Loading...
2007 01 18 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Ouinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Ouinta, CA January 18, 2007 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairperson Wilbur at 3:03 p.m. who then led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Puente, Sharp, Wright, and Chairman Wilbur Staff Present: Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan Saw a and Secretary Carolyn Walker II. PUBLIC COMMENT: III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to approve the minutes of September 21, 2006 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Evaluation of Adobes at La Ouinta Resort - Morgan House Applicant: CNL Resorts, L.P. (David Urban) Consultants: Architectural Resources Group Architects, Planners and Conservators, Inc. Location: West side of Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida Fernando, within the La Ouinta Resort. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in. the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. P:\CAROL YN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1-18-07.doc Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 2. Commissioner Sharp asked if the Morgan House would be retrofitted. Staff replied no and read the recommendations in the staff report regarding safety and fencing of the Morgan House. 3. Commissioner Sharp was very concerned about the Morgan House as it was a good example of Monterey Architecture and should be preserved. 4. Commissioner Puente asked about the cost of retrofitting the . structure. Staff said they did not have the cost information, but was told it was very expensive to retrofit and pointed out the Morgan House was in the project site, but would not be used as part of the project. 5. Commissioner Wright said it was not open to the public and it did not need to be retrofitted. 6. Commissioner Sharp asked if the house would be surrounded by chain link fence. Staff stated it would be fenced appropriately as noted in the recommendations. 7. Mr. Sam Gasowski, of Stowel, Zeilinga and Ruth, spoke on behalf of the applicant (CNL Resorts) to answer the question on the fencing. He said it would be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and they would work with staff to make sure the fencing was appropriate. 8. Commissioner Sharp said this was a multi-million dollar project and wanted to know why more money was not allocated to retrofit the Morgan House. 9. Commissioner Wright said you cannot force the applicant to retrofit since the public was not going to be allowed into the Morgan House. 10. Chairman Wilbur asked if the public was allowed in to the new development or if it was limited to hotel guests. Staff replied the pool facility would be for hotel guests and not be open to the general public and would be gated with only one main entry. 11. Commissioner Wright asked if Casa Magnolia, which is a separate building off the site, was going to be open to the public. Staff said it would not be open to the public. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1~18-07.doc 2 Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 12. Commissioner Wright asked about the tennis courts, swimming pools, and other buildings. He asked if staff was going to determine what buildings were being removed and were there any other historic buildings involved. Staff replied there were only modern buildings being demolished and no adobe structures were involved. 13, Commissioner Wright asked if the Morgan House would be maintained by painting, and could the Commission require the applicant to keep up standard maintenance to keep the building from falling down. 14. Planning Manager Johnson said the hotel hired one of the best adobe experts around to inspect it. He said the impetus is on keeping the Morgan House protected. Retrofitting is yet to be determined by the Hotel. Staff expects there would be some standard upkeep of that facility but it would not be utilized as a feature within the confines of the Resort at this time. The key issues of the report were: 1) to identify the importance of the buildings and their history, as stated in the report; and 2) make sure there is a proper barrier provided around the building. 15. Commissioner Wright said when KSL owned the property they refused to do any National Historic Registration, but he was very concerned because the City was named for this historic property. When the Commission worked with Sienna Corp. (Tradition) they were very emphatic that the hacienda and any important structures be restored and maintained. He stated he had a problem with this structure just being fenced as it could be falling down from neglect in ten years, and would have to be demolished because of safety issues. The City has lost many of its historic buildings and so few are left. Everything in the Resort is very historic and should be maintained, He wanted to know why it could not be integrated into the property as a sales office, or similar use. This is a major decision for the Commission. 16. Commissioner Puente recommend the owners property as historic. asked if the Commission could take appropriate steps to register the 17, Commissioner Wright said it is up to the property owner and they cannot be forced to register a property. However, this is a very historic part of the property and he was concerned the property would be eroded building-by-building until there was little left. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1-18-07.doc 3 Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 18. Chairman Wilbur asked if it was possible for the owners of the property to demolish the house. Staff replied not without the Commission and City Council's approval. 