved today subject to the site visit, but there could not be a change of mind nor change of conditions. Board Member Scott also reminded everyone that the site visit also has to be an agendized and noticed meeting of the Board. Board Member Isermann commented that this Board needs to remember - having learned from very recent experiences - that these types of motions have come back to bite us and he will not vote to approve anything based on that and wants to see the final color chips. No offense to anyone, but the Board has approved things based on “it’s going to be something.....” and then it comes back nothing like what was discussed or understood. Wants to see exactly what the Board is approving. Vice Chair Sidney Williams suggested that Eric Wright be invited to attend the site visit/workshop and feels that he might. M/S/C (Scott/Nelson - 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent, 0 Abstentions) moved that Case 5.1076 be continued until the next officially organized HSPB meeting and that there be a workshop meeting on-site scheduled sometime within the next month before the regularly scheduled meeting of December 13, 2005. 6. Case 3.917 - Application by Diana DiAmico of Tyler’s Hamburgers to replace existing steel frame and canvas canopy with new 2” steel pipe and canvas to match existing colors at 149 South Indian Canyon Drive, Zone CBD, Section 15. (La Plaza Class 1 Historic Site #22) Staff member Jing Yeo indicated the drawings were on display for Board viewing. Staff received a letter from the property owner expressing concern with the design. They are also aware of this
Page 9 of 16
application. There is difficulty seating people when it rains and they are proposing to replace umbrellas and a smaller canopy with a much larger canopy of a different style than the existing. Staff is concerned with some of the design features and an additional look may need to be taken in regards to the overall style and design of the complex. Fernando Olaiz, designer, explained the canopy design is for full coverage of the Indian Canyon Drive patio. Will use the same type materials of better quality than on the canopies now existing on both patios, the tube steel, and the sand colored canvas. Trying to keep low profiles, using less of a less pitch on the main cover, one large cover, and two lateral covers that give full cover to the outside patio. Very flat surfaces, except the two support poles. Those will be placed at angles to keep the focal point for the restaurant, and be minimal invasive to the building. Canopy attachments will be at six spots into the building and will keep steel plates minimal. There is a concern that the design is a bit more modern than the 1930's, and existing canopy will be of the same materials, colors, try to keep the same language, etc. Existing canopies and umbrellas are not sufficient to provide shade in hot weather or cover for diners when it’s raining. It is much less intrusive than what exists (6 umbrellas and one awning). With this canopy the umbrellas will no longer be required. This project includes materials of better quality, more resilient, customized - - and provides broader coverages and better quality, heavier materials. Retractable/mechanical awnings were considered, but are much more flimsy and do not hold up as well. Chairman Hayton asked about the property owner’s letter referencing “integrity” of the historic property, if that has been resolved, and if the property owners now approve this concept? Mr. Olaiz indicated that it was agreed with the property owners to bring this project before this Board for input and then the owner can make a better educated decision having heard the Board’s input. Vice Chair Sidney Williams expressed that perhaps there is another solution that is not quite so enclosed but would provide the necessary shade and shelter. The vertical sides appear to enclose it and it actually looks like an additional room. Mr. Olaiz, explained that the first priority was to gain full coverage for shade and protection of dining patrons. This project actually cleans up the facade and patio from the existing six umbrellas and one awning. This new design will prevent the drippage from fours sides of the existing six umbrellas on the east facade. The work now being proposed is only on the Indian Canyon Drive (east) side of the building. Staff member Jing Yeo explained that when staff looks at a Class 1 structure project they consider: Is it sympathetic to the existing buildings? This project shows a different style than the remainder of the existing structure and surrounding complex. Board Member Isermann expressed that in looking at this design, it is very apparent that it is an “addition” and this is good. He does not have any problem with the canopy, but is concerned about the angle of the pole supports. This project is much more interesting and appears to be more functional than the canopy on the west side of the building. He is not opposed to this. Questions and concerns from the Board were: 1. Poles - too protruding and ostentatious...says “look at me” - don’t blend in with the existing structures & surroundings. 2. Pitch of canopy covering - looks Moorish 3. Could something bring it more into compatibility with the existing? 4. The addition does look like an addition – that is favorable 5. Angles of the support of the canopy 6. How wide compared to the existing? 7. Wants owner to approve whatever is to be added 8. Says too much “look at me” 9. Planning should work with the applicant for a better design PUBLIC COMMENTS: Peter Moruzzi, President of the Palm Springs Modern Committee, commented about the rehabilitation and that it is not appropriate to have additions that mimic original designs. In concept, the materials being proposed are different from the existing. The Board should make that call before it goes to the Architectural Advisory Committee. Tony Dalu, designer who brought back the Plaza many years ago to its original 1930's look, suggested awnings be kept more simple. He worked for years getting the Plaza to its existing look, and would not like to see that deviated from with this design. Feels it’s a little too contemporary, needs to blend into existing, but realizes the need.
