Loading...
2008 04 17 HPC MinutesMINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held in the Study Session Room at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 17, 2008 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilbur at 3:01 p.m. who asked for the roll call. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Puente, Redmon, Sharp, Wright, and Chairman Wilbur Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, Consulting Planner Nicole Criste (Terra Nova Planning, Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker, and Secretary Monika Radeva. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Redmon to approve the minutes of March 20, 2008, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Cultural Resources Phase I Survey fora 4.84 Acre Parcel Applicant: David Maman Designs Consultant: Terra Nova Planning & Research Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2008 Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Associates (Robert S. White, et al- for Eilar Associates Location: South side of Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Applicant David Maman and Archeologist Robert White were introduced. Commissioner Wright noted that Commissioner Redmon was not a member of the Historic Preservation Commission when this project was previously reviewed. He continued to say his position remained the same as it was when this first came to the Commission in 2006. It would be wonderful to be able to preserve it, however, it would be cost-prohibitive for the applicant. He pointed out this is a small project and conservation of the building would have been more appropriate if it was a project on a large area of land. He suggested a detailed photographic record of the building would be the most logical and practical decision. Commissioner Redmon said she had a different approach to this situation since she was not involved in the project previously. She acknowledged the financial lack of viability for preservation of a building in the middle of such a small project. However, it was her responsibility to make sure structures of important historic significance are properly taken care of. She stated, based on the report, the building had some examples of uniqueness, individuality, and significance from an architectural and historical stand point and said there should be a way to physically preserve them, while allowing this development to go forward. She pointed out it would be unreasonable to place the burden of restoration on the developer due to the deterioration and alteration of the structure which detracted from its historic significance. She questioned the validity of the argument that there is no sense in keeping the building because it is an adobe since adobe buildings deteriorate over time. Using that reasoning, nothing adobe would ever be preserved or restored. Commissioner Redmon asked if there was away to ask for City Council funding for a combination photographic/preservation record of certain specific elements, such as the inverted lintels, poured adobe, and the cobblestone fireplace, and to extract certain archaeologically significant items. She suggested the possibility of moving the wall 2 Historic Preservation Commission April 77, 2008 with the lintel and the cobblestone fireplace to a different location where they could be preserved and remain accessible to the public. Preservation of the building within the development would not allow public access while relocation would preserve those elements and allow the applicant to develop the site. Commissioner Sharp asked where the photographic records of the building would be stored. Principal Planner Mogensen responded the records would be kept at the City Museum. Commissioner Sharp elaborated on Commissioner Redmon's suggestion to move some of the historically significant features from the property to a different location. He said it could be very difficult to move the cobblestone fireplace from its current location. Relocation could cause severe structural damage and reconstruction would be very costly. Commissioner Sharp noted the lintels while architecturally unique, could easily be duplicated. He also added that lintels are a common feature in many other houses in the valley and a photographic record would be sufficient. Archaeologist David White stated the fact the house was constructed from adobe was significant as adobe houses tend to "melt" over time and did not weather well during earthquakes. The uniqueness of the building was established primarily on its construction. After closer inspection, a few little nuances were identified, such as the inverted lintels (a signature of the architect or the builder.) Mr. White stated he was not sure if the lintel was adobe brick skin and mortar or a wooden beam. The building was occupied during their inspection and they would have had to hammer on the building and possibly cause damage to investigate any further. If the lintel were to be a wooden one, it could easily be extracted and preserved during demolition. Mr. White pointed out that no structural steel was used in building and the cobblestone fireplace is extremely heavy. If money were no object, a very large crane could be used, however, the cost would be prohibitive. In addition, the structure is very brittle and could easily break apart. Mr. White also stated the building layout was very traditional IL- shaped) and there were contemporary additions made. Mr. White added that an interesting link with history is that the person who commissioned the building was a very early sub-divider and speculator who was building houses on little ranchos. This was an indication of an early attempt to create little get-away ranchos for people from the Los Angeles area. 3 Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2008 Commissioner Sharp asked about this structure being unique as an adobe house versus an adobe brick house. Mr. White mentioned the Chapin Adobe he had worked on in 1989 in Indian Wells had been built out of adobe bricks. The bricks had been made by pouring mud into wooden plank forms. The adobe in question was a lot different from the typical adobe found in other parts of California since it was made of very fine grain clay as opposed to a clay mix with grass and straw. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. White if one was better than the other. Mr. White responded, in either instance, the mixture made for a very brittle brick and it was simply what they had to work with. Mr. White added that he thought the building was poured to a point, due to the fact that no joints were found. There was the possibility that the joints were there, but had melted perhaps during construction when it was skinned with mortar. Ultimately, the only way to be able to tell for sure would be, during demolition or to open up a section of the wall. He believed it was poured since it was constructed in the 1920s as there were a lot of houses with concrete slabs. This builder had a firm understanding of modern construction techniques, but had limited resources. Commissioner Sharp asked about the architect who would be in charge of the property documentation. Mr. White responded the architectural historian would be David Van Horn, who has extensive experience in this area. Mr. White explained that with any historic building project there are two elements of importance: 1) when it was built and 2) who the architect was. In this case, he was unable to find out what year it was built. Commissioner Sharp asked if the architect of this adobe had any reputation. Mr. White responded it was not the work of an architectural master since there would have been a lot more ornate architectural features incorporated into it. The single story structure was built pre- depression with a traditional L-shape layout and had elements of a traditional California-type rancho with the builder's own little twist. 4 Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2008 Commissioner Puente pointed out the report was put together well, however, the same issues still existed as in June of 2006. She expressed her hope that more options would have been presented, but there had not been any. She stated she reviewed the report and understood both the concerns of the developer and the Commission. She mentioned her strong background in Art History and her European Roots, which strongly influenced her opinion of preserving the adobe at hand. She pointed out there were many characteristics of this building which had been identified as unique and historically significant to the point that it would be eligible for the California registry as a historic monument. She said an attempt to save the building, as it is, should be made as she considered it to be very significant for the Coachella Valley. At the very least as Commissioner Redmon suggested, an attempt should be made to save certain features. Commissioner Puente would like the City Council to intervene and take some action in the preservation of the adobe. She said she did not feel comfortable with approving the demolition and wanted to explore further preservation options. Chairman Wilbur stated the responsibility of the Historic Preservation Commission remains the same as it did during the previous meeting in 2006. He said there are other options that could have been explored to preserve the building. Many times, in the past, buildings with similar structure, age, and range had been lost, which should have been preserved. He would favor the preservation of the building or certain elements as suggested by Commissioner Redmon. He acknowledged the financial constraints involved in such an attempt, as well as the financial hardship the applicant has suffered due to previous delays However, he pointed out it was the duty of the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure preservation of historically significant elements. He understood a complete photographic record would be made, but wanted to exhaust all other possibilities for preservation. He wanted a careful evaluation of the actual value of the structure as a genuine article and its indigenous character to the Valley. He would like to look for a way to preserve some elements of it without losing the historic context which would happen with photographs. His position remained the same as before, which was against demolition of the building. He realized the importance of this issue to the applicant, but asked the applicant to understand the importance of the preservation of the building Commissioner Wright said that there were a few things that needed to be looked at. He agreed important structures had been lost in the past, however, they brought the City's attention to such actions and now the Commission is notified prior to issuance of any demolition permit. 5 Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2008 Commissioner Wright pointed out the Commissioners should look at the property in question, and that it would be worthless as a developable land if the building, which is right in the middle of the site, was preserved. He noted that the applicant had stated previously he had no idea of the possible historic significance of the building when he purchased the site. If he had known, he would not have purchased the land for development. Commissioner Wright continued to say Commissioner Redmon lives in an adobe built in 1938, in the La Quinta Cove. There are about 30 of them left in the La Quinta Cove. However, the Historic Preservation Commission has no authority over any of them and any of those adobes could be demolished by the owners if they wanted to build something else. The only authority the Commissioners had was