Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-03- HSPB Minutes HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Large Conference Room, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262 www.palmspringsca.gov MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Burkett, Vice-Chair Hough, Members Rosenow, Dixon, Nelson, Kiser. ABSENT: None. 2020 – Attendance Record for CLG ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: Motion by Burkett, seconded by Hough to accept the agenda as presented. AYES: Dixon, Rosenow, Hough, Nelson, Burkett. NOES: None. EXCUSED: Kiser PUBLIC COMMENT: JEFFREY BERNSTEIN. Of Destination PS, spoke about the Town & Country Center project stressing the need for more exterior lighting, better signage and solar control. Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Dick Burkett ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Katherine Hough ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Jade Nelson ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Dan Kiser ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Linda Dixon ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Erik Rosenow ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ MARCH 3, 2020 9:00 AM REGULAR MEETING Historic Site Preservation Board Minutes March 3, 2020 Page 2 of 7 RON MARSHALL, of PSPF, spoke in favor of approval of the Town & Country project. There were no further speakers during public comment. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.A. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: DECEMBER 10, 2019 HSPB MEETING. Motion by Dixon, seconded by Hough to approve the minutes of January 14, 2020. AYES: Dixon, Nelson, Burkett, Rosenow, Hough. NOES: None. EXCUSED Kiser 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (None.) 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 4. NEW BUSINESS: 4.A. GRIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSING ALTERATIONS TO THE TOWN & COUNTRY CENTER LOCATED AT 174 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE. (HSPB #51 / CASE 3.1780) (KL) Staff member Lyon summarized the staff report. Member Dixon questioned whether dining in the passageway is necessary. (Crazy Mel’s currently encroaches into the passageway roughly 16 feet.) JIM CIOFFI explained the proposed new outdoor dining railing would only encroach roughly 6 feet into the passageway. The handrail would be minimal in its appearance like the one at El Patron Restaurant in the Oasis Commercial Building. He further clarified that this project is the first of a four-phase project: Phase 2: Courtyard & South Parking lot, Phase 3: The north wing with small shops, Phase 4: the Town & Country Restaurant building. Member Hough inquired whether some of the space could be a ar t gallery again? (Depends on the tenant negotiations). She further clarified that the sign program was a future item, and the project would have no awnings. SUSAN SECOY explained the period of significance for the historic resource was 1946 to 1955. She clarified that there was a cementitious wood that would be used to create wood surfaces that existed originally on the building. Historic Site Preservation Board Minutes March 3, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Chair Burkett noted the good visuals helped the board understand the project more clearly. He opined that the new tenants will bring vitality back to The Center. Member Dixon asked whether the second passageway (now closed off and converted to a tenant space) would be re-opened. She opined that a second passageway would be desirable and provide better exposure to the small shops along the north side of the courtyard. (The owner is still considering this as a design option.) Member Nelson asked about the paint colors (Recently approved by the HSPB as original paint scheme.) He asked if a restaurant tenant has been confirmed for the EF Hutton Building (None are confirmed at this time.) He recommended that the original “the Center” sign be incorporated into the sign program so it is preserved. Member Hough expressed that the passageway should have a “grand entrance” feel to it and the encroachment of the dining terrace there may diminish that quality. JIM CIOFFI noted the project also proposes to recreate the stucco fins at the Bank of America Building on the first floor. Member Nelson agreed with the idea that the main passageway should be a grand entrance but also said more entries would be better. Member Dixon noted she would like to see the second passageway opened again. Motion by Dixon seconded by Rosenow to approve the project as conditioned in the staff report and strongly recommended re-opening the second passage to the courtyard, explore architectural lighting as part of the project that is complementary of the building. AYES: Dixon, Hough, La Voie, Rosenow, Burkett. NOES: None. 4.B. NEW CHURCH II, LLC, OWNER, REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR ALTERATIONS TO TWO CLASS 1 HISTORIC SITES (HSPB 23 “COMMUNITY CHURCH” AND HSPB 72 “ORCHID TREE BUNGALOWS”), DEMOLITION OF A CLASS 3 STRUCTURE (200 S. CAHUILLA ROAD) AND CLASS 4 STRUCTURES, TO CONSTRUCT NEW BUILDINGS AND ADAPTIVELY RE- USE A 3.65-ACRE SITE AS A HOTEL WITH ACCESSORY SPA, RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE LOCATED AT 222 S. CAHUILLA ROAD, ZONE R-3, SECTION 15 (CASE 5.1345 CUP, HSPB 23, HSPB 72 & 3.0678 MAJ). (DN). Staff member Newell summarized the staff report. Historic Site Preservation Board Minutes March 3, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Member Dixon inquired whether the project meets the open space requirements (Newell responded it could not be determined from the information provided by the applicant.) She expressed concern that the project had a shortage of parking. Chair Burkett noted the concept presented by the applicant in 2016 included underground parking. Member Dixon inquired of the number of parking spaces along Arenas Road (Newell responded approximately 20 spaces.) Member Nelson suggested the loading area would be better along Cahuilla and would remove parking on Baristo which has high curbs. His concern is there is inadequate parking for the public parts of the project (restaurant, conference, spa., etc.) (Staff member Newell noted events and the restaurant / spa uses would need to be fully 100% valet parked he also noted there are spaces on the west side of Cahuilla that are dedicated to the uses at the church site.) Chair Burkett inquired on p. 4 of the staff report, the word “repair” really mean? (St aff member Newell said it would be more a remodel) He would like to see more clarification on the scope of the project relating to the bungalow repairs. Chair Burkett inquired about the window color (Staff noted the applicant would need to answer that question.) RICHARD WEINTRAUB, owner of the project