Page 10 of 16
Board members realize the need for the canopy, and want to be sure that Planning will work with applicant on something that this Board feels they can pass. There is obviously a lot of time and expense involved in this preparation. Staff’s first indication that the design is not comfortable is something that needs to be addressed first. Director Craig Ewing explained that a motion to deny basically closes the application, yet it sounds like this Board wants the applicant to continue working with staff. M/S/C (Scott/Hayton - 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent, 0 Abstentions) moved to continue this application, with directions from staff, as proposed design is not acceptable, and applicant to bring alternatives back to this Board. Five minute break taken at 10:25 a.m. Meeting resumed at 10:37 a.m. November 8, 2005. AGENDA ITEM # 1 : ATM SHELTER AT WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK AT 499 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE - PROPERTY LISTED IN 2004 HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY - BOARD MEMBER SIDNEY WILLIAMS. Staff member Yeo advised that this was requested by Board Member Sidney Williams. The background is that an ATM shelter was approved at the Planning Services’ counter for installation of this ATM shelter on the southeastern corner of the building. Even though this is a Historic Survey listed property, this highlights and offers an explanation of the limitations of the Survey and what staff can do regarding those properties. It was approved, it was constructed, and then staff received correspondence thereafter regarding the unsympathetic nature to the building. Building Permits were issued so the structure itself has had its final inspection. As a City, when the original permit is issued, there is no ordinance that it violates and no ability to go back and require the review of that structure again. That is not something staff is able to do as a City. It is understood there are some concerns regarding that structure and the historic integrity of the building; however, it gives staff a chance to explain that the current Preservation Ordinance only requires review for buildings that are designated as Class 1, 2, and only in the case of demolitions in Class 3 sites. The only time this would be reviewed is when we have a designated Class 1 site such as the La Plaza. The 200 properties listed in the Historic Survey are “flags in the system” for reference when issuing permits in case of a partial or total demolition or something that significantly impacts the structure(s). There is no ordinance that requires this Board’s review of these types of additions to survey listed properties. That can be something this Board can address at a future session, workshop, etc. It will take time and consideration to prepare a course or workshop that ultimately needs to be adopted by the City Council. That’s the context in which this inquiry has come forward. Vice Chair Sidney Williams asked why the “flag” was not observed by the person who was presented this information and issuing the permit? Staff member Yeo explained that at the time it was approved the staff member involved was newly on the job and not yet familiar or aware of all the procedures. All staff is now well aware of what that “flag” means and to look for it. Director Ewing further explained that two different issues are being discussed and should not be confused: One being the City’s regulatory requirement by which developments are reviewed and the Class 1, 2, and 3 structures that have regulations associated with them. The properties listed in the Historic Survey are Class 3 structures and are regulated only to the extent of major demolition. The second part is what staff error may have occurred and that is different from the regulatory authority we operate in. In this case, the planner accessed the database in one way instead of another and the flag did not show up (one of the quirks in the database). This is a training issue that has been corrected. The question now is had he found the “flag” - what is to be done with it? Being that this is not a major demolition, the authority is not in our current Ordinances to do anything more than give it approval over the counter. Staff wants to spend some time to bring that Ordinance back to this Board for potential revisions and any other current practices to make sure that other Ordinances are in line with this Board’s expectations. It appears that the Ordinances are or may be in need of revisions. Vice Chair Sidney Williams explained that she had printed out one of the architect’s renderings and an earlier photo by Julius Shulman when the building was completed. There have been many changes to the building: the ATM machine, the shelter, the handicap access on the south side, the additional railing that is not consistent with the original architect’s railing – it’s dark, it’s white, it’s round, not square, all that are not in character with the original. This is a significant building, not only to the Survey but to Palm Springs, and perhaps the owners (Washington Mutual) can be worked with to
