Loading...
2000 11 09 HPC Minutes MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 9, 2000 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Maria Puente at 3:05 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Irwin, Mitchell, Sharp, and Vice Chairman Puente. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Sharp to excuse Chairman Wright. Unanimously approved. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Sharp to approve the Minutes of October 19, 2000, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Phase II Archaeological Testing and Site Evaluation Report for Parcel Map 26860: located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. Applicant: City of La Quinta - Archaeological Consultant: CRM TECH (Bruce Love) 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp questioned the type of development planned for this property. P:\CAROL YNlHPCI 1-9-00.wpd -1- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 3. Planning Manager di Iorio stated it had not been determined yet, but the possibilities included a commercial hotel and residential. 4. Commissioner Irwin pointed out this project was in the vicinity of the Whitewater River where a village was discovered along the side of it. She then asked if there were any specific dates indicated in the report. 5. Commissioner Mitchell replied the report mentioned the late prehistoric era, but he did not think the archaeologist performed any Carbon 14 dating, or identified the Cottonwood Triangular Projectile Point which dated back to 500 A.D. and after. 6. Commissioner Irwin suggested monitoring be required during grading. 7. Commissioner Mitchell had some concerns about the comprehensiveness of the report. He was not sure if this was the time to discuss these concerns or if they would be addressed in a Phase III Report. His questions concerned the following items: a). Page 9 discussion on trade and use of shell beads presumably by the Mojave, who were great distance traders with a tradition of passing frequently between the Colorado River and the western seashore. They had been known to travel as far north and west as the Chumash in Santa Barbara and they may have had contact with the Gabrielino around the Long Beach area and other tribes along the Pacific Coast. But the Cahuilla would trade sometimes directly with the Serrano to the west and of course the Serrano in turn would trade with the Gabrielino along the coast. He agreed this statement was correct but it did not give other alternatives in terms of the acquisition of trade items from the Pacific Coast. Commissioner Mitchell thought it would be beneficial to discuss those points. In addition, the Cahuilla were in the same language family as the Gabrielino along the Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbor areas and could presumably understand each other. The Cahuilla could have had direct contact with the Gabrielino as opposed to contact only with the Mojave Tribe because they were known as the "Phoenicians of the West"; b). Page 22 - "Ceramics" P:\CAROL YNlHPCII-9-00.wpd -2- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 - there is mention of buffware and brownware. He wanted to know what the presence of buffware and brownware revealed regarding outside contact with other cultures. If it was Colorado buffware, the clay originated along the Colorado River and that had inference in terms of contact with other cultures. Brownware, assuming this refers to Tizon Brown, is a residual clay found in the Santa Rosa Mountains. He would have like to have seen more information about what these different types of pottery had to do in terms of where they originated and what they meant in terms of contacts with other cultures; and, c). Page 24 - "Land Snails" - He asked if the Land Snails were used as a subsistence resource. The report only states the remains were present, but not their significance or usage. 8. Commissioner Irwin mentioned a lot of snails had been found in the La Ouinta Cove and were still in evidence. She did not know their usage or if they were just residual from the Ancient Lake. 9. Commissioner Mitchell thought the report should have stated what was known, or not known, possibly through ethnographic accounts. The report does not expand on this. He also had a question about Page 25, "Shell Beads", referring to the recovery of shell beads (Wall Disc Beads). Normally Wall Disc Beads are from the Olavela Shell, but this was not stated. When Wall Disc Beads are mentioned it is assumed this meant Olavela, but the report noes not say state this. Olavela comes from the Pacific Coast. Shell beads are diagnostic in that some shell beads are reflective of certain periods. The Olavela Wall Disc Beads have a very wide period of use, but nothing is mentioned about that in the report. 10. Council Member Don Adolph asked if the bone fragments found were human or animal. 11. Commissioner Irwin answered "both". 12. Council Member Don Adolph asked if they were human, was the Tribal Council notified they had been found. 