Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-17- HSPB minutes CITY OF PALM SPRINGS HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING Minutes of SPECIAL ADJOURNED Meeting -Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 10:00 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 2006-2007 Excused Absences To-Date Sidney Williams, Chairperson X 5 0 Jade Nelson, Vice Chair X 3 2 James Hayton X 4 1 John Williams X 5 0 Harold “Bud” Riley X 5 0 Brian Strahl X 3 0 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Loretta Moffett, Administrative Assistant Ken Lyon, Associate Planner * * * * * 1. The HSPB Special meeting was called to order at 8:15 am. on October 17, 2006. There being no board members present, it was immediately adjourned to 10:00 a.m. Chairperson Sidney Williams called the Adjourned meeting to order at 10:03 a.m., Tuesday, October 17, 2006. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: S. Williams, J. Williams, J. Nelson, B. Riley, B. Strahl, J Hayton Absent: None 3. REPORT OF POSTING OF ADJOURNED AGENDA: This 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 8:20 a.m. Tuesday, October 17, 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. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NONE 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (3 minutes) : NONE 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE 7. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Case No. 5.1085 CUP / TTM 34019 – Orchid Tree 1915 Bungalow – 261 South Belardo Road Board asked for this to be on the Agenda. Staff reported that the Stay of Demolition will expire prior to the November 14 meeting. The Bungalow suffered a recent fire, extent of the damage is not known. The City’s activity in trying to relocate the structure has been exhausted. The person in Deep Well has withdrawn his interest. Updates sent to all members via email. Spoke with developer and they have no intention to start demolition until the new Historic Site Preservation Board Page 2 of 9 Minutes from the October 17, 2006 Adjourned Meeting year. Staff asked developer to advise if that changed. Action before this Board today is to do nothing and the Stay of Demolition will expire November 10, or the Board can extend the Stay of Demolition for a period of 60 days. Sub-committee members, John Williams and Jade Nelson, expressed concern about the fire and how it started. Asked for updates from Fire Department. Is it still movable? Staff reported that Economic Development looked at moving the Bungalow prior to the fire, there is no current effort under way. Prior to the fire, the mover advised that the chimney and fireplace would probably not survive a move and would have to be taken apart and re-built on the new location. Board member Jim Hayton felt that someone might want to take the chimney and fireplace and re-build them as an outdoor patio feature. Vice Chair Jade Nelson commented that the fire had changed many things as to the Bungalow, and there are other important buildings to focus on protecting; however, he pointed out that the McCallum Adobe (late 1800s building) was moved brick by brick. Question now is the Bungalow worth moving and to where? Too many unknowns to make a decision. Board member John Williams stated that it doesn’t seem a 60 day Stay of Demolition extension would interfere with the developer’s plans, so favors extending the Stay by 60 days to allow time for further options to save all or part of it. He moved that the Board extend the Stay of Demolition for 60 days to allow time to investigate what caused the fire, the extent of the fire, options to save the Bungalow or portions of the Bungalow. Board member Jim Hayton seconded the motion. Board member Brian Strahl asked if the motion could include actively looking for the bids to move the Bungalow and/or portions of it? Board member John Williams amended his motion to also ask staff to help. Staff indicated there are no resources allocated to move a building and staff does not have authority to spend funds on structural analysis or seeking bids. This Stay puts the onus on the property owner, and the Ordinance does not prevent demolition if ordered by the Chief Building official. Economic Development explored this, but it did not produce anything solid. Staff would need to know specifically what the Board wants, if it is affordable, and it would then have to go to Council for review. Board member John Williams advised that he had spoken with two City Council members who expressed interest in trying to find funding and/or relocating the Bungalow. Because of the fire, both have now questioned if it is possible. He wants to leave motion as originally stated and try to determine relocating costs, location, etc within this 60 day Stay period. M/S/C (J. Williams. J. Hayton – 5 Yes, 1 No, 0 Absent, 0 Abstention) to approve the motion to extend the Stay of Demolition for 60 days to allow time to investigate what caused the fire, the extent of the fire, and options to save the Bungalow or portions of the Bungalow. B. Historic Preservation Ordinance 8.05 – Revisions and Recommendations: Historic Site Preservation Board Page 3 of 9 Minutes from the October 17, 2006 Adjourned Meeting SUMMARY AND REASON FOR THE STUDY SESSION: The Historic Site Preservation Board members