Page 11 of 16
restore aspects of the original - not just this one thing and to be sensitive to this piece of architecture. Strengthening the Ordinance needs to be a high priority of this Board. Board Member John Williams referred to the Planning Services letter and read...”based on these provisions, I agree the City has in place the necessary regulations to require reviews of exterior alterations of properties listed on the City’s Historic Resources Survey.” Then below in the same letter, it states “We have addressed staff training and procedures so that even small alterations to such prized buildings are fully reviewed as required.” Does that referenced “review” bring it to this Board? Director Ewing replied “not necessarily and that is why staff needs to spend time with the Board because three sources are referenced in that letter of regulatory authorities - two in the City’s Ordinances and one under CEQA. CEQA apparently has been the regulatory authority in the past such as there is a practice of going to CEQA for authority on smaller additions and remodels that our City Ordinances do not cover. That is troubling and needs review with possibly revisions, because on administrative projects like building permits that do not have other discretionary authority, it’s a very thin thread to connect to CEQA. It should be better established in our City’s Ordinances rather than reaching into CEQA on such a project that could be challenged by linking such a building permit to CEQA as a basis for reviewing historic issues. It’s our practice that staff will continue, but this needs to be fixed so there is a stronger local authority. This is a vulnerable approach as it stands now. Chairman Hayton expressed that this issue may come up again and again as he does not think there is anything stopping an owner from painting the building any color wanted, and/or making modifications that might be appalling to the community. There are other communities where this has occurred. This is a warning sign to be quickly addressed and ensure that appropriate input takes place. Perhaps this Board can come forward with a way to make this addition, in the case of the ATM shelter at the Washington Mutual Bank, more appealing in an economical way that the owner will consider. Director Ewing asked what this last request entails for staff...for staff to reach beyond authority and spend time trying to control a property owner without regulatory authority to do so is a heavy commitment of staff’s time when staff is overly-booked as it is. Chairman Hayton explained that he was thinking of a sub-committee made up of Vice Chair Sidney Williams and another member to approach Washington Mutual in a diplomatic way to make some changes. What can this Board do to move forward with revisions? Director Ewing indicated agreement, that Peter Moruzzi of ModCom has already made contact with Washington Mutual expressing concerns. The more they or other property owners hear those kinds of things and that this is a community issue, the more they will be sensitive to that. Staff, to the extent of operating within the direction and authority established by Council and the Ordinance, will do the same. Planning Services has already input a “flag” into the database, staff has been trained to access this correctly, and will be reviewing projects along those lines and to use CEQA as a basis for looking at smaller remodels. The problem is that there may have to be a judgment call made at some point by staff as to whether this rises to the level of something that should put into a historical review process or not. Meantime, staff needs to bring back to this Board in study session form what the specific regulations are, what CEQA says, and the Board may then see that CEQA is not a very good basis for capturing projects that might not otherwise be just building permits. Staff can then work with Council to alter the lines of authority relating to historic preservation issues, and work out a clearer statement of authority that will give better direction for staff in working with applicants and for this Board to work with. Vice Chair Sidney Williams advised that in looking at the Survey, the name of the architecture for Santa Fe Federal Bank on Palm Canyon is not listed, and that should be a “flag” to anyone reviewing the Survey. That omission should be noticed and corrected, especially for internal copies. A few months ago there was mention of a workshop relating to the Secretary of Interior Standards - can that be combined with a workshop related to the City’s Ordinances and CEQA. Would there be any recourse from a City standpoint because it has been an approved project? Director Ewing indicated that all those changes mentioned, not just the most recent one, that come to us at the building permit level or less, the line of authority in the Code to review those is probably higher than preferred, but a lot of applications approved at the counter, such as round railings painted black when they should be square railings painted white, don’t get that kind of review. Board Member Scott asked if this sub-committee is just for the Washington Mutual building?