to try to persuade the owners to maintain the historical integrity of the structure. The Archaeologist has already stated this adobe is impossible to move and is already melting down. It is right in the middle of the parcel, which makes the land undevelopable if the adobe has to be preserved. In addition, even if the building was preserved, it would not be accessible to the general public as it would be in a gated community. He referenced the situations at the Point Happy and Tradition developments stating they were of much larger size. Commissioner Wright stated that the Commission has the duty to preserve the historic context and historic viability of the City, but should keep in mind all of the adobe structures in the La Quinta Cove which could be demolished tomorrow without the Commission's approval. It would not be fair to put such a burden on the applicant, the Cove residents are aware of their structures' significance, but they could alter these structures without any problem. This creates a double standard and he encouraged the Commissioners to carefully re- think it. He added nothing would ever be done with the property because it would not be financially viable for anyone to spend 5800,000 to 51,000,000 dollars to retrofit and clean up the property. Commissioner Wright stated he has looked at the property and does not see any historical value with the exception of some interior features. He emphasized the Commission should be responsible from the standpoint of both historic preservation and development. The economics of this situation should be taken into consideration when making a decision. Commissioner Redmon said she would like to refer back to her original suggestion, however, if the cobblestone fireplace or the lintel were not unique features and physically impossible to move, then she agreed 6 Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2008 there was no financial viability in preservation. But she would like to make sure the lintel is preserved. Mr. White replied such a determination, as to whether or not the feature could be relocated without damage was outside of his expertise, but his gut feeling was it would fall apart. Commissioner Redmon asked if there was a way to include relocation as a permit condition if it is viable. If it was found to be impractical it would be dismissed. Commissioner Wright asked if the Commissioners had been out to the site to look at the building. Commissioner Redmon replied she had not. Commissioner Wright suggested it would be a good idea to visit the site. He pointed out the photographic record put together for historical documentation would be very extensive and detailed with site surveys, archaeological research, etc. He suggested a possible recording of it could be made on DVD. Commissioner Wright said he would hate to see the building go, but it was not viable to save it. In addition, the building had been altered. The building would disintegrate if not retrofitted, and it might still disintegrate even if it was retrofitted. He referenced similar buildings in the city. He pointed out preservation of this building was not economically viable for the developer or the citizens of La Quinta. Commissioner Redmon asked for clarification on all or nothing preservation. Commissioner Wright responded all or nothing because of the size of the project. Commissioner Redmon said she understood that, but wanted to have the lintel saved if possible. Mr. White said his team could try it, but didn't know if it was possible. Commissioner Sharp stated in his past profession, the lintel and cobblestone fireplace could be re-created out of fiberglass. A replica would be indestructible and light and could be painted to look exactly like the original. Planning Director Les Johnson pointed out there was a supplemental report completed which identified "the softness of the adobe matrix 7 Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2008 from which the bricks were fashioned appears to have melted together thus eliminating the tell-tale joints between many of the bricks." Mr. White stated his research team had been oscillating on this and thought it was important to include this in the report since poured adobe was rare. Planning Director Johnson said he wanted to make reference to that, for the record, since there was discussion about it. He added regarding the reverse lintels, the report states "upon further examination it appears that these splayed bevels may merely represent a construction technique adapted to working with adobe." He said the original study identified there may be significance to these features as something special and unique, but the subsequent report states it is only the fact that it is an adobe. Commissioner Redmon responded that was just semantics. The supplemental report states, regarding the lintels, that "...may merely represent... Simply because there were two different reports without a definitive conclusion and the architect could not be found, at the moment, she would not like to find out later it was, in fact, significant. Therefore, if the developer was in the process of demolition and it was determined there was no way to remove and preserve it for no more than 510,000, then it wouldn't be preserved. Commissioner Redmon said there were many things identified as special to this particular house and she was reluctant to go forward with the demolition if preservation of some unique elements was economically viable. Planning Director Johnson stated if the Commission recommended this building was not of significance to retain, it would still be considered and ultimately decided upon by City Council. He suggested and gave an alternative example of the decorative wall along Avenue 58, west of Madison. This concept could probably be adopted by the developer and something similar could be