13. Planning Manager di Iorio stated yes and outlined the procedures followed, per CEOA. 14. Council Member Adolph wanted to know if the City would receive any notification from the Tribal Council about what they wanted to do if the remains were identified as human bones? P:\CAROL YN\HPCI j-9-00.wpd -3- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 15. Planning Manager di Iorio explained the Tribal Council works with the Coroner's Office and the developer as to disposition of the remains. 16. Council Member Adolph commented on all the development in that area and had concerns about burial grounds curtailing development of the property. 17. Planning Manager di Iorio clarified there was no discussion of this being a burial ground. It was a single, localized cremation. The Coroner comes out and looks at the area and takes the materials and goes back and takes care of them and notifies the nearest of kin. 18. Council Member Adolph wanted clarification that the due process was in motion. 19. Planning Manager di Iorio told him usually the Indian Tribe contacts the developer and they work together on a decision as to what area would be appropriate to re-inter the remains; trying to keep them as close as possible to where they were originally uncovered. 20. Council Member Adolph thanked Planning Manager di Iorio for clarifying the procedure. 21. Vice Chairman Puente asked about the artifact storage in La Ouinta. She wondered if a determination had been made as to where the artifacts would be stored. 22. Commissioner Irwin replied the La Ouinta Historical Society had a air conditioned room for their storage with plenty of room for any artifacts the City may need to store. 23. Planning Manager di Iorio commented the City had planned to store them there. She then asked Commissioner Mitchell about his Phase III comments because the next part of the review process would be under "Recommendation for Monitoring". Did he think Phase III was for more than just monitoring or did he just want his comments noted. 24. Commissioner Mitchell stated he wanted his comments incorporated in the minutes. His intent was to have his comments included in the Final Report. P:ICAROL YNIHPCIl-9-00.wpd -4- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 25. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this was the Final Report. 26. Commissioner Mitchell stated his comments were directly specific to this report, and his final comment was that once these are addressed and expanded upon, the impact to this archaeological site would be mitigated if these concerns were addressed. 27. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Sharp/Irwin to adopt Minute Motion 2000-026 recommending approval of the Phase II Archaeological Testing And Site Evaluation Report For Parcel Map 26860; located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue; with the following condition added: a. Prior to issuance of the first building permit a Final Report on the monitoring be submitted to the City. The revisions are to include an expansion of the discussion regarding trade, ceramics, and shell beads. Unanimously approved. Unanimously approved. B. Certific_aJe of ,l'>.PPLOPJiateness 2000-007: Request for restoration of a historic commercial building; located at the southwest corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive (51001 Eisenhower Drive). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp thought the plan was a nice improvement but was concerned about the redcap brick and' its authenticity. He also questioned the proportions of the sign as it affects the whole project. He suggested reducing the height of the sign. He then asked what the sign materials were and if the letters were hand- painted. He also asked if the sign would be illuminated. 3. Principal Planner Sawa replied it was painted with no lighting shown on the plans. 4. Commissioner Sharp then asked if the City would allow an illuminated sign. P:ICAROL YNIHPC 11.9.00. wpd -5- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 5. Planning Manager di Iorio replied that it depended on the type of illumination. 6. Commissioner Sharp stated the appropriateness of the design was good, but a condition should be added regarding illumination. 7. Planning Manager di Iorio stated it could be added if it was the Commission's recommendation. 8. Commissioner Irwin stated she had visited the building to see how large the present wood sign was. She could not determine the size, but felt with the height of the planter, and the sign's present size, it was very large in proportion to the building. The other improvements they were making were going to take the building right back to what it originally was. Her only concern was the size of the sign. 9. Commissioner Sharp asked if there was some way the Commission could see a scaled drawing or plot plan of the whole project, including the sign, to get a sense of the scale of the sign. 10. Commissioner Irwin added the City had standards on signs and their size. She added the veterinary sign does not overpower the historic building. This building is smaller with a very large sign and will not preserve the historic aspect of the building. 11. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the Code measures sign height from the nearest curb and the Commission could ask it be measured the same to regulate the height of the sign. 12. Commissioner Irwin was not in favor of dictating to the applicant what size their sign should be, but was concerned that this beautiful historic building could be overpowered by a sign. 13. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the City Zoning Code allows historic building signs flexibility due to the architectural sensitivity of the project. Monument signs are not allowed for buildings with less than 200 feet of frontage and there would have to be a finding by the Commission that having a building mounted sign would infringe on the architectural integrity of the historic P:\CAROL YN\HPCII-9-00.wpd -6- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 structure. Also, the Code specifies the maximum square footage size and height for monument signs. She added when the Planning Commission approves a sign they look at the proposed sign and how it relates to the site. If the maximum is too high the Commission may require a reduction in size and height. She suggested the Commission approve the project and ask for the applicant to come back with a more appropriate sign. 14. Commissioner Sharp commented he was having difficulty envisioning the scale of the sign from the sketches provided and asked if it was possible to see a scaled drawing. 15. Commissioner Irwin responded she would be inclined to approve the project with the exception of the sign and have it brought back to make a decision on the appropriateness of the sign. 16. Vice Chairman Puente asked if the Commissioners would like to have a scaled drawing. 17. Planning Manager di Iorio said a condition could be added recommending approval of the requested revision to the building. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Sharp/Irwin to adopt Minute Motion 2000-027 recommending approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 2000- 007; with the following condition added: b. "That a scaled drawing of the monument sign, including the elevations, be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for approval." Unanimously approved. 19. Council Member Don Adolph asked Planning Manager di Iorio if the final design of the sign would go before the Planning Commission. 20. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the Code requires the Certificate of Appropriateness be reviewed by the HPC and the City Council P:\CAROL YN\HPCII-9-00.wpd -7- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 21 . Commissioner Irwin asked if the project would be going back through the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC). 22. Planning Manager di Iorio said no. The applicant would be able to pull permits for the modification as soon as the City Council made a decision at their November 21" meeting. She also informed the Commission the applicant had already received funding approval by the ALRC. C. Certificate of Appropriateness 2000-005 /Revisionl: request to allow a wood patio cover on front of restaurant; located at 78-039 Calle Estado. Applicants: David and Alma Cetina (EI Ranchito Restaurant). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Irwin had a question on Condition #2, which said "the following material shall match as closely as possible to that used on the building". She also referred to the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee minutes that said on Page 7, Item #2, "Committee Member Cunningham stated he approved of the proposed work except for plastering of the columns. He questioned why the Historic Preservation Commission changed the applicant's design. Mr. Cetina stated the original submittal did not contain the plastering of the columns but the HPC requested that he redesign it as it is currently submitted." She did not recall the Historic Preservation Commission asking that the columns be plastered. 3. Mr. Cetina, applicant stated first it was wood, then it was changed to plaster. 4. Planning Manager di Iorio said the revisions were made after the first HPC meeting. Due to the request by the HPC to redesign the patio cover, the applicant change from wood to plaster columns. The HPC did not give him specific design changes. 4. Commissioner Irwin said the reason she objected to the first design was that it had a solid wood roof which detracted from the historic building. The new design has a lattice roof gives more openness in addition to the separation into two patio covers. She had no reason to object to the new design. P:ICAROL YNIHPCI 1-9-00.wpd -8- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 5. Commissioner Sharp commented he thought it looked very nice and added it might look better with a front beam across the top, connecting the two patio covers. 6. Mrs. Cetina, applicant informed the Commission they were trying to make an entry statement similar to other restaurants with awnings; possibly in a round shape which makes the building appear larger at the entrance 7. Commissioner Sharp stated architecturally, it would make more sense to add an 8" x 8" beam across the opening. 8. Mrs. Cetina replied she thought it would look better if the top was all one piece instead of leaving an opening in the middle. 