19. Commissioner Sharp asked why the Morgan House could not be utilized as the new Historic Museum instead of the one the City was building. Staff replied it was on private property. 20. Commissioner Sharp said the building has to have a reason to exist so it does not become a source of blight. 21 . Commissioner Puente said there were tax incentives for the owners of historic property. Maybe the owners should consider that. 22. Commissioner Wright replied the Hacienda was completely restored to what it was in 1927. That was a perfect example of how a corporation could put a historic building to good use. He thought there should be specific guidelines now on how the project should be either restored, or retrofitted. 23. Mr. Richard Garnett, resident on Los Estados, said he hated to see the Morgan House end up with a fence around it and left to deteriorate. He also stated there is a huge ground swell against the proposed Signature Pool development as it is currently proposed. The concern of the nearby residents is, that if they are not careful they will have a potential Disneyland next to a historic site. He said when the Planning Commission has the open hearing on the Signature Pool he expected a great deal of participation by the residents and a great deal of rejection. The new project removes the Stadium Court and a lot of other things which the residents believe are part of the historic significance of the resort. 24. Mr. Gasowski, in responding to Mr. Garnett's comments said the full environmental analysis is being conducted by the City with regards to light, noise, and any other environmental impact that the Signature Pool project will have on the area and will be properly addressed at the Planning Commission and City Council. He added the applicant has no plans for the Morgan House and as staff pointed out nothing can be done to the Morgan House without the approval of the Commission. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1-18-07.doc 4 Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 25. Commissioner Sharp reiterated without a purpose for the building there would be no motivation to make it better or even p1Ceserve it. It would eventually deteriorate. 26. Commissioner Wright asked why the applicant is even fencing it olff if no one is going to see it or use it. He agreed with Commissioner Sharp on the building having a purpose. 27. Mr. Gasowski replied the wall is a safety issue, to prevent anyone from getting hurt. Staff, the environmental experts, and the applicant have determined this is the safest way to prevent anyone from getting hurt in the event there is seismic activity. 28. Commissioner Wright said the safest way is to retrofit the building. He was under the impression the older parts of the Hotel had been retrofitted and asked staff if that was correct. Staff replied they were not sure what buildings had been retrofitted. 29. Chairman Wilbur asked if the applicant had obtained a cost estimate on retrofitting. Mr. Gasowski said he did not have those numbers in front of him but it was his understanding the analysis was done and it had been identified as financially unfeasible to retrofit the building. 30. Chairman Wilbur said the Commission would appreciate hearing the numbers on retrofitting. He agreed with his fellow Commissioners in saying that there is no appeal on the building being walled, or fenced, and being left. He was concerned with businesses changing their direction and what could happen to the Morgan House if the Hotel changes hands. If this building is not part of the future of the current project then the Morgan House has no future. He also said at some point in time, since it is not a registered building, it will be in really bad shape and the owners will want to demolish it. This has happened in this City and it shouldn't happen to this building. He is concerned it will not get the attention it deserves. 31. Commissioner Sharp said it would be an eyesore to the project unless it is maintained, or retrofitted, and has a specific purpose. 32. Commissioner Wright said he is against approving this application until he receives further details on what will happen to the Morgan House. The Commission previously had to fight to prevent the loss of the adobes. He is not ready to see this P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1-18-07.doc 5 Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 structure be sent down the road to corporate demolition. He does not know anything about the other project, and that's the Planning Commission's concern. He referenced the statement "landscaped grounds and several buildings". He wanted to know specifically what was going to be taken down, and what was specifically historical. If it is a part of the Morgan House the Commission needs to take a closer look. There's just not enough information for a vote. He suggested the Commission take another tour of the area to see what was going to be taken down and what was to remain. 33. Chairman Wilbur said La Casa is not part of that, but it is a similar structure constructed in the same way. He asked if it had been retrofitted. Staff said it had not. Chairman Wilbur asked if La Casa was currently being used. Staff said the patio is used sometime for activities, but the interior of the building is not being used at this time. Chairman Wilbur said there is an element of potential profitability in retrofitting the La Casa building. He suggested considering the formation of a Foundation for restoration/retrofitting of the Morgan House. They could then raise funds not only to retrofit, but to maintain it. It could then be open to the public certain times of the year. He shared the sentiments of the other Commissioners. 34. Commissioner Sharp said there was not much creative thought put into the use of the building, other than put a fence around it. To destroy the building or let it disintegrate would be a really sad thing. 