HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-13- HSPB minutes CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING
Minutes of Regular Meeting -Tuesday, June 13, 2006 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 2005-2006
Excused Absences
To-Date
James Hayton, Chair X 11 0
Sidney Williams, Vice Chair X 9 2
William “Bill” Scott X 11 0
John Williams X 11 0
Jim Isermann X 6 5
Jade Nelson X 11 0
Harold “Bud” Riley X 6 0
STAFF PRESENT:
Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Loretta Moffett, Administrative
Assistant
Ken Lyon, Associate Planner
* * * * *
Chairman Hayton called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m. Tuesday, June 13, 2006
* * * * * *
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, June 8, 2006.
NOTE: Audio Cassettes and DVDs of HSPB Meetings are available for review. Cassettes will be kept for six
months only. 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Correction of spelling of “Stewart” on page 4 of May 9 Minutes. M/S/C
(Riley/S.Williams) 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Absent, 1 Abstention to approve May 9 Minutes as corrected.
May 23, 2006 Special Meeting Minutes: One correction Jim Isermann was not present at this meeting.
M/S/C/ (S.Williams/Riley) 6 Yes, 0 No, o Absent, 1 Abstention to approve May 23 Minutes as
corrected.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: (3 minutes)
Jim Toenjes, presented information to the Board regarding WWII Airbase remnants on the property at
the southeast corner Farrell and Tahquitz Canyon Way. Asked the City to review his findings.
Handouts passed around. Wanted to present this to HSPB before going to the media.
Staff will review and report at July meeting.
Board advised that a similar Tie-Down at Easmor Circle is a Class 1 Site.
PUBLIC HEARING: N O N E
A. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: Board “thanked” Jim Isermann for six years of service.
B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
HSPB Meeting Minutes Page
2 of 8
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
(1) Colony Palms - (formerly Howard Manor and colonial House)
Case 3.0619 - 572 North Indian Canyon Drive. Subcommittee: Bill Scott, John Williams, and
Sidney Williams.
Staff report: On 5-25-06 Building Inspector Rick Van Tuyle visited site and confirmed the mural is
protected with plywood. He requested construction superintendent to further protect it with Visqueen
(plastic sheet) which he agreed to do. Rick reinspected the week ending 6-2-06 and it was till in place.
Two photos passed around showing the protection in place and a photo of the mural in question.
Steve Ohren, majority owner, discussed the status of the project and explained that when the buildings
were brought down to the “studs and foundation”, his structural engineers advised that both were
unsafe, did not meet code, and needed to be replaced. The mural is painted on the concrete wall and it
will be saved. The City Building department director advised that the railing was unsafe and out of
code and would not be approved. Board advised Mr. Ohren to work with staff to develop a solution
regarding the railings.
Board discussed their concerns re: illegal demolitions, sub-committee members worked hard with
project representatives to review all the design documents, colors of the buildings, felt the project was
an excellent renovation and restoration, but the problem was that two buildings were fully demolished
without a permit. Once it was established the foundation and studs were not safe, did not meet
code, and had to be replaced an application for full demolition should have been requested from the
City. Board member S. Williams recommended an art conservator who can be brought in at the
appropriate time to help with the mural. The decorative railing was also expected to be saved even
though the openings were too large, perhaps a metal mesh behind it to prevent someone slipping
through.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Frank Tysen spoke about his experience dealing with City departments when restoring Casa Cody.
Bob Hobling, resident with background in restorations, commented that it behooves all of us to help
each other to come up with the best possible solutions.
HSPB Meeting Minutes Page
3 of 8
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
(2) GTE Building -Case 3.1277 - 369 North Palm Canyon Drive. (GTE Building Historic
Designation #26). Subcommittee: Jim Isermann, Bill Scott, John Williams
ACTION: Resolve paint color selection.
The colors have been identified on a building at 555 Tachevah, and will be put in the project file in
Planning so the building will be painted with the approved colors when it needs repainting.