are concerned about the Board’s jurisdiction over historical properties within Palm Springs, the 200 properties listed in the 2004 Historic Resources Survey, and more specifically, the 53 properties selected from the Survey that are identified as being of major significance and importance. The Board also feels that the current Historic Ordinance 8.05 does not provide adequate preservation protection of these historic properties and wishes to recommend revisions to the Ordinance for Council’s review and approval. Staff reported that the five items listed on this Agenda are the Board’s top five priorities needing the most attention. These were listed in staff’s September 14, 2006 memo to the City Manager requesting authorization from Council for HSPB to hold this Study Session. (1) HSPB review and approval of exterior modifications to buildings listed in the Architectural Resources Survey (“the 2004 Survey”) and subsequent buildings that are added to the Survey. Peter Moruzzi, President of Mod Com, joined the members and pointed out three issues in the letter of January 9, 2006 from attorneys Chatten-Brown (copies provided). Page 6 of 12 provides actual recommendations related to the Code and how those changes could be made to the existing Code without having to re-write the entire Code (read from Page 6 – 8.05.180). The bolded and underlined part of that would address historic significant properties found on the Survey. Page 8 of 12 clearly defines a historically significant site. There are primarily three recommended revisions to Code 8.05 that are bolded and underlined in this document for Board review. This document was reviewed by members and staff present. Staff reminded members that the current process for designation is contained in 8.05.125. There is a procedure set-forth that the proposed amendment would completely circumvent. Members need to be aware that a public hearing with notices to property owners within 300 feet is required of each designation site and the proposed amendment is not clear that it would include that noticing procedure. Board member John Williams asked about the Ordinance’s coverage of Class 1 and 2 and that it lacks adequate coverage of Class 3 sites. Board was concerned about a way to clarify the significance and provide protection for the 53 properties selected from the Survey, and thought different type of designation might suffice. Staff responded that the issue is not what the properties are called, the issue is what the City does with it and that it passes the constitutional test of equal protection and due process. The kind of review that may be implied by the proposed amendment from HSPB of an exterior change makes it equivalent to a Class 1 site. The Council has set-forth a specific process for Class 1 designation including notice of a public hearing, which seems to be avoided by raising these 53 properties as a group to a Class 1 type status without going through that process. Board member John Williams pointed out that under 8.05.125 there are four types of Classifications, Class 1, 2, and 3 and Historical District. Possibly a fifth type...”survey properties” that would require review by the HSPB when modifications were applied for. Historic Site Preservation Board Page 4 of 9 Minutes from the October 17, 2006 Adjourned Meeting Might be a better way to approach this matter. Are properties already significant under CEQA and would that trigger review by the HSPB? Peter Moruzzi commented that if the 53 properties are already covered under Class 3, perhaps the Board should bring each of those forward for designation to allow better protection. Unless there is an environmental historic project, CEQA does not apply to historic properties. Board member Bud Riley referred to page 60 in Bulletin #14 “Drafting Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances” that indicates that “CEQA issues are found in a variety of historic preservation cases.” Staff explained that CEQA is a disclosure process and not a regulatory process. It’s better to have the Ordinance cover what is wanted rather than rely on CEQA. Staff is not opposed to an alternative process, but the more revisions, the more difficult it may be to get them implemented. Peter Moruzzi explained that another city has brought forth a few properties per meeting rather than bring all the properties in as one group. Board member Jade Nelson suggests going through all 53 properties as a Board. Each Board member take eight or nine properties, evaluate each one as to age, architect, condition, etc. and then prioritize them for re-classifying. Peter Moruzzi pointed out that the Ordinance does not require that property owners consent to designation. Staff reported that there have been several Class 1 designated properties where owners have gone on file as opposed and the City proceeded to designate them as Class 1 sites. Section 8.05.135 thru 8.05.145 covers this and leads the HSPB to making a recommend- ation for designation to the Council. There is nothing in the Ordinance that precludes anyone requesting or initiating the designation process. Peter Moruzzi explained that in the mid-90’s a Board member nominated eight properties designed by Albert Frey for designation. The Board initiated those and submitted to Council; ultimately all of them