Loading...
2000 10 04 ALRC Minutes MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Ouinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October 4, 2000 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10: a.m. by Principal Planner Stan Saw a who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Dennis Cunningham, and Frank Reynolds. C. Staff present: Assistant City Manager Mark Weiss, Management Analyst Britt Wilson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Principal Planner Stan Sawa asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of September 13, 2000. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to approve the minutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Commercial PrODertv ImDrovement Program 2000-001; a request of Bruce Cathcart and Jim Cathcart, La Ouinta Palms Realty for review of a funding request to restore the existing wall texture, roof, wood trim, planters and patio entrance. 1. Management Analyst Britt Wilson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSIALRCIO-4-00.wpd 1 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 4,2000 2. Committee Member Cunningham confirmed the grant was for up to $15,000 and that this project will cost more than that figure. Mr. Cathcart stated that was correct. Committee Member Cunningham stated this was a step in the right direction considering we have our historical look being the La Quinta Hotel and this building is a good representation even in its existing condition. With the proposed improvements it will bring it even more into conformance with the look of of the Hotel. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if Community Development Department had reviewed the plans and what was the process in regard to the approvals. Staff stated the project is submitted to this Committee for approval of the funding and then it will go through the normal processing procedure. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his only concerns are to see that it will be approved by staff. He enjoys the downtown look and this building is attractive and with the mud tile it will only enhance the look. This is the look he would like to see more of in the Village. The other buildings downtown are not this style. He asked staff if they will be encourage to change their facade. Management Analyst Britt Wilson stated that in relation to the CPIP, when the Agency Board adopted it they wanted it to be consistent with the Village Guidelines. If the project does not conform to the Guidelines, it might not score as high. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated that In this case the project will cost more than the grant and as the applicant is matching the funds, it is good business. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how the City determines what percentage of the amount requested, the applicant will receive. Staff stated the applicant is required to do a 10% match and the City will go up to $15,000. This is a rebate program. The applicant receives the money after the work is completed. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern that an applicant could submit an inflated bid to get the extra money. Staff stated it is a rebate program and they must show clear evidence that the money was spent. The process runs so that the applicant can receive an approval on the grant and then go through the City's permit process to do the work. Staff is requesting this Committee to score the project and make a recommendation as to the amount that should be granted. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that without a full set of plans it is hard to determine what the applicant is doing. C:\My DocumentslWPDOCSIALRCI 0-4-00.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 4,2000 6. Committee Member Reynolds stated it is a good idea as it is in a conspicuous location in the City. 7. Committee Member Cunningham reviewed the proposed changes with Mr. Cathcart, the applicant. 8. Management Analyst Britt Wilson asked how the Committee Members wanted to determine the scoring. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would prefer an open discussion on each of the point areas. 9. Committee Member Cunningham stated they need to look at what is viewed by the public eye. Staff stated the idea of the grant is to see something from the street scene. Discussion followed as to the criteria the funds could be used for and how the applicant would be held accountable to be sure they complete the work as it was submitted. 10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the process will be once it passes this Committee. Staff stated it will depend upon the applications they will need to submit for the planning approval process. Committee Member Bobbit stated that if the landscaping is part of the applicant, he would like it to come back to the ALRC. Staff stated it would be up to the Community Development Department to determine the process after the CPIP approval. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if the applicant wanted to do just landscaping which normally would not need Planning approval, what will keep the applicant from putting something in that was not attractive. Staff stated that if it is significant new landscaping it will be brought back to the ALRC. 11 . There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-018 recommending approval of Commercial Property Improvement Program 2000-001 with a rating score of 89 and dollar amount of $15,000. Unanimously approved. B. Commercial Propertv Improvement Program 2000-002; a request of David Cetina, EI Ranchito Mexican Restaurant for review of a funding request to construct a front patio cover and new concrete. 1. Management Analyst Britt Wilson presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. C:IMv DocumentslWPDOCSIALRCI O.4-00.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 4, 2000 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated he approved of the proposed work except for the plastering of the columns. He questioned why the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) changed the applicant's design. Mrs. Cetina stated their original submittal did not contain the plastering on the columns, but the HPC requested they redesign as it is currently submitted. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt commented that the post treatment could make the patio cover. A post surrounded by slump, or textured the same as the wall would look better. Mr. Cetina stated the HPC did not want an exact match because it would then deter from the original design. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated he did not want to be in conflict with another Commission and he will defer to their opinion. As to their scope proposed, there is a tremendous amount of work. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this project is not approved by the Community Development Department what would happen. Management Analyst Britt Wilson stated the applicant had previously met with staff before it was submitted to this Commission to be sure the project conformed to City standards. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated the Committee could make a recommendation and the applicant can take that recommendation back to the HPC to see if they would want to change their decision. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the grant was not involved, would it will still have to go through the approval process. What happens if this Committee does not agree with the HPC's approval? 8. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the grants involving property that is within the historical district could be processed through the HPC and the would go through this Committee. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the location of the new sign as he did not think it could be seen at the proposed location. 10. Committee Member Cunningham stated that in regard to the architecture, the west end of the building appears to be missing the other half of the building. This is not architecturally complete and nothing can be done with it. To have the sloping trellis C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC 10-4-00. wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 4, 2000 accentuate this architectural problem, takes the building out of scale and brings it closer to the curb and creates too much "stuff". If the trellis were straight across, it would create architectural continuity and give balance to the front of the building. With regard to the posts, the plan shows round post column veneers. Mr. Centina stated it is the cap. They are square with rounded caps. It will have a trowel finish. Committee Member Cunningham stated that was not the same as the building because it is not slumpstone. This adds another element to the design. It should be a flat trellis all across the front using 8' X 8' posts exposed with a decorative corbel on the top and have it come off the slumpstone wall so the wall is the base of the column and the slumpstone boxes out where it comes out and the base would be a 36" high slumpstone column base. The object is to have a shaded structure and not massive architecture out to the curb. This would be a more permanent structure and attractive. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt concurred, as long it does not overpower. Instead of using the lattice use something heavier. Ms. Cetina stated that in the beginning they wanted a tile roof, and the HPC wants a wood trellis with shade cloth. It is not what they want to use. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the tile would be difficult to make it fit in. From a patio cover look it will look better with the heavier the wood. Using 2' X 3's they will twist. If you use 4' X 4' with 50% coverage you would need 2-3" spacing. 12. Committee Member Reynolds stated he agreed with what had been stated. 13. Committee Member Cunningham asked what would happen if they state they do not agree architecturally with the HPC recommendation; what will the applicant have to do? Staff stated that if the applicant requests it, the application would have to go back to the HPC and then the City Council. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the applicant could appeal the decision. Staff stated no. The Committee's action is for the CPIP funding and not for the architecture. What if the process were reversed. If they had approved it before the HPC. This process is penalizing the applicant. He would vote for funding, but the problem he has is the design of the patio cover as approved by the HPC. He does not want to vote to give City money as it is designed and does not C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC I 0.4.00. wpd 5 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 4, 2000 want to have the applicant go through a hardship to go back to the HPC/City Council. This process needs to be worked out. Assistant City Manager Mark Weiss stated it is the applicant's decision as to which committee/commission they go through first. 14. Committee Member Cunningham stated that when he has to appear before the City Council on a project and it appears it will be denied, he will ask for a continuance to allow time to resolve the problem. This is clearly a difference in opinion based on an architectural standpoint. Therefore, he would like to request a continuance. Mr. Cetina stated he had spoken with Planning Manager di Iorio and this was her recommendation to the HPC. 15. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he does not understand why it should have to take two months to receive a simple change. Staff stated that if their original design did not meet the Secretary of Interior recommendations then this may be the reason for the HPC recommendation. 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Reynolds to continue approval of Commercial Property Improvement Program 2000-001 to a special meeting of the ALRC to give staff time to review the approval process. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a special meeting to be held on October 18, 2000. This meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m. on October 10, 2000. Respectfully submitted, _~r.&:/ .~~~ '- c_ ~EtT#SAWYER, €xecutive Secretary City of La Guinta, California C:lMy Documents\WPDOCSIALRCIO.4-DD.wpd 6