Loading...
1996 11 08 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 8, 1996 3:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:35 P.M. by Vice Chairman Woodard, who asked Commissioner DeMersman to lead the flag salute. B. ROLL CALL I. Vice Chairman Woodard requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners DeMersman, Puente, Wright, and Vice Chairman Woodard. Commissioner DeMersman led the flag salute. Staff explained that Chairman Millis would not be present due to his work schedule. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners DeMersmanlWright to excuse Chairman Millis. 2. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Plarmer Leslie Mouriquand and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA: Confirmed III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Certificate of Appropriateness 96-001; a request of the Sienna Corporation for review and recommendation of approval of Certificate of Appropriateness to the City Council regarding design modifications and porch addition to the Hacienda del Gato and demolition of several out buildings in the Tradition project. 1. Plarming Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. David Chapman, representing Sienna Corporation, owners of the property, stated the Hacienda was to be used as a sales/administration offices and not a conference center as to would not be open to the general public. Historical Preservation Commission November 8 , 1996 HPCII-8 3. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified the changes that had been made to the site since the last meeting. 4. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if staff had a recommendation regarding the proposed design entry door. Staff stated the existing front door was not original to the building and the proposed door was not consistent with the Secretary ofInterior Design Guidelines because it was representational of the period. The Commission would need to make a determination to its consistency with the Secretary of Interior Guidelines. 5. Mr. Gary Lohman, contractor for the project, stated the reason the door was being resubmitted was that they had re-analyzed the door design previously approved by the Commission and they wanted a door with more lites to allow more light into the interior building. Therefore, they wanted use a true divided lite door. The proposed door is of the same character, but has the French lites. The door to be used at the south-side entrance was to be a French multi-lite door as well. 6. Commissioner Puente asked how many lites were on the south door. Mr. Lohman stated it was a 10-light and of a different size. He further stated that the size would change the configuration of the glazing panels. 7. Staff stated the south side door was also in question as it was to be replaced as well. Mr. Lohman clarified that this door was a ten lite door and not a 12- lite. Staff explained their analysis and recommendation. Vice Chairman Woodard asked staff to clarify whether the south side door was appropriate and matched the front door and fits with the character of the structure. Staff stated that the door would be located in an inconspicuous location. 8. Mr. Fred Rice, La Quinta Historical Society, stated he remembered the door and thought he had pictures of the original door at the time of the Rosecrans era in the 1950's. 9. Staff went on to explain the addition on the west elevation on the interior side courtyard. Staff clarified that there was a stairway that should be retained and was not mentioned in the staff report. The historic two story balcony has three bays and the applicant was proposing only two bays on the porch addition. The Commission needs to determine the character defining features of the historic building and application of the Secretary ofInterior Standards in this instance it is the porch. This elevation's character defining feature is the second story balcony and staff was raising the question for the Commission to review and discuss what should be done. Staff explained how the second story porch could be retained. 2 Historical Preservation Commission November 8 . 1996 10. II, 12. HPCll-8 Mr, Fred Rice, La Quinta Historical Society, stated that from the beginning they had always wanted to have a slanted roof and wanted to keep the Spanish look. The Society was very pleased with the renovations the applicant had made and commended them for preserving as much of the site as possible. Staff went on to explain the remaining elements that were proposed to be changed. Vice Chairman Woodard asked what uses were proposed for the upper level. Staff stated it was the sales office and the general public would only be allowed by appointment. Commissioner Puente asked why they were planning on using sliding doors. Lohman stated they wanted a good relationship between the outside and inside as it is really an outside room. 13. Mr, Gary Lohman, contractor and representing the client, asked about the stairway to the second floor balcony and stated it needed to be removed as it was a safety problem. He explained why it was a safety hazard. If they were required to keep the stairway it would not conform with the Uniform Building Code. To reconstruct the staircase they would not be able to meet the Code regarding the handrail or treads. 14. Vice Chairman Woodard asked staff how they would address an element that could not be replaced to due to the Building Code requirements. Staff stated they would have to discuss this with the Building and Safety Department. 15. Mr, Lohman stated that in reference to staffs statement regarding the addition obscuring the porch, he did not believe they were, but they would lose the handrail. The proposal by staff to design the addition as a box shape would be inappropriate due to the massing of a box on the courtyard. The courtyard is not large and a box would be imposing on the courtyard. They would like to have the ability to pull the doors back so there is no intentional imbalance of the historic second floor balcony and the three bays with the proposed new additions two bays. It would be difficult to retain the three bays as the French doors would not fit properly. 