(3) ATM shelter at Washington Mutual Bank at 499 South Palm Canyon Drive.
Case 3.833 Subcommittee: Sidney Williams, Jade Nelson.
Sub-committee reported meeting with Phillip Smith, architect, who is suggesting design alternatives to
the ATM shelter, will then meet with the bank and report back.
Board member Jade Nelson suggested a discussion at the next meeting how this Board can work with
the Public Arts Commission about placing public art on a historic structure. The design alternatives
were encouraging.
The Bank has made application for repairs. Additional issues of paint on the handrails is a future
issue.
NEW BUSINESS:
(1) Orchid Tree Presentation (Application, Staff Report, and Historic Assessment sent with Board
packet last month)
Case 5.1085 CUP TTM 34019 an application by Pali-Palm Springs LLC. to sub-divide one lot for
development of 34 residential condo units, one commercial condo unit comprised of a
nine-room hotel, and one commercial condo unit comprised of a bar for accessory use to hotel,
The proposal includes some demolition and renovation to a Class 3 Historic Site, formally
known as The Orchid Tree Inn, Cultural Study completed, 261 South Belardo Road, listed in the
2004 Historic Survey. (originally brought before HSPB June 14, 2005) Subcommittee: Bill
Scott, James Hayton
Staff explained that this application involves several items (1) demolish certain buildings; (2) restore
certain buildings; and (3) construct a new residential component. Photos displayed for review. Staff
Report gave comprehensive report on important issues. Historic Assessment was also in Board
packet. Applicant has held several neighborhood meetings, presented to Architectural Advisory
Committee 6-12-06. AAC was mainly concerned with the new construction.
Board asked about Page 5 first paragraph where it stated that the project is an “in-fill urban
development and could potentially be eligible for an in-fill exemption.”
Staff explained that in a CEQA process regarding properties with historic significance, with lead
agency, boards, and community input a decision has to be made on the environmental effect of the
project. One of the things considered is if project may cause a substantial adverse change in the
HSPB Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
significance of a historic resource. The outcome of this meeting and from the AAC meeting will be
some of the factors to determine whether there will be a CEQA document written or considered for a
CEQA In-fill Exemption.
Jan Ostashay, Director of Cultural Resources Management, Irvine and Santa Monica, prepared the
Historic Assessment, and explained the process for preparing the Assessment and the
recommendations contained in this report. The full report was provided in the Board packets.
Board questions and concerns: Properties B & C are listed as 5S3 which indicate local historical
significance, yet property B is recommended to be demolished. Bungalow was built in circa 1927.
Two structures in Palm Springs pre-date that, both are on the Village Green and were relocated to that
site. Potentially this is the third oldest building in Palm Springs. The assessment of that property
”Craftsman Bungalow idiom” (page 30 - third paragraph). Is this the only example of this type of
housing stock in Palm Springs? Is this something the Board should look into before considering
demolition? Could it be moved to a different location - has this been researched? A display of
historic information, photos, documents, etc. is suggested somewhere in this project for those buildings
that cannot be restored. The bungalow is the most historic of those not being preserved and the
statement on (page 27) “wood frame construction and clad in non-original stucco” – could that stucco
be removed to reveal the original wood frame? The staircase-planters of the Premiere Apartments
were possibly designed by Frey and should not be demolished. Historical Society has magazines and
photos that document Albert Frey was there the day of the move. There are several avenues that
could be explored - example taking the stucco off the bungalow to see what’s beneath. Metal window
frames on the bungalows. There is a Class 1 site (Church) next door that will be impacted the project.
Board member Jade Nelson suggested that item A and C be incorporated into the courtyard
bungalows, because they are so close together in proximity, this should be further investigated for
classification because of the dates built.
Board requested staff order the Secretary of Interior Standards (it can be downloaded).