Page 12 of 16
Director Ewing explained that a sub-committee cannot speak for the group legally, which can only happen when you meet in a hearing so you are going essentially as citizens, but your membership on the HSPB adds your credentials. Vice Chair Sidney Williams and Board Member Jade Nelson volunteered to serve on this sub-committee relative to the ATM shelter issue of the of Washington Mutual Bank at 499 South Palm Canyon Drive. Property is listed in the 2004 Historic Resources Survey. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Peter Moruzzi, ModCom, commented that this is probably one of the most significant issues that this Board will have to deal with since it covers every aspect of what the HSPB is all about. When dealing with 200 properties identified on the Historic Resources Survey, many of which were identified as being significant and eligible for local designation or higher. Without trying to get in a deep seated discussion, this must be pursued very carefully. As an architectural historian, most recently associated with one of the larger architectural resource firms and environmental consulting firms in Southern California, he begs to differ with some of the comments made by staff. In dealing with 15064.5 of CEQA which is part of the guidelines that deal specifically with historic resources, it is not an obscure part of CEQA, it’s a very clear part of CEQA, and in that part of the guidelines it talks specifically about administrational vs. discretionary decisions. When dealing with historic resources that have been identified in the Historic Resources Survey, they are no longer administrational actions. The request for the alternations that come to the counter are by definition given their status within the Survey as “discretionary”. The fact that they are being reviewed is discretionary. The only administrational action is that the Ordinance requires the permit be issued over the counter without any review – clearly, that is not the case. These are discretionary decisions and the CEQA Guidelines are very specific about how to deal with historic resources. They define them in many ways, but one of them is that in properly prepared Historic Resources Survey, following the Guidelines can be used for determining a historic resource. The Palm Springs 2004 Historic Resources Survey is a properly prepared and adopted (accepted by C.C.) Survey and so the properties in that document are historic resources, particularly those rated locally eligible and higher. Chairman Hayton commented not to cut anyone short, but it appears to be a larger issue that this Board will be addressing. The Board wants to hear Mr. Moruzzi’s viewpoint, but keep in mind that this meeting is greatly extended from the normal time frame and asked Mr. Moruzzi to summarize. Mr. Moruzzi, stated that an ordinance is not required to follow the CEQA Guidelines, the current process being utilized in such applications as the Orchid Tree Inn, Howard Manor, Oasis Hotel, and the Racquet Club where Historic Assessments were required applies. ModCom was encouraged from comments made in staff’s letter, but in hearing the verbal comments today, is not so encouraged. It seems that when getting down to specifics, its now being said that staff does not really have to review a lot of these issues because they are administrational and staff doesn’t have much authority and needs to do this by Ordinance – none of those are the case. Need to get into more detail and strongly encourages that the study session or workshop be held as quickly as possible since the Board is dealing with incredibly important issues related to the Survey. No further Public Comments and no action required by the Board on this item. AGENDA ITEM #2: MEDIA OUTREACH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE - MEMBER JOHN WILLIAMS. Nothing to report. Director Craig Ewing advised that he had an 11 a.m. meeting and left the meeting. AGENDA ITEMS #3: HISTORIC SITE PLAQUE SURVEY UPDATE - STAFF Northing to report by staff. Chairman Hayton advised the Board that he was previously approved to approach the Cork ‘N Bottle regarding installing a plaque on the property and at that particularly time the property had just been sold and was boarded up. Is that something to continue trying to accomplish? The Board agreed that this effort should be continued. AGENDA ITEM #4: DISCUSSION OF CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (Chapter 8.05 PSMC), DUTIES, ACTIVITIES, ETC.
Page 13 of 16
Nothing to report today, but this needs to be reviewed based on discussion above. AGENDA ITEM #5: PALM SPRINGS PRESERVATION FOUNDATION - VICE CHAIR SIDNEY WILLIAMS. Vice Chair Sidney Williams reported that an architectural guided tour of E. Stewart Williams’ homes will be Saturday, November 12 starting at the City Hall at 1 p.m. with a final reception at the Edris home in Little Tuscany. Invitations and postcards were passed around. AGENDA ITEM #5: PALM SPRINGS HISTORICAL SOCIETY - MEMBER JIM HAYTON Chairman Hayton reminded everyone that on Sunday, November 13, the Pioneer Fiesta Picnic will be held at the O’Donnell Golf Club. Former Mayor Frank Bogert will be there signing his new book. For additional information, call 323-8297. Everyone is encouraged to attend. AGENDA ITEM #6: PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE - MEMBER JOHN WILLIAMS Board Member John Williams reported that their “sold-out” House Tour was completed on October 15. Check the web site for the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM #7: ARCHITECTURAL & DESIGN COUNCIL-P.S. ART MUSEUM - MEMBER JIM ISERMANN Board Member Isermann reported that the next lecture will be November 19 at 1 p.m. at the P.S. Art Museum given by architects Frank Esher and Ravi GuneWardena talking about their recent work. Cost is $5.00 for ADC members and $10.00 for non-members. AGENDA ITEM #9: ON-GOING PROJECTS UPDATES - STAFF & SUB-COMMITTEES (A) - Colony Palms Hotel, Case 3.0619: Staff received a phone call in early or mid-September re the demolition of the north wing. A building inspector was sent out immediately to see what was going on and the developer had exceeded the scope of their approved plans and demolition. The Building Department issued a “red