16. Members discussed the problems associated with meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 17. Mr, Fred Rice asked if an elevator was to be installed. Vice Chairman Woodard stated that ADA requirements are mandatory and the lift must be installed. Staff stated the handicap issues would be addressed under the State Historic Building Code. Mr, Rice stated that La Quinta had so few historic places left, that the Hacienda del Gato is one ofthe really historic places left. 3 Historical Preservation Commission November 8 , 1996 18. Commissioner Wright stated the Sienna Corporation had made every effort to preserve the historic site and it was greatly appreciated. 19. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the thrust of the roof element with the plexiglass was the kind of ambiance the City wanted for this structure. He asked is there was anything wrong with the board and batten instead of the stucco side walls. Mr. Lohman stated the owners would have no problem with using the board and batten. Staff stated the only difference would be the size of the board and batten to distinguish the old and new. Mr. Lohman stated they had no objection to the use of the material recommended. 20. Vice Chairman Woodard asked ifthe proposed clay tiles were any different than the existing. Mr. Lohman they may be or they may not be similar. Mr. David Chapman stated they would like the tile to be as similar as possible. 21. Commissioner Wright stated he was in agreement with most of staffs recommendation. In regard to the addition, he was in favor of the applicant's submittal. Staff stated that the railing would follow out to the edge, enlarging the balcony. 22. Commissioner DeMersman stated he concurred with staff s recommendation. However, he was concerned with the proposed design of the front door, the addition obscuring the historic second floor balcony, and the replacing of the wood railing with wrought iron as they are all character defining features and the proposed changes alter the original concept. He would prefer to see the three bays with the addition having a flat roof so as to retain the wood railing. Staff asked for clarification as to whether or not it was the flat roof or the lowering of the proposed roof to retain the historic second floor balcony for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Guidelines. Commissioner DeMersman stated it didn't matter as long as the railing stayed. 23. Vice Chairman Woodard asked the applicant if the flat roof with the low ceiling and little light would be a problem. Mr. Lohman stated the owner would have a problem with a flat roof and the patio was extended all the way out. It will severely impact the courtyard. 24. Vice Chairman Woodard stated the plastic to be used in the roof was too foreign to the architecture and out of character with the building and he could not approve it. 25. Vice Chairman Woodard asked each of the Commission Members to identifY those areas they were recommending for approval. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Puente that the main entrance door not have any lites. The south side door would consist of an 10- HPCll-8 4 Historical Preservation Commission November 8 . 1996 26. 27. HPCII-8 lite door as submitted. The court-side room addition was approved as proposed with the addition of the exposed handrail8-inches in height and the side wall material would be board and batten of a different width than the historic board and batten stained the same. The west window elevation was approved for replacement with a single pane. The hand railings shall be retained, stabilized, painted, and filling in the blank places. Wrought iron will not be allowed. The duct work is to be removed. The staircase can be removed and the foreman's house can be demolished. Vice Chairman Woodard asked if the Commission's review was to include the landscaping. Staff stated they were working with the applicant regarding the landscaping. Mr. Lohman, stated there were French balconies with wood railings in the front of the house which are not in good shape and could be a liability. They would like to have the Building and Safety Department make a determination as to what work should be done. Staff stated that the Building and Safety Department was aware of the balconies and it will be up to the Building and Safety Director as to whether or not they will be required to be brought up to the Uniform Building Code or use the State Historic Building Code. Vice Chairman Woodard stated they should be maintained for the historic value, but the safety issue needs to be determined by the Building and Safety Director. Everyone agreed. 28. Mr. Chapman stated that the railing leading up to the front door was wrought iron as well as the door at the rear of the building. The reason they were requesting to change the railing to wrought iron was to be in keeping with this treatment along with the window treatment. 29. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated their was a wood railing at the rear of the building that should be replaced and stabilized as directed by the Secretary of Interior Guidelines. The applicant wants to replace the wood with wrought iron and raise it to 42 inches. The Building and Safety Department has stated that if it stays it should be stabilized and he would accept the height as it is currently constructed. If wrought iron is used, the height must be 42-inches per the UBC requirements. 30. Mr. Fred Rice stated he was very excited about what the Sienna Corporation is doing and is pleased that they were trying to maintain the integrity ofthe structure. 5 Historical Preservation Commission November 8, 1996 31. Mr. Chapman stated they were glad to be in La Quinta and they wanted to keep the historic nature of the site. The Hacienda is part of the charm and a large part of their sales promotion. He thanked the Commission for working with them on the project. 32. Staff stated the Commission's recommendation would be going to the City Council on November 19, 1996, for their review and approval. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL - None VII COMMISSIONER ITEMS - None A. Commissioner Woodard stated this was his last meeting and he wanted to thank the Commission for allowing him to be a part. He has enjoyed his time serving on the Commission. Commissioner Wright thanked Commissioner Woodard on behalf of all the members, for being a part of the Commission. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners DeMersmanlWright to adjourn this special meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to a regular meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission on November 21, 1996. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. Unanimously approved. HPCII-8 6