Matt Fisher, project developer, indicated that they will donate this bungalow if someone wants to move
it. It will be a great hardship to continue with this project if maintaining this bungalow. A historic
display will certainly be considered.
Allison Massett, project architect with Killefer Flammang, explained the process that will be used for the
buildings being restored. Materials similar to those originally used will be used when original materials
cannot be used.
Greg Smith, Palisades Development, discussed and explained the color selections and the style of the
new construction. The colors are taken from the desert palette of the Albert Frey building...all colors
are similar to Frey’s original colors.
HSPB Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bob Hobling commented that the Orchid Tree Inn complex is very important project. The developer is
trying to preserve the bungalows and trying to bring back the Albert Frey building and put some luster in
it. This is going to a good and better project – it should move forward.
Roxann Ploss commented that the General Plan of 1993 emphasized the importance of the pedestrian
quality in Palm Springs. The Tennis Club area has that quality. The design of this project has
changed and gotten better, but in demolishing the buildings, the pedestrian corridor quality is lost.
Urges developer to work around the Craftsman buildings.
Sheryl Hamlin complimented this Historic Assessment, very thorough and one of the best submitted. It
read like a guide to historic tourism in Palm Springs. Felt that a ranking that encompasses the entire
compound is important and urges that the entire compound be restored.
Frank Tysen commented that the Orchid Tree, as an entire property, should be a Class 1 Historic site.
It is important nationally and has been listed in the National Trust for Historic Preservation Travel Guide
until last year and is a valuable asset to the Tennis Club area and the City as a whole. This project
should not have an exemption, should have a stay of demolition, and be designated a Class 1 Historic
Site.
Robert Imber re-iterated that his business is tourism related to architecture whose clients spend
thousands of dollars in Palm Springs primarily for its historic properties and architecture. Urged the
“Historic Site Preservation Board” to give more consideration to saving this project.
PUBIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Board Member J. Williams stated his concerns that there have been no photos or renderings found of
the other buildings, so they are going to be replaced with new structures. Urges the Board to take
more time to look at the Craftsman Bungalow, try to find more documents, photos, etc. to see if it could
be brought back to it’s original style and state. It is of concern to lose a 1915 building, when it has not
been really researched with saving in mind. Item “B” was built in 1927 - again, no photos, renderings,
drawings of this building, but surely they could be found.
Board member J. Williams moved that the Board not take any action today and to ask the developer
and its agent to try to find more historical records of those two buildings in particular, do a little more
research on returning the bungalow to its original look, and to come back to this Board next month.
Board member Jade Nelson seconded the motion with an amendment for a six-month stay of
demolition.
Board member J. Williams explained that his motion is not asking for a stay of demolition, is not
suggesting that the eventual outcome will be anything other than demolition, just asking for more
research before Board decides that this building will be lost, and asks that the public, Board members,
the developer, and its agent try to find more information. It is troublesome that this Board is trying to
make a decision when all the homework does not appear to have been done. A stay of demolition is
always a possibility for a Class 3, but he does not feel it should be part of this motion.
Board member Jim Isermann indicated he will second Mr. Williams’ motion. Stated he likes the project
very much, feels the restoration of the bungalows and the Frey buildings is outstanding, but is not
HSPB Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
comfortable moving forward because it seems slightly arbitrary which buildings are significant and
which ones are not. Evidence has not been presented to rule them out.
Board member J. Williams agreed with Mr. Isermann’s statements.
Chairman Hayton commented that he also feels there is not enough emphasis placed on the Craftsman
bungalow in terms of how that could be preserved or how it could be memorialized or moved. There
needs to be a Plan B on that building. Doesn’t want to see a fenced in, deteriorating site because the
project is being held up.
Board member J. Williams further commented that the applicant went before the Architectural Advisory
Committee on June 12 and has to come back to that Committee as well so another month is required.
Matt Fisher, developer, indicated that the AAC liked the project, approved the site plan and the massing
and scale of the projects with all components. There are some features to be re-analyzed regarding
the new construction. Clearer direction at the beginning would have been more helpful and would
have avoided some of the delays that will now be occurring. That is the main reason this project was
presented to this Board a year ago.