tag-stop work order” for the project. The roof was to be replaced and second story added to the north wing, but in the course of securing and under-pining the foundation for the north wing, the building itself was structurally unsound and it essentially collapsed and/or they had to demolish – staff is not entirely clear on what occurred. The restaurant and spa building for which no permits were issued for demolition was demolished as well...the mural in the basement is protected and is where it’s supposed to be. Work was stopped on the property for several days while staff reviewed files and plans. The plans are now to rebuild the north wing exactly as it looked, this is going through plan check now. The same for the restaurant and spa building. It will match the elevations that this Board reviewed for the north wing’s first and second floor. The addendum indicated it will be in keeping in character with the property, and they recommended that a plaque be installed on the building indicating that it is a re-build, but it will look the same as what was approved. They now have to apply for a conditional use permit for the restaurant and spa building and rebuild the wings that were accidentally or otherwise demolished. Vice Chair Sidney Williams asked if there is any kind of recourse when developers or builders exceed their permits – is there no legal recourse for the City – other than red tagging. Is there a fine? If not, there should be. Staff advised that there is a fine and a double fee for all permits. Chairman Hayton expressed concern about there being a failure in the building and that the developer did not immediately stop and have the City observe the fact that an integrity problem existed which necessitated more demolition than originally planned. That is really appalling and could possibly extend into other projects. If the mural and speakeasy in the basement, which are the key elements in that project, are lost, then there’s not much left in that project. Board Member Scott expressed concern that more demolition of the interiors may have been done that were clearly not authorized. Has staff gone through to check? All the original metal windows were removed, but hope they have been salvaged. What about the roof tiles? Will they be fined for all this extra effort City departments are having to do. Will they be required to replace the building as nearly accurately as originally presented.
Page 14 of 16
Staff advised that when the City inspected, it was required that the mural area be secured, and they will have to replace the building according to approved plans. Chairman Hayton suggested that this be recorded accurately and in total so that other developers can be made aware of what the repercussions might be if they deviate from originally planned and approved designs. This should be used as an example. Board Member John Williams stated that one of the big issues is whether they have saved the windows, the banister on the back buildings was to be saved, roof tiles - - could this be agendized for the next meeting and have staff make sure those items are saved and are going to be re-used? Particularly the windows and banisters. Chairman Hayton suggested the sub-committee visit the site and take a good look at it. Not really surprised this has happened, but feels it is important for members of this Board to take a look. Board Member John Williams advised there is an established sub-committee and a site visit will be coordinated through Staff member Jing Yeo. Chairman Hayton stated he wished to attend as well and will follow at a later time. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Peter Moruzzi, President of the Palm Springs Modern Committee, stated that today’s agenda is full of far reaching issues. The idea that a developer could propose a certain level of demolition that goes through this Board’s review, the Architectural Advisory Committee, and Planning Commission and then demolishes the remainder of the property without additional requirements for inspection by the City is an outrage. The Board should consider: 1. Work with the City in drafting an Ordinance, if that is the required method, so there is another level of review that goes on during the project with inspections occurring through various phases, so that the general public does not have to call the Planning department advising them that a developer has demolished an entire building. Additional inspections should occur once this level of demolition has been approved and permitted. 2. The fines are completely inadequate. Example: the City of L.A. has as a penalty - - if the property owner demolishes part or the whole property beyond what the permit allowed or did it without a permit, they are prohibited for two years from developing on that property. Doubling the fees is just a cost of doing business for most of these people/developers - - it’s nothing, merely a slap on the wrist. This Board should recommend, as an Ordinance, significant penalties for those property owners who go forward with demolitions or make significant alterations that have not been permitted. Other cities do this and it needs to be followed through. It has occurred on another property here in Palm Springs, and it will happen to others. PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED. Board Member Scott suggested that one way to work on something of this nature, there was a Historical Assessment Report prepared on the Colony Palm Hotels, and perhaps the people who prepared these reports should be required to come back, at the expense of the developer, to report to the City as to how that Assessment Report is being followed during construction. Board members concurred this is a good idea and could be included in the HSPB workshop. (B) Horizon Hotel: Staff member Jing Yeo advised that the construction fence has been removed, they are nearing completion of the project. The last time staff spoke with the property owner, there was some lighting issues to be resolved with neighboring properties. This project is progressing nicely. Board Member Scott asked that if during construction there is a member from the building department (building inspector) who goes out to be sure it is progressing according to plans, do they come back and discuss with the Planner. Staff member Yeo explained that if something is not being built per the plans, they stop work on the site and bring it to the Planner’s attention. The building inspectors are not at every job site every day. The inspection process works is that there are certain phases, such as when a foundation is poured, when the framing is done, when roofing – so there is significant gaps when building inspectors go to the project sites. If they happen to go by a site and see that something is occurring without permits, they will put a stop work order on the project. But there are only so many building inspectors and lots of