gave fu rther overview of the project and explained his background in historic preservation. Mr. Weintraub gave examples of public use facilities he has that have limited parking and are not problematic fo r adjacent neighborhoods. He addressed some concerns with the proposed conditions of approval in the staff report. (1) The expanded kitchen addition to the church, (2) The fire and burnt building would be integrated into the new design. (3) Chair Burkett, referencing the 2016 scheme, asked about more renderings to help understand the details of the project, especially the bungalows. Mr. Weintraub noted the scheme was to make the bungalows look like they did when they were built in the 1930’s. A “restore and replace” approach. Chair Burkett asked about blending the roof tile on the bungalows new with old. Member Rosenow asked for clarification on what existing is still remaining on the window sashes and doors. (Mr. Weintraub noted the intent w ould be to reuse the existing sash wherever possible.) Historic Site Preservation Board Minutes March 3, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Member Nelson asked about the valet parking whether it would be free (Mr. Weintraub said it would be determined by the hotel operator.) He also asked if there was a plan to restore the stained glass windows. (Mr. Weintraub noted no part of the stained glass survived the fire.) He noted the original bungalow court was called the Sakarah Resort and would encourage incorporating an Arabic aesthetic on the project. Chair Burkett asked for clarification on whether the church was to be painted. (Mr. Weintraub noted the building is constructed of concrete and was proposed to be painted. Member Hough expressed strong opposition to painting the church. Member Nelson noted it is the only building in Palm Springs with exposed concrete block and it should not be painted. Member Dixon asked about charging a fee for valet parking and felt it should be incorporated into the hotel room rate. She also asked about the timeframe for the project. (Mr. Weintraub explained the time commitment in the development agreement addresses being opening by Fall of 2022.) Staff member Newell clarified the time schedule for the project. Mr. Weintraub asked for clarification on the condition #8 on the proposed cabana, noting it was not intended to be open to the street. Staff member Newell suggested the design of the cabana be conditioned to come back to staff or the board for final approval. Member Nelson requested clarification if Building “J” (239 Arenas) was to be demolished (Staff Newell noted it was slated for demolition.) Member Nelson read some information on the history of the building. He opined that the building should have more investigative review of the buildings on that site and would not be in favor of approving demolition of those buildings. He also noted there were stone pillars that should be investigated, and a date of 1987 carved in the mortar of the “historic” stone arch. Chair Burkett suggested adding conditions to not paint the church, and for clarification on the proposed dark anodized windows. He felt it was important to salvage roof tile on buildings to be demolished. He asked for involvement of the Sustainability Commission on recommendations for reducing the waste stream for the demolition and construction of the site. He also asked whether the landscape plan was “final” or would it be coming back to the board and felt they should come back to the board for final approval. Director Fagg suggested the Sustainability be asked to review the demolition plan prior to issuance of the building / demolition permits. Historic Site Preservation Board Minutes March 3, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Member Nelson noted use of the tropical palms should be substituted for more drought tolerant species of palms. Also to rethink the use of potted bougainvillea because they won’t survive the prolonged summer heat. He suggested the original palms behind the Arenas Lodge be salvaged and reused. Confirming condition #2, church shall not be planted. Any existing roof tile shall be salvaged where possible and blended with new The demolition plan submitted to Sustainability Commission for effort to maximize waste stream diversion. The landscape should come back to the HSPB to address the substitution of the tropical palms, the relocation of the potted bouvainvillea,, and salvage and reuse of the palms behind the Arenas Lodge. Condition #8 be modified for final approval by HSPB. Member Hough seconded by Rosenow to accept the recommendation of the staff report and the added conditions. Member Nelson expressed that the bungalows along Arenas should be further investigated to determine historic significance and should not be demolished until such research is completed. Mr. Weintraub expressed strong disagreement noting there was little historic fabric remaining on the Arenas parcel and they do not warrant further review. He noted the buildings are class 4. Director Fagg clarified the HSPB has authority to review demo litions of Class 4 structures. He felt the study of these buildings was not unreasonable and should not slow down the project schedule. Member Nelson asked for further clarification on which buildings are proposed to be demolished. (Staff Newell clarified which buildings are proposed to be demolished.) The maker of the motion and the second accepted the amendments to their motion . The Chair called the question. AYES: Burkett, Hough, Dixon, Nelson, Rosenow NOES: (none.) EXCUSED: Kiser 4.C. AMENDMENT TO THE HSPB RULES OF PROCEDURE CHANGING THE MEETING TIME FOR REGULAR HSPB MEETINGS. Director Fagg summarized the change of meeting time. Historic Site Preservation Board Minutes March 3, 2020 Page 7 of 7 Dixon seconded by Rosenow to amend the rules of procedure to change the Boards’ meeting time. AYES: Burkett, Hough, Dixon. Nelson, Rosenow NOES: (none.) EXCUSED: Kiser 5. DISCUSSION: 5.A. UPDATE ON PLANNING FOR THE 2020 HSPB SYMPOSIUM (Burkett, Hough, Kiser, subcommittee). April 18 and 19, 2020. Chair Burkett summarized the progress in planning to date and passed out an updated schedule of events for the symposium. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Chair Burkett asked for members to volunteer for the sustainability subcommittee (Dixon and Burkett.) He noted board members can report to code compliance if they see work being done on historic sites that do not seem consistent with the work approved by the board. STAFF COMMENTS: (none.) ADJOURNMENT: The Historic Site Preservation Board adjourned at 10:00 a.m. to its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday April 7, 2020, at 9:30 P.M, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall. ________________________________________________ Flinn Fagg, AICP Director of Planning Services