Loading...
2000 10 18 ALRC Special Meeting0 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA A Special Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California October 18, 2000 11:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2000-019 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for October 13, 2000. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ....................... CONTINUED - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2000-002 Applicant ................ David Cetina - El Ranchito Mexican Restaurant Location ................. 78-039 Calle Estado Request .................. Review of a funding request to construct a front patio and new concrete. Action .................... Minute Motion 2000- ALRC/AGENDA *-.vV4,001 B. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-664 Applicant ................ Tiburon Homes Location ................. Norman Course, north of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street Request .................. Review of production home landscaping plans. Action .................... Minute Motion 2000- VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT ALRC/AGENDA A 0 0 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October 4, 2000 CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10: a.m. by Principal Planner Stan Sawa 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 Cunningharn/Bobbitt to approve the rninutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Commercial F'roaerty Improvement Program 2000-001; ai request of Bruce Cathcart and Jim Cathcart, La Quinta 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. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC10-z4-00.wpd 1 •''-V U �' 0 0 3 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 Ibe 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 109% 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 Documents\WPDOCS\ALRCIO-4-OO.wpd 2 . W-" J 004 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 CPIIP 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 Property Improvement Program 2000-002; a request of David Cetina, El 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. _�u 005 C:AMy Documents\WPDOCSVALRC70-A-OO.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 becauise 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\WPDOCS\ALRCIO-4-OO.wpd 4 006 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 4, 2000 accentuate this architectural problem, takes the buillding 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 started 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 HF'C. He does not want to vote to give City money as it is designed and does not C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC I0-4-00 wpd 5 .,'.0 0 007 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 lorio 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, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California C:\My Documents\W PDOCS\ALRCIO-4-OO.wpd 6 I ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2000 CASE NO.: N.A. APPLICANT: DAVID CETINA EL RANCHITO MEXICAN RESTAURANT REQUEST: FUNDING REQUEST, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 4, 2000 (MEETING LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF CALLE ESTADO, EAST OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS (78-039 CALLE ESTADO) BACKGROUND: This item was considered by the ALRC at its October 4" meeting; however, due to questions about the Historic: Preservation Commission's (HPC) action in regard to this project, the ALRC asked that this matter be continued to receive input relative to the HPC. Built in 1936, the building is listed on the City historic survey. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that additions to historic structures obtain approval from the City Council after review and recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC considered this request at its meetings of July 27, 2000, and September 21, 2000 (Attachment 1). At the July, 2000, reviiew the HPC requested the plans be restudied because of concerns that the the single, tile roofed trellis was too overpowering for the building. At the September 21, 2000, meeting, the HPC reviewed the revised plans and determined that the plans were in compliance with the recommended Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (i.e. that being the character -defining features of the historic building are not obscured with the size and scale of the revised design -Attachment 2). The HPC adopted Minute Motion 2000-019, on a 4-0 vote, recommending approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Accurate, scaled drawings of the proposed construction, with color and material samples shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The column material and finish shall match that used on the building. 009 3. The westerly columns shall be moved easterly away from the edge of the building to match the distance between the edge of the building and the easterly columns. The City Council considered this item at its meeting of October 3, 2000, and approved it as a consent item without comment. As set up by the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency, the ALRC is the body that must review and evaluate Commercial Property Improvement Applications. Staff envisioned that projects would be scored on each project's merits as submitted. A copy of the application (Attachment 3) is attached along with the Funding Criteria scoring sheet (Attachment 4). The application has received appropriate planning approval as noted above. If the CPIP application is approved, after receiving all appropriate City approvals, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency will enter into a rebate agreement with the applicant. If the CPIP application is not approved, the applicant will not be eligible for funding. The applicant may proceed with the project, however, with his/her own funding. The applicant has been made aware of this meeting and has indicated that he will be present at the October 18`r' ALRC meeting. Prepared and submitted by: Britt W. Wilson, Management Analyst City Manager's Office Attachments: 1. Minutes from the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting of July 27, 2000 and September 21, 2000. 