9. Council Member Don Adolph asked if she was referring to the curved awning, at T-bo's, that the Council approved a year or so ago. 10. Mrs. Cetina replied yes. 11. Commissioner Sharp asked if that was a canvas awning 12. Council Member Don Adolph stated yes. 13. Mrs. Cetina commented that they have spent a lot of money on the canvas patio cover and they did not get the results they wanted, but that was the only option they had available to get a canopy up quickly to cover their outside patio. She said people wanted a patio and this was what was available at that time. She stated she preferred the straight across style the Commission was suggesting and it was closer to the original style patio cover they had intended. 14. Commissioner Sharp asked what the purpose of the gates was. 15. Mr. Cetina replied they lock them at night. 16. Mrs. Cetina added sometimes they moved items in and out through that opening. 17. Commissioner Sharp asked if the low block wall was going to be painted. -9- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 18. Mr. Cetina answered they would be painted the same color as the building. 19. Commissioner Sharp asked the height of the decorative fence. 20. Mr. Cetina said the block portion would be 18 inches and with the wrought iron it would be approximately three feet. 21. Commissioner Sharp asked if the wood would be painted. 22. Mr. Cetina stated it would be stained dark brown. 23. Commissioner Mitchell asked if the suggested beam would go across the top of the lattice, just to tie it in and make it flow better. 24. Commissioner Sharp replied yes, it would look just like the design submitted except it wouldn't have a solid roof behind it. 25. Council Member Don Adolph asked Principal Planner Stan Sawa how much room would be in front of the restaurant with the new street design. 26. Planning Manager di Iorio answered eight feet for the sidewalk. 27. Council Member Don Adolph asked if four to eight feet was a little too narrow. 28. Planning Manager di Iorio replied that was how Calle Estado was designed. 29. Council Member Don Adolph stated not for commercial and this would be commercial. People walking up and down, especially when you have street fairs, would not have enough room. 30. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the applicant had talked with the City's consultants who were working on the improvements for Calle Estado. 31. Mr. Cetina said they were allowed to go up to the property line leaving an eight or nine foot sidewalk. P:ICAROL YNIHPCII-9-00.wpd -10- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 32, Council Member Don Adolph then commented that would cause no problem, but he was concerned about the safety of narrow sidewalks 33, Planning Manager di Iorio asked the Commission if they wanted to make a recommendation to delete Condition #2, Discussion followed regarding how to word the condition, 34. Commissioner Irwin told the Commission they needed to consider this application carefully because she did not want to see this historic building distorted, and asked what options were available to the Commission, 35. Commissioner Mitchell thought Mr. & Mrs. Cetina had made an excellent effort to follow the requests of the Commission and the Commission should finalize the project at this meeting. 36. Commissioner Irwin was concerned about setting a precedent where a historic building was concerned. As there weren't many historic commercial buildings left, she thought the Commission needed to be very careful about their decision. 37. Planning Manager di Iorio suggested the Commission consider the recommendation of a single beam going across the top to lessen the focus on the central doors as they are not original to the building. 38. Commissioner Irwin stated that at one time the building had three businesses in it; two of which were a Cantina and a furniture store. 39. There followed general discussion among the Commissioners and the applicant as to the best approach to finishing off the top portion of the patio covers to provide continuity while preserving the historic integrity of the building. 40. Council Member Don Adolph had some concerns about the visibility of the building signage. 41. Commissioner Irwin asked Commissioner Sharp to do a drawing of what he was suggesting. This was followed by general discussion of what should be included in the drawing. P:\CAROL YN\HPCII-9-00.wpd -11- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 42. The drawing was accepted by the Commission to be compatible with the building. 43. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Sharp/Mitchell to adopt Minute motion 2000-028 recommending approval of the wood patio covers in front of the restaurant; located at 78-039 Calle Estado, as modified. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL A. Planning Manager di Iorio gave a brief presentation on her attendance at the National Historic Preservation Conference in Los Angeles. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Planning Manager di Iorio asked if the Commissioners would be available for the December 21" meeting. The Commissioners decided there would be a quorum and decided to hold the meeting as regularly scheduled. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Sharp to adjourn this meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on December 21, 2001. This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4: 12 p.m., November 9, 2000. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: Carolyn Walker Secretary P:\CAROL YNlHPCII-9-00.wpd -12-