Page 15 of 16
City. They do go to sites when they are called for inspections by the project supervisor, it’s not a surprise visit when they show up on a site. Board Member Scott reiterated that this is a procedural issue that should be discussed at the workshop. When renovating a historic structure, lots of issues appear and need to be solved. Somehow there needs to be a better understanding of what the procedure is between the Planning and Building departments. (C) GTE Building, Case 3.1277: Staff contacted the owner of the building and approached him about the incorrect paint color. He brought in an actual photo of the building before it was painted – it was kind of an off-white cream color, which this Board had originally approved and was approved at the staff level. However, the final color of the building is a beige or tan color. They are going to do the best they can to correct that, but they have spent well over $20,000 in painting the building, so this is something that may get corrected over time, but staff does not know if the property owner has the financial ability to re-paint right now. They are aware of the issue in terms of correcting the paint color and want to proceed a little at a time. Developers plans are to bring the building back to the contrast between the wood, building, and metal that is shown in the photo. The interpretation between what off-white and beige are seems to be the main issue. Staff strongly believes the property owner had the best intentions and do not intend to leave the wood as it is shown today. That was the context of the conversation staff had with the owner/developer. Vice Chair Sidney Williams pointed out that this is again a type of situation where a penalty should be involved. They have been given guidance on the colors, then they ignore the guidance and approvals. There should be some repercussions. Board Member Scott pointed out that this is a Class 1 Historic Site of Spanish Revival design, and they destroyed the contrast between the wood, the stucco, and the metalwork by painting it all the same color. The paint job looks like a finished product. The Colon Palms had the best intentions, but that didn’t happen. There is a sub-committee and these members are willing to go out at a moments notice to go out and work with the owners to develop a compromise. This is a very frustrating situation - - this is one of the most visible Class 1 sites that people are really attracted to. Granted, its only paint and can be corrected, but its another sad and unfortunate situation that should not have occurred. (D) Seeburg Building: Staff reported construction is in progress. A slight modification to the car ports in the rear was brought back to staff that does not affect the look of the building. It is still that clean line that the Board approved. But, due to the Building Code Regulations, the carport has to be modified to provide shade for the vehicles closer to the building and still meet the Building Code Regulations. This is a very minor change and is still in keeping with the approval from this Board. Chairman Hayton asked about the removed walkway cover (canopy)? It was not an original feature and the developer was not comfortable incorporating it into the re-use. It was not salvaged as no one stepped up or showed any interest in it. (E) Visitors Center Amphitheater - Case No. 5.0942: Staff reported that the Amphitheater construction will probably start construction about November 14, 2005 per the approved plans. The landscaping will not be done yet, but will be outlined by stacks before construction begins. When that is done, the sub-committee will be called out to review the landscaping/tree locations. The landscaping is some time away. The temporary sign is still in use. Curt Watts of the Economic Development department indicated the amphitheaters needs to be completed before the signage is re-visited. Staff has not heard any significant comments regarding the sign since it was first installed. The first bid request for the permanent sign came back significantly higher in terms of cost than expected, so the budget will be again reviewed. The time line for this is not known. Chairman Hayton and Board Member Isermann make-up the sub-committee and are ready to proceed when called upon by staff when the stacking is scheduled. What about the granite spheres...will they remain, be part of the landscaping, or what will be done with them? BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS: Board Member Scott asked about the scheduling of the Oasis project on-site review meeting that is to happen before the December meeting, and asked about setting up the workshop sessions. Let’s not put the sessions off for too long - particularly the review of the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the other issues. This really needs to be done soon.
Page 16 of 16
Staff member Jing Yeo advised that the Special Meeting for the HSPB in relation to the Oasis project will be set-up and everyone appropriately notified. The workshops will need to be discussed with the Planning Director, it will take some preparation. All Board Members expressed a great concern that this workshop or workshops need to be addressed as quickly as possible and perhaps this can be pursued separate from a meeting agenda it and email various dates to all Board Members. STAFF REPORTS AND UPDATES: NONE There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be December 13, 2005 at 8:15 a.m. in City Hall’s Large Conference Room . Respectfully submitted, Loretta Moffett Recording Secretary