2. Excerpt from the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 3. CPIP application: El Ranchito Mexican Restaurant 4. Funding Criteria worksheet SACom Dev\ALRCSTAFFREPO RTC ETINA 10-18-OO.wpd ATTACHMENT 1 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 27, 2000 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Wright at 3:04 p.rn who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Irwin, Puente, Mitchell, and Chairman Wright. 11: was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Mitchell to excuse Commissioner Sharp. Unanimously approved. Staff Present: Planning Manager Christine di lorio and Secretary Carolyn Walker. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Manager Christine di lorio informed the Commissioners RJT Homes, applicant for Item "C", has asked to withdraw their application and will resubmit at a later date. They will present Phase I and II at one time. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to table Item #C. Unanimously approved. B. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Mitchell to approve the Minutes of June 15, 2000 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Certificatim-n—of ARpropriaten-esa20Q2005. a request to allow a wood patio cover with a tile roof on the front of a restaurant located at 78-039 Calle Estado. .Applicant: El Ranchito Restaurant - David and Alma Cetina. P:\CAR0LYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -1- -rl (� 01,1 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Wright asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. David Cetina, owner of the El Ranchito Restaurant, gave a brief history of the restaurant and the improvernents made over the years. The canvas cover was erected as a temporary patio cover; however, due to problems with the wind and high maintenance, he wishes to put up a more permanent structure as it is used extensively. He proposes to construct a wood beam structure with tile. 3. Chairman Wright asked Mr. John Weidenhamer, a local artist who was working with Mr. Cetina, for his opinion on altering the facade Of the building. Mr. Weidenhamer stated he had reviewed the drawings and the wood beam structure would be more attractive than the canvas as it would blend better and not block the roof gable ends. They would still be seen above the shed roof as well as the front of the building. Almost none of the building would tie hidden. He did not think the design changed the facade, but was simply installing a replacement for the canvas patio cover that was already there. 4. Commissioner Mitchell expressed his dislike of the current canvas covering and agreed with staff's decision, based upon the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines. He also wondered if some compromise could be made to adequately address staff concerns to come up with a design that satisfies both the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines and would be cost-effective for the applicant He wondered if there were any other design possibilities besides the current proposed cover. 5. Mr. Cetina replied he had chosen this design because it was simple and with the open ceiling the tile would give the cover a rustic look. 6. Commissioner Mitchell commented that the structure was not appropriate for the style and period in which the building was built. He wondered if there was anything that could be done that wouldn't impact the feeling and design and stay within the guidelines of this structure. P:ACAROLYA'AHPC7-27-OO.wpd -2- i 012 2 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 7. Mr. Cetina pointed out he had chosen the wood trellis because this would be more harmonious with this architectural style than a stucco design. 8. Commissioner Mitchell stated it's the feeling of this structure that is of concern to staff and asked if a historic architect had been consulted. It was his opinion the Commission should have an opportunity to consider other alternatives. 9. Commissioner Irwin commented that she approved of the improvements the owner has done so far; even the temporary canvas cover was attractive because it did add some color to the building and was maintained well. However, the newly proposed patio cover seemed very massive for this size buillding. She thought it would be better if it wasn't a solid roof. She gave an example of an entryway at the La Quinta Hotel. There is ten years difference in the age of the buildings, but the many alterations blend so well it doesn't appear as though it has been altered at all. It maintains its integrity. Her concern was if a massive roof covering was installed on this size building, it would lose the integrity of the building. She also suggested adding some openness. 10. Commissioner Puente agreed and stated the building has a very simple form, similar to the Old Spanish style, and the overhang is more like a Southwest style. It would appear as though the two styles are trying to clash. She suggested designing something with arches. 11. Chairman Wright expressed concern that this is a historic building, but this business is one of the few businesses in the Village area that had been around for a long period of time. In his opinion the patio was financially important to this business. He said he realized that it was a historic structure and recalled all the time spent on the Historical Society Museum and the Veterinary Hospital (the old lumber yard) making sure they were refurbished close to their original style. He asked Planning Manager di lorio about the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines and if the patio cover had to look exactly like the building or if it could be of a different style. P:\CAR0LYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -3- 013 - I;j Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 12. Planning Manager di lorio replied it was not necessary to match the historical structure. The Commission was concerned with the addition's massiveness, scale and its architectural integrity as it does stand on its own. One of the alternatives discussed was possibly breaking up the massiveness by having two structures. The goal was not trying to replicate, but to be compatible with a contemporary look; keeping in mind the character -defining features. 