were designated as Class 1 sites. The process has been used and it’s an advantage to already have that in the Ordinance when evaluating the 53 properties. Board member John Williams asked if it was advantageous to bring them forward as Class 2 rather than Class 1. Staff advised there is no Board oversight of changes to Class 2 structures and most Class 2 sites are for buildings no longer existing. Class 3 is a pre-1945 category, Class 1 or 2 is an option for newer buildings, and Class 2 does not result in any protection for changes. Vice Chair Jade Nelson mentioned that some cities, LA as an example, do not dictate a particular year, date, or time for properties to be eligible. Perhaps the Ordinance could be revised to show a different date or time, such as 1965 rather than 1945. That would address all the architecturally significant structures built in the 50’s and 60’s i.e. Washington Mutual, Santa Fe Federal, etc. Historic Site Preservation Board Page 5 of 9 Minutes from the October 17, 2006 Adjourned Meeting Staff advised that 8.05.170 – “Stay of Demolition” provides that coverage, and if an initiation for designation as a Class 1 site was passed and staff started research, the initiation creates the opportunity for HSPB to issue a Stay of Demolition. Vice Chair Jade Nelson then asked how the Board would be apprised of the potential demolition of an 1989 building if it was not red-flagged in the database? Board member John Williams commented that if the Board adopts that approach, then there would be no need for revisions to the Ordinance. If the Board asked for addition of Historic Resource Survey properties... ”Any property identified by a city-sanctioned historic resources survey shall be subject to Historic Site Preservation Board review before alteration or demolition permits are issued. The HSPB, at it discretion, may initiate Class 1 designations of said property with corresponding Stay of Demolition available.” That simply says the Board wants to see these survey properties before something happens. Staff explained that this is effectively a Class 1 designation....this is doing Class 1 control, but saying it is not really a Class 1 yet. (Referred to Ordinance 8.05.180.) Board member John Williams stated that Class 1 requires HSPB approval, this suggestion asks for HSPB review, similar to the Architectural Advisory Council review. Staff advised that the definition of “review” would be necessary. Peter Moruzzi stated that it would make sense to have a new designation, with the same authority as a Class 1 Site. There appears to be some confusion as to the significance of the Survey and what is the point of the Survey if nothing listed in it can be review and there is no oversight by HSPB. Class 3 status does not provide any protection at all and is basically irrelevant as it relates to the 53 properties – all it allows HSPB to do is issue a Six- Month Stay of Demolition and potentially re-classify the property as Class 1 or 2. Class 3 does not provide ability to review modifications. Suggested the Board provide a new term or name perhaps “Survey Property”, and go to Council for their support and approval. With this proposed amendment to the Ordinance, the 53 properties would come under the purview of HSPB without having to go through Class 1 processes. Board member John Williams clarified his suggested amendment... ”that the property would be subject to HSPB review and then HSPB would have two options available: (1) approve the application; or (2) recommend the demolition or modifications (whatever being applied for) not take place and start the initiation process for the subject property to be designated a Class 1 Site. Summary: HSPB could either do nothing or start the Class 1 designation process. Suggested including all 200 properties listed in the Survey. The ultimate goal is to get presentations to HSPB, currently not required, before alterations or demolitions could take place on any of the Survey properties. Staff understood the suggested amendment and felt this was still a Class 1 process. Board member Brian Strahl suggested starting the review of the 53 or 200 properties to prioritize them as to Class 1 significance (or not) before going through the amendment to the Ordinance process. Staff advised that if one of the Survey property owners altered an existing Class 3 building, it would not come before this Board under the present Ordinance. Historic Site Preservation Board Page 6 of 9 Minutes from the October 17, 2006 Adjourned Meeting Staff suggested reviewing Class 3 terms for potential re-structuring so HSPB has more jurisdiction, such as “Six-Month Stay of Demolition or Stay of any Building Permits.” A Stay allows HSPB time to initiate the process for a Class 1 designation. (Referred to 8.05.170) Will need to explore further. Council will need to approve. Summary: All buildings built prior to 1945 and all valid Survey properties would automatically become Class 3 and subject to HSPB review prior to issuance of any type of building permit(s). Example of Washington Mutual Bank’s shade structure was discussed based on this scenario. Board member John Williams stated that HSPB does not designate, the Council designates a property as Class 1. With the Survey properties, it may mean that HSPB needs to work toward compromise