35. Mr. Gasowski said he didn't think that was the plan. It was to keep the building at status quo. Commissioner Sharp replied it won't work that way, it will fall down. 36. Commissioner Wright said there was nothing in the report that stated what the plans were for the Morgan House. The Commission needs to see what the specific proposals are for the Morgan House, how it's going to be maintained and what is the purpose of putting a wall around it. The Hotel is very important to the City as the City was named after the Hotel. Walter Morgan and the Morgan House are very important to this community and there is just not enough information here to justify the Commission's vote today. He repeated his concerns about the statement "and several buildings". 37. Mr. Gasowski replied there had been no other identification of any other historic buildings that would be involved with regard P;\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1~18-07.doc 6 Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 to the plan. He said the applicant did not have any plans for the Morgan House. 38. Commissioner Wright said that's the problem. The applicant was new to the City of La Ouinta, with their purchase of the Hotel and they do not understand La Ouinta is a very small community and the Commission has concerns over the historic value of this home. If this project were in Santa Monica you'd have 50 concerned citizens outside the meeting, and the same thing with Pasadena. La Ouinta is no different than any other town that has historical buildings, except we don't have a lot of historical structures left to maintain historically. I think that the developer and the owner need to understand that this is not something that is easily decided. He said he wanted to see this structure maintained. He emphasized KSL had promoted the historic value of the grounds, buildings, etc. It was one of the things they sold their rooms on. This is not just another old building. He was determined not to have a wall put around the building and let it deteriorate. 39. Commissioner Sharp said the retrofitted Hotel lobby became a very interesting place. He often takes people to the Hotel to show and explain the history of the City. 40. Commissioner Wright asked the Commission to make a motion to table this item until they had a chance to tour the property and received something back from the developer regarding their specific plans for the Morgan House. 41. Commissioner Sharp said they would like to have the cost breakdown of retrofitting the building. 42. Mr. Gasowski said staff had indicated the Signature Pool would have no effect on the Morgan House. He added, assuming it was considered a historic property, without the project having any effect on it, he objected to the enabling statute in the La Ouinta Municipal Code with regards to the Commission's jurisdiction to impose any additional conditions. In addition, there is also an exception with regards to safety and to the extent there is a safety concern then that is an exception to the Commission's jurisdiction. 43. Chairman Wilbur suggested the applicant work with the Commission on mitigation measures that would keep the Morgan House in excellent shape, as well as some innovative idea for its future. The Commission understands it is not related P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1-18-07.doc 7 Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 to the project per se, but there is an opportunity to be a member of good standing in the community. Falling back on the Code is probably not a good way to build good will. 44. Commissioner Wright said none of the Commissioners know anything about, or care, about the water project, but they are concerned about this house. He asked if the Commission had the right to ask for some answers as the report was very vague, Staff replied they did have the right. Commissioner Wright said until the Commissioners had a chance to visit the property he would like to table this to the next meeting. Staff said if the Commission did wish to table the item they would need to specify exactly what information they are looking for so staff could make sure they received it. 45. Chairman Wilbur said they would like to see a cost estimate of retrofit, informatio'n on how it would be maintained over a period of time, a re-examination of the issue of the wall and fence, and what type of wall or fence would be constructed. Staff added when they say fencing they are talking about some type of picket fencing. 46. Commissioner Sharp said that type of fencing was not appropriate to the architecture, but an adobe wall would be. Staff said it would be in a style appropriate for the architecture. 47. Chairman Wilbur suggested the applicant do some out-of-the box thinking about what could be done with this property and how to integrate it into their plans. 48. Commissioner Wright said the Hacienda del Gato is an excellent example of preservation and use of a historic building. The Commission is concerned about the situation of out-of-sight, out-of-mind and slow deterioration and hoped this was not their attitude on the rest of the structures at the La Guinta Hotel. If this was their attitude, it did not sit well with him and he wanted to know what their attitude was on the rest of the buildings and grounds of the La Guintal Hotel. 49. Chairman Wilbur asked if there was the possibility of visiting the property. 50. Staff said there was the possibility the information could be obtained prior to their next scheduled meeting or maybe there could be a special meeting. Commissioner Sharp asked if the staff would be scheduling a special tour for the Commissioners. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1-18-07.doc 8 Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 Staff said they would look into it, but the Commissioners could actually walk around the building themselves. He added staff has interior pictures which were done as part of the evaluation. Commissioner Wright suggested the Commissioners take it upon themselves to visit in the next several days in case staff came back to the Commission for a special meeting. That way they would not hold up the applicant. 51. Planning Manager Johnson suggested they contact staff to make arrangements with the applicant to have the Commission get a more in-depth look. 52. There being no further comments it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to continue the item. Unanimously approved. B. City-Wide Historic Resources Survey Update Applicant: City of La Quinta Consultants: CRM TECH (Bai "Tom" Tang) Location: City-wide 1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Torn Tang, representing CRM Tech, gave an explanation of how the survey was completed and gave a little background on the previous survey. 3. Commissioner Sharp asked who set up the criteria. Mr. Tang directed him to Page 3 of the report which provided a list of the criteria for State and City historical significance. 4. Chairman Wilbur said the survey was completed and updated through the middle of 2006 and asked how many structures were involved. Mr. Tan(j replied 193. 5. Commissioner Sharp asked if these encompassed the previous survey. Mr. Tang replied the book they received today did not include any previously reported properties. 6. Commissioner Sharp asked if they just drove by or got out and looked at the structures. Mr. Tang explained exactly how the survey was conducted. He added how intense the survey was as well as the records search that was done. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1-18-Q7.doc 9 Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 7. Commissioner Sharp asked if the new owners knew they could not alter their homes. Mr. Tang said there was no legal mandate to prohibit most of the homeowners from making alterations. 8. Commissioner Sharp asked if the owners knew they had historic homes. Mr. Tang replied most of the owners probably did not. 9. Commissioner Wright said the most important thing is they have been documented, and complimented CRM on a report well done. 10. Mr. Tang said of the 183 they recorded not all of them are pristine, they have windows and roofs. replaced. It was rather artificial where they drew the cut off line as to what was recorded, because of the alterations that had been done. In some alterations you could still see some of the elements of the original design and those were recorded. There were a few buildings that had been completely altered but because they were built in the prescribed timeframe they were included. 11. Commissioner Sharp asked where the book was filed and how could the public have access. Mr. Tang stated there were 3 copies filed at the City of La Quinta (Community Development Department), one copy at the Eastern Information Center at UC Riverside, and another copy at the SHPO office in Sacramento. He suggested one copy should go to the Historical Society. 12. Planning Manager Les Johnson said the report would go to the Council before it goes anywhere else. The report would also go to the Library. He added they would be working with the Building Department on any work done on these properties. 13. Chairman Wilbur said it appears that not a lot has been missed. 14. Commissioner Wright thanked staff for pushing this through and getting it done. It was nice to have it updated and completed. It is a great report. 15. Planning Manager Johnson commented on how intensive the research was on this report. 16. There being no further comments. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2007-001 accepting the results of the Historic Resources Survey as submitted. Unanimously approved. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 1-18-07.doc 10 Historic Preservation Commission January 18, 2007 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: 1. Commissioner Sharp asked about the Point Happy Gates. Planning Manager Johnson said he did not have an answer as yet, but would find out by the next meeting. Commissioner Wright thought they might be stored at the back of the property. 2. Chairman Wilbur asked if Leslie Mouriquand had been recognized for her years of service to the Commission by the Council. or staff; either through a letter of appreciation, plaque or other form of recognition. Chairman Wright referred back to some of the reCO[lnition plaques and asked if we could do something for Leslie. He said it would be nice to make a presentation at the next meeting. 3. Commissioner Wright asked about the cap at the former La Guinta Arts Foundation site and asked if it was checked. Staff said it was. located in the upper part of the Dune. Commissioner Wright commented on where the cap was located and said he just wanted to make sure the cap was monitored. Staff said they would require the appropriate monitoring be done. The new developer would have to maintain the same monitoring recommendations. Commissioner Wright just wanted to make sure the area was monitored properly. Staff said the new developer would be obligated to follow the same standards set forth previously. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright and Sharp to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on February 15, 2007. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4: 17 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: a1lN~11j (tkl216tZ/ Carolyn Wff'ker Secretary P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Corn\HPC 1-18-07.doc 11