done with inserts in the wall of the development which mimicked features of the home that have been discussed today. He said something could be placed at the entrance of the development explaining the characteristics of the wall. Commissioner Wright said that approach was supposed to be used with the Point Happy gates, but they were never incorporated and the gates were most likely thrown away. 8 Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2008 Commissioner Wright said if something of this nature was imposed on the developer, who would know of it except for the Commission. He emphasized again it was going to be a gated community and any preservation efforts would not be available for public view. Planning Director Johnson pointed out some elements could be incorporated into the exterior wall, which added to the character of the project and the history behind it. Commissioner Puente asked if the style of the development had been determined as Tuscan. Applicant's representative, Mr. Ofer Dayan replied the style had not yet been determined. Consulting Planner Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning, clarified the style was discussed during the first project meeting. Mr. Maman said he checked the City's History Survey after the last meeting and it did not include his property. Commissioner Wright commented on the fact the survey was informational and most people don't know it exists. He reiterated his comments on Cove homes and the double standard. He encouraged the Commissioners to visit the site. Mr. Dayan stated the property had burned a few times and was rebuilt with additions. Mr. White touched upon the reuse of some of the project elements. He said he agreed with Commissioner Wright that it could be very problematic. However, Mr. White mentioned former projects where the re-use of some of the materials was successful. Mr. White suggested the utilization of some architectural features could be done through construction of a monument or decorative walls at the entrance. He said the lumber from the window and lintel might be salvageable, but taking it out as an intact section of the wall did not seem quite possible. Mr. Ofer Dayan mentioned that in the last meeting the City had offered to move the house for free. Mr. Maman stated he would love to be able to preserve the building, but it was not feasible. He asked the Commission to please let him demolish it so that he could continue with his development plans. Mr. Maman said he was willing to attempt the preservation of certain historically significant elements if possible, based on the advice of his consultant, David White; to recreate the elements as suggested earlier. 9 Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2008 Mr. Maman said he would be willing to have an expert on-site during the demolition process to advise him on what elements could be saved. Commissioner Sharp said there should also be a designer on-site, in addition to the expert, who would know what to do with the architectural components that were removed. Chairman Wilbur thanked Mr. Maman for his willingness to cooperate. He asked staff if an addendum could be added. Consulting Planner, Nicole Criste said a condition of approval could be added requiring supervision of the demolition and preservation of elements. She gave the example of the cobblestones being used in the posts at the entrance holding the gate, and other elements preserved in other components of the construction. Mr. White pointed out this approach to the demolition process would be more costly. Commissioner Wright said the house would have to be dismantled by hand and be treated as an archaeological part of the project. This type of demolition is very costly. Commissioner Wilbur asked if anyone else had a comment on this suggestion. Commissioner Redmon clarified the type of preservation she was favoring was not preserving the materials of the historically significant elements, but rather the elements as they were. However, if in the interim the architect of the building was discovered and it turned out the only reason for the use of the cobblestone was because there wasn't enough wood, then that would be an indication the fireplace did not have any value. Commissioner Wright said the suggested idea of preserving the materials of the elements was wonderful, however, he would not vote to add that to the recommendations. It would impose an economic hardship on the applicant without valuable merit. There being no further comments it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Sharp to approve Minute Motion 2008-001 accepting the Cultural Resources Phase I Survey as recommended by staff. 10 Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2008 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Redmon, Sharp, and Wright. NOES: Commissioner Puente and Chairman Wilbur. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: Chairman Wilbur asked Staff about the travel arrangements for the upcoming California Historic Preservation Conference. Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker provided the Commissioners with packets containing information on their travel arrangements. Planning Director Les Johnson suggested the Commissioners and Principal Planner Stan Sawa meet one night of the Conference for dinner in order to discuss the different events and workshops. Commissioner Wright stated that the Commissioners have done that in past conferences. Commissioner Wright commented on the excellent job staff has done in putting together the arrangements for the conference. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Sharp to adjourn this Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Regular Meeting to be held on May 15, 2008. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Unanimously approved. by: Monika Rad Secretary 11