which may mean changing the initial approach. Concern is that property owners may not want their properties designated, and it could create a lot of turmoil if HSPB starts prioritizing these Survey properties with possible intent to initiate designation. Board wants to encourage and educate property owners about preservation and designation, but not to inflame them. Staff advised that courts have pretty much upheld that historic preservation is a legitimate government power, but would the Council want to designate without owner approval? The Code gives HSPB authority to be out in front to look at the building stock in the City and to make recommendations to Council. With that authority already granted to HSPB, Council expects preservation actions to be brought before them. Chairperson Sidney Williams felt that looking at the properties in groups would be more efficient and that HSPB take a leadership role by making preservation recommendations. Vice Chair Jade Nelson stated that several months ago letters and Survey copies were sent to those 53 property owners, there was a public hearing, several owners appeared and some were supportive of their properties being designated or were interested in the process. The next step should be to send preservation information and materials. Suggested reviewing more properties at each meeting. Staff’s concern that every little structure built before 1945 that wants to put a new roof on or add a garage would be brought into this process. HSPB meetings should not be clogged, and efforts need to focus on significant buildings. The filter can be created through the Code of what Class 3 means, and what will be enforced to bring it to HSPB, or HSPB be “out in front” and push for those important properties deserving of protection by designation. This Ordinance calls on HSPB to “designate” those worthy resources. Chairperson Sidney Williams suggested identifying six of the 53 properties at the next meeting and continue this process at every HSPB meeting. Staff suggested ...”Survey properties will not be altered without HSPB review.” What constitutes alterations? Board member John Williams addressed the situation at 1000 North Palm Canyon Drive – the Potter Clinic. Historic Site Preservation Board Page 7 of 9 Minutes from the October 17, 2006 Adjourned Meeting Chairperson Sidney Williams asked staff to draft the expansion of Class 3 designation for Board to review at the next meeting. Board member Brian Stahl summarized what has been and is being considered...include 53 properties and try to put them in Class 3, meantime if a demolition or alteration permit is applied for on any of these 53, HSPB could issue a Stay of Demolition, decide if it should be elevated to a higher Class...? Staff advised that until Council changes the Class 3, all HSPB can Stay are demolitions on pre-1945 structures. Meantime, HSPB has authority to initiate reclassification of properties. Chairperson Sidney Williams brought up item (2) increase penalties and fines....and referred to 8.05.195 “Board action restricted to exterior features – Exception”...may not consider the interior arrangement of the structure except in the case of public buildings.” She asked for the definition of “public building” and if the lower Tram Station is a public building? Staff was unable to find that definition in the Ordinance, but believes it is a publicly-owned building or government building. The example of the Church reviewed at the last meeting would not be a “public” building. Any public agency with an elected controlling board would be a public building and believes the Tram Station would qualify. May have to refer to the City Attorney. Staff restated Board’s request.... “draft revision to the definition of Class 3 to bring in the 53 properties for review and consideration of re-designating to a higher classification or to the issuance of a Stay that would be triggered by any type of alteration or demolition request/application.” Board member John Williams asked that the Survey properties be included rather than just the 53 properties. Refer to page 8 of 12 of the Chatten-Brown January 9, 2006 letter..... (c) Historic Resources Survey....” And, add “any future properties identified through a credible Survey as approved by City Council.” Vice Chair Jade Nelson pointed out that the Ordinance was written 25 years ago and suggested changing the 1945 date to 1965 would cover properties that should have been listed in the Survey...or “40” or “50” years rather than a designated year. Staff pointed out that this would potentially bring in a huge number of properties that really do not qualify for this process. Board member John Williams felt this would cloud the issues and the “Survey” is more important. Peter Moruzzi suggested grouping all suggestions/revisions into one package and not to submit it piece-meal. Staff asked if this could be left at “revisions to Class 3 designations” for those properties identified in the Survey as being “eligible for designation” at the state of national level, and for the inclusion of “modifications” (not just demolitions)? On that basis staff will draft text and bring back at the next meeting. Historic Site Preservation Board Page 8 of 9 Minutes from the October 17, 2006 Adjourned Meeting Board members