Staff advised that the developer is not obligated at this point to do further study. The cultural
resources survey done in April 2005 does follows all of the standards for this kind of research. The
only action available to this Board today is to make a motion to have these sites classified at a higher
designation than Class 3. But, based on the findings in the reports presented to the Board, not all
these properties will qualify for higher designation.
Board member Bill Scott asked for further information from the cultural assessment person.
Ms. Ostashay discussed this project at length with Sally McManus from the Palm Springs Historical
Society who had pulled a large stack of documents and materials. Peter Moruzzi was contacted for
additional documents and materials. Researched the UCLA and Huntington Libraries and the Whittier
and UCLA photographic collections. Open to other suggestions to where information might be, but
exhausted all information available.
Matt Fisher explained they are receptive to relocation, the reality is another matter. Not sure what the
process is to relocate a building and it could take over a year to facilitate.
Staff indicated that there may not be a lot of time between Planning Commission meeting, if in fact
there is no environmental document required. There may have been confusion in this statement, it is
not the role of this Board to make a determination on whether there is an in-fill exemption or not.
Board member John Williams restated the motion to ask the developer, the agent, and the historical
assessor and everyone in the community and around this table to try to find documentation particularly
on Section A & B, do more assessment of the additions and how permanent they were, particularly
again on the bungalow “A” and come back next month and make some decisions. It is premature at
this time for this Board to recommend to the City Council that we demolish these buildings.
Board member Jim Isermann seconded and stated that this should not be characterized as a negative
response to the project. When this was presented in June 2005, this Board did not have the
community input which has been presented sine then, which would be irresponsible to ignore. Asking
for further documentation for another month is a reasonable response to everyone.
HSPB Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Vote called for: 4 Yes, 3 No, 0 Absent, 0 Abstention to bring back more documentation and vote
at the July meeting.
(2) Hamrick House - Application for a HSPB Class 1 Designation - #50
875 West Chino Canyon Road Subcommittee: Jade Nelson, Sidney Williams
Subcommittee Nelson and S. Williams’ report after visiting the site recommended approval to move
forward with the Class 1 designation.
Board concerns were about the addition to the roof in 1981. Committee reported that it is not offensive
to the house nor detract from the historic value.
Board member Sidney Williams moved to recommend the Hamrick property become classified as a
Class 1 Historic Site - #50 including all previously permitted work that includes the new pool.
Mr. Riley abstained reporting that he did not have an chance to visit the site.
M/S/C (S.Williams/J.Nelson) 5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Absent, 1 Abstention to recommend the Hamrick
property and all previously permitted work as a Class 1 Historic Site - #50.
Board member John Williams asked about the legality of classifying a site if a member has not seen it
and if staff could comment and/or research this.
Staff reported that some cities’ ordinances include this restriction; however, the Palm Springs Historic
Preservation Ordinance does not require a personal visit by those voting. This may be one of the
items to list for review and possible revisions to the Ordinance.
Board member Bud Riley asked that this be listed on the work list. He doesn’t see how a Board
member could possible vote if they haven’t seen the property within the last 30 days.
(3) 647 Granvia Valmonte - Demolition
Case 3.2912 - Larry Armijo, agent for Chari Hertz, owner, for demolition of a Class 3 structure
down to rough grade, including pool at 647 Granvia Valmonte, Zone R1B, Section 11.
A Staff Report on this project was in the Board packets. Color copies of the photos were passed
around so the condition of the property is more evident. The building is designated Class 3 by nature
of its age being built in 1936. There have been numerous additions and renovations over the years
that completely obscure whatever was there in 1936. It currently resembles a typical track house from
the 1960s or 1970s. Nothing at the site or in the records would suggest that this house is important to
preserve. Staff recommends that the Board approve demolition.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Larry Armijo, owner and developer, explained that they wanted to remodel the building, but the
architects recommended it be demolished, everything is a mishmash. New structure will face the
mountains.