13. Chairman Wright asked if it made any difference that the canopy was not attached to the building? Planning Manager di lorio answered it did not. One of the initial concerns was the structural integrity of the building and the applicant has been very sensitive in re -designing the awning without touching the historic building!. 14. Chairman Wright said he would like to see another design other than the canvas since it does not provide protection from the heat; Whereas, tile, or a solid structure would provide some protection as the patio is used year-round. 15. Commissioner Irwin disagreed, saying she has a solid roof patio covering on her house which retains the heat, even with fans. She maintained the addition of the patio cover would riot make the patio more useable year-round because of the intense heat in June, July and August. 16. Chairman Wright commented that no one would be able to sit outside during those months, but he wanted to work hard with this business to make this thing work. He suggested the Commission and staff provide the applicant with some additional ideas as well as the applicant look at hiring a historic: architect. 17. Planning Manager di lorio reiterated staff's position and added there will be a funding program, starting in September for businesses in the Village Commercial area. This would provide the applicant with additional funds to cover the cost of hiring a historic architect. 18. Chairman Wright asked if the applicant was aware of the program. 19. Mr. Cetina stated he had received something from the City P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-OO.wpd -4- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 regarding a Commercial Property Improvement Program but had not had time to review it. 20. Planning Manager di lorio informed the applicant a presentation would be given at City Hall that evening. She offered to provide him with a brochure and another copy of the letter, at the end of the meeting. 21. Chairman Wright reiterated his support for all the commercial businesses in the Village area that the Commission work as close as possible to support them as the City is working very hard to revitalize the Village. He then asked staff what the Commissions options would be. 22. Planning Manager di lorio gave three alternatives: 1. Take action on staff's recommendation; 2. Deny the application as submitted; or, 3. Continue the request and ask that the applicant work with staff to reach a solution based on the Commission's direction. 23. Chairman Wright stated he would prefer to continue the project as he did not want to deny it. 24, Commissioner Irwin stated she didn't want to approve the application as submitted and compromise the high standards the Commission has worked hard to maintain. The historic preservation of La Quinta is important and in this instance she did not want to compromise the integrity of the building. In her opinion the design did damage and obstruct the architectural features of the historic structure. 25. Commissioner Mitchell agreed and stated the role of the Commission was to assist people, but in this instance after looking at the proposed patio cover plan he thought there could be an alternative. The structure was built in the 3O's. If it had been constructed in 1936, what would they have built? He suggested, the applicant use vines to soften the facade which could be trained to cover the top. This could create a problem with maintenance in terms of leaf droppings. He too, concurred with continUng this item to allow the applicant to come up with some viable alternatives. 26. Mr. Cetina told the Commission he had first considered building stucco columns in the front and then decided it was going to be P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-OO.wpd -5- 015 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 too massive. He then considered lattice, and then metal. He then decided on wood posts since they were a lot nicer than the canvas and would be more compatible with the building's design style. 27. Commissioner Mitchell suggested the applicant might want to go to SOME! archives like the Library of the Historical Society and look at SOME? old pictures of buildings of the 1930's to get an idea of what was used in that time period and would be better suited for his use. 28. Chairman Wright asked Planning Manager di lorio if she remembered the patio cover on the back of Tradition that was approved by the Commission and what type of construction was used. Planning Manager di lorio stated it was post and beam construction. Chairman Wright asked if that was an alternative. Planning Manager di lorio answered it was. 29. Mr. Weidenhamer asked if the current design plan utilized post and beam construction. 30. Planning Manager di lorio replied it was, but had some tile work as well. She then read the letter about the Commercial Improvement Program and verified the time and date of July 271h, art 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 31. Chairman Wright reiterated his support to maintain the integrity of every structure by maintaining the architectural guidelines of structures built in their time period, but recommended continuing this project to give the applicant time to work with staff to redesign the patio cover. He felt it was necessary to be very sensitive due to the possibility of additions to the Historical Society or the Veterinary Hospital. The situation would be similar and the Commission would have some guideline to follow. 32. Commissioner Irwin suggested the applicant visit the Walter Morgan House or the Cyrus Pierce House to see what type of patio structures were used. 33. Planning Manager di lorio said the Cyrus Pierce House has a different type of roof line. It has a patio with a covered area, but is a side -facing gable so it just extends off of the gable whereas, P:\CAR0LYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -6- 016 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 the restaurant has a unique roof pitch with the front facing gable and attached shed roof design. The Morgan House is in the back and was a later addition in the Monterey -style. 