concurred. (2) Increase penalties and fines for non-permitted demolition or alteration of historic structures. Chairperson Sidney Williams stated that currently under 8.05.235 – “Penalty for violation” – the punishment is $500 for an infraction. Peter Moruzzi referred to pages 9, 10, and 11 in the Chatten-Brown January 9 letter “Protection of Historical Resources” - there are three approaches (attachments 2, 3 & 4) dealing with violations. $50,000 would be a very strong and firm fine that would be a deterrent to doing illegal demolitions or alterations to Class 1 Historic Sites without permits. (refer to all pages for details) Staff asked about the other cities’ penalties and what Board members found during their research of assigned cities. Board members had not completed their research. Peter Moruzzi outlined the LA penalties...”if it is determined that it is an egregious and willful demolition of a property, there is the discretion of withholding a building permit for up to five years for any construction on that site.” Board member Bud Riley offered that some cities require restoration to condition prior to the violation of any demolished property done without a permit. He asked about benign neglect? Staff advised that Council recently adopted a Vacant Building Maintenance Ordinance that applied to all vacant commercial or residential buildings. The Building department has been surveying these vacant buildings, which could lead into a Neglect Ordinance. Staff is comfortable with penalties ...”$500 or more....” Is the Board looking at a combined penalty of fines and withholding permits as one collective change? Discussion is needed relative to the economic consequences of not allowing a building permit to happen for five years. Would the City want that kind of “freezing” of an improvement? This falls into a category of “temporary taking” that came into being in the 1990s – this time frame would be a potential taking. Peter Moruzzi suggested consulting the City Attorney for advice, since LA has adopted this and it has been in force for several years. Pasadena has a similar penalty. Board member John Williams used the Ingleside Inn (Class 1 site) as an example stated that “if HSPB adopted Attachment 2 without Attachment 3 (Protection of Historical Resources letter), the owners could say they are going to tear it down. If they are fined $50,000, that might be very minor compared to the threat of not allowing owner to rebuild a $25 million project. There needs to be some kind of “real” penalty with teeth....perhaps a two or three year penalty – the $50,000 would just be a cost of doing business. Staff asked if this is a realistic penalty – leaving a piece of vacant land sitting for five years. How many violations have there been with the current $500 penalty? Council will ask this question when land is taken out of productive use in the City. Historic Site Preservation Board Page 9 of 9 Minutes from the October 17, 2006 Adjourned Meeting Chairperson Sidney Williams suggested a “sliding scale” based on residential or commercial and value of project. Some residential projects are demolished for condominiums. Staff suggested agendizing with the Council in their Study Session, present preliminary comments from HSPB, attend their meetings, and talk with the City Manager about scheduling a Study Session item on their Council with something like...”here is the direction the HSPB is looking at, are we on the right track?” A mid-course check-in might be a good idea that would gain response of the Council’s concern. Board member Brian Strahl asked if the Council might consider appointing a sub-committee to meet with HSPB. Peter Moruzzi proposed asking for the Study Session Agenda item before the full Council rather than asking for the sub-committee. They could then appoint or suggest a sub- committee. Board member John Williams asked if the Board was in agreement with Attachment 2 in the Protection of Historical Resources document -- $50,000 for demolitions and $10,000 for permit infractions. Should the five-year (or another range of time) penalty be included? Board felt it is worthwhile to suggest a time frame such as “one to five years” of not being able to build on. Staff advised that all language for Ordinance revisions or amendments has to be reviewed by the City Attorney; however, staff would do further research before referring. Board member Bud Riley passed around Historic District information and asked that it be included in the Agenda or work discussion at some point. Items (3), (4), and (5) of this Agenda will be continued at the November 14, 2006 meeting. Staff asked Board to research the 53 properties, prioritize them, and come back on November 14, 2006 ready to combine each member’s lists. Staff will email another copy of the 53 properties to Board members. The issue of requiring Board members to visit the sites of potential Class 1 Sites was discussed as an amendment/revision to the Ordinance; otherwise members not visiting the site could not vote on the designation. It will be on the Agenda for November. 8. ADJOURNMENT –There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting to be Tuesday, November 14, 2006 in the Large Conference Room at City Hall at 8:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ken Lyon Associate Planner