Board took no action, applicant can proceed with demolition.
HSPB Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS:
(1) Media Outreach - John Williams suggested focusing on the 53 properties from the Survey and
as a Board send property owners a letter inviting them to consider having their properties designated as
Class 1 Historic Sites. Board concurred.
Staff reported that the brochure is out of stock, perfect time to revise. Board member Bud Riley has
volunteered to work on this. If this brochure still represents a useful tool, Board needs to review, edit,
and it can be printed. Board members need to worked on this to make it more appealing, interesting,
and reduce property owners fear about having their homes to be designated as historic sites. That is
one of the biggest obstacles – communicating positive opportunities. Board asked to email to staff the
five (or more) most critical issues that should be included in the brochure.
Mr. Riley reported he and John Williams met, have written copy, and copies will be sent to each Board
member for review and input.
Board concerns and suggestions were cost, appearance, post brochure on web site, concise
information, possible VillageFest booth, potential history district map, etc. Sub-committee will be Bud
Riley, John Williams, and Jade Nelson.
Board member John Williams excused himself and left the meeting at 11:55 a.m.
(2) Historic Site Plaques Update - Bud Riley showed two plaques as examples - one aluminum and
one bronze for residential properties. Commercial property plaques are 20" x 20". City Facilities
department installs the plaques. Why is Palm Springs the only city in the State that pays for plaques
that cost from $400 to $1,000? This should be discussed at the Workshop. Ordinance needs to be
changed or consider not paying for future plaques.
(a) Indianoya Building, Class 2 Site #16 - 232 North Palm Canyon Drive
Board member Nelson reported that the canopy has been destroyed and the owner should be
contacted to have it replaced since this is a Class 2 site Photo passed around as to original
condition with canopy. This is the reason a plaque was discussed. Owners need to be contacted
to replace the canopy. Staff will send a letter to the owner listing the canopy and give them
the opportunity to plaque and will copy the Board.
Board members felt that plaques show that buildings are important. Maybe all properties don’t
need to be plaqued, but for Class 1 sites the city should continue to pay for the plaques - they
are incentives to plaquing and showing the value of the sites.
(b) Cork ‘N Bottle - 343 North Palm Canyon Drive - James Hayton
No report, newest owner has not returned calls.
(3) P.S. Preservation Foundation - Sidney Williams report that the Fall event on November 18 will
be a Walking Tour of the Downtown Class 1 Historic Sites. Ms. Williams is going off the Preservation
Board. Jade Nelson volunteered to report on this Foundations’s future activities.
(4) P.S. Historical Society - James Hayton - no report
(5) P.S. Modern Committee - John Williams - not present - no report
HSPB Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 8
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
(6) Architecture & Design Council - Jim Isermann reported that “Desert Holidays” will be shown on
July 8 at 6 p.m. screening in the Annenberg Theatre. Tickets are $5 and $10.
(7) Historic Preservation Ordinance Revision Project
The Board needs to really look at what they can or can’t take action upon and how to protect some of
the Class 3 buildings here in Palm Springs. This is where the work should be done to further the
goals. Workshop goals need to be prioritized and spend meeting time working on them.
Board members made suggestions for additions to the work list for the Workshop. New list will be
distributed at next meeting.
Board member S. Williams distributed a list of the California Preservation Workshops, copies will be
given to all Board members.
Outgoing Board member Jim Isermann expressed his thanks and appreciation for serving for six years.
It is important to deal with the current Historic Preservation Ordinance. It takes courage to do what
this Board is doing, staying focused on the issues is important.
Staff handed out copies of the Appeal that was filed in relation to the HSPB vote on the Rael project at
the last meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m. The next regularly
scheduled meeting will be July 11, 2006 in the Large Conference Room at City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Lyon, Associate Planner