34. Mr. Cetina asked for direction on design guidelines. 35. Chairman Wright had suggested Mr. Weidenhamer might be able to help with the architectural designs as he was familiar with the building's construction. 36. Commissioner Mitchell suggested the applicant look at other Spanish -style structures, outside the Valley, to see what patio structures could be designed that would keep the feeling, association, and integrity of the historic structure. 37. Mr. Cetina referenced buildings he had seen in Mexico as this was where his concept had originated from. That type of architecture did not have anything underneath the beams. You can see the tile. Some of the homes are that way with lattice: and tile on top. 38. Chairman Wright commented that style was the trend and he liked the look.. He wasn't so concerned with the style: as -the problem of protruding into the street, looking directly at the building, having -the patio cover take away from the lines architecturally. This building is one of the only three historic commercial structures left in the Village area. He suggested the applicant take advantage of the meeting scheduled for that evening. 39. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Mitchell to continue this itern to the meeting of September 21, 2000, to give the applicant an opportunity to attending the Commercial Property Improvement (Program meeting and prepared revisions for the Commission. Unanimously approved. B. Final Re oD rt On Archaeological Monitoring for Tract 23-9KLIocated on the north bank of the Whitewater River Storm Channel between Washington Street and Adams Street. Applicant: Century -Crowell Communities (Sienna Del Rey) - Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group (James Brock). � O1 i P:\CAROI,YN\HPC7-27-OO.wpd -7- "i J Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 C. C-r ifica e cf Appropriate 2000-001 : located at 78-039 Calle Estado to allow a wood patio cover on front of the restaurant. Applicant: El Ranchito Restaurant, David and Alma Celina. 1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community (Development Department. She added Condition #3 should be deleted; as the intention was to have the trellis sloped. 2. Commissioner Sharp asked if it was a tiled, or open beam roof. 3. Planning Manager di lorio replied it was open beam. 4. Commissioner Sharp commented on the one -inch separation from the building. He was concerned dead insects or vegetation could accumulate there. He asked why it was not six or nine inches for greater separation and easier maintenance. Commissioner Sharp asked if modifications could be made to correct this. 5. One of the owners, Mr. David Celina, was in attendance and replied he could bring in the columns nine or ten inches towards the center. 6. Commissioner Irwin mentioned the new plan was a great improvement. After the last meeting she visited the site since she wanted to give more consideration to the owner. She looked at the real estate office on the corner with the solid roof and realized the new design would look better as it softened the exterior and complemented the building. 7. Commissioner Sharp asked if the columns were around as opposed to square. 8. Mr. Celina replied they were not totally round,, the corners had been cut down. 9. Commissioner Mitchell said this was a grand improvement, from the previous plans and agreed with staff's recommendation to proceed. OJS 0 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 10. Commissioner Sharp asked if vines would eventually covering the top of the structure. 1 1 . Mr. Cetina replied that would be nice. He was considering going ahead with that option. 12. Chairman Wright stated it was a greatly improved) project and complimented staff on working to get this done for the owner. He said he thought it was going to be a beautiful cover and said he had no problem with the project. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mitchell/Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2000-020 recommending approval of the requested addition to the restaurant subject to the following conditions: 1,2, and 4. Unanimously approved. - _ I J / 019 ATTACHMENT 2 020 ��� dUD AqV 03VHDHV Z006 BPC 09L %V3 OO E'T OOOZ;OZ/LO 90'd Z00b 69£ 09L:WOHd GRAI2O2H 59:£T 00-0Z-L0 uDO p La i > r p 0 W A n v 5 U C V O ^N lod p .4 V m 8i O v O � ° °�s•� a-F�.;=off u v �, O • , cam, C -C -� O p•'-� � .D O •- F � O..-� H�L .u. b ,2 •�"pZ v rJ' "O � � E -p Er C to IS !01 W C uu �j d� O stagy N 2 F. r-g m� Or- aoy� a a o c 9 v h C u N� N � ..O .5 LL O •-O � C xi v � EY L O oo ` u a ° �Y any c �'-�p ° �.� end �•P:p �•� �C�°r bn '� � � v ° 9 � � � `ai C ,C, Q v is � "O •C �-• v b Ed�5 J'8 W3 E- 0. r 021 9(1In dH9 AUV 03VHDHY ZOOS 69C 09L YV3 00:CT 000Z%0Z%L0 TB'd Z0OV 69£ O9L:WOH3 GZA1202U - 022 T„ Ff3i dH9 AaV 03VH0HV ZOOD 69C 09L YV3 9i':CT OOOZ/OZ/LO ZN'd ZN13b 69£ 09L:WOEI aZA1709H T b:bi NN-NZ-LN v � C O ii O. ° O U b0 O C O 'c] b r d C cc bD� C Q ❑❑� ZOQ�J dO AQV OHVHDSV Z00l 69C 09L YVd 9V:Ci OOOZ/OZ/LO 023 ATTACHMENT 3 19 La Quirda Redevelopment Agency Commercial Property Improvement Program Application Applicant Information Applicant Name: —bzL;44-,! t e4 rla Applicant Plane: _ 5 G 4- _ 7rh 4'? Applicant E-Wil: Name of Business: _.E( 414 nr Mailing Address: '%k-&3'j [, a, '4-44 (u l-:, 25-7 Business Phone: OUG 1 Business Fax: —4z Property Owner. Yes: ✓ No: _ — Business Owner. Yes: t-- No: Project Information Business Location: tidy 64 — p I TYDe of Business: /t'i0 i4 Project Goals:TQ ra..z 1 Proposed Improvements: co'l a,+w,� �LS' ro A re - To lal Project Cost (pease attach cost estimate): Requested Agency Assistance:' y S00 0 Applicant Budget Amount 41100 I Description of Applicant Funding Sources: K-d 5 Proposed Project Duration: Attachments Two (2) color photographs of the property where improvements will be installed Project sketches or plans (based upon funding level) Cost esfimates Certification Statements If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property, the folEowi g certification must be completed by the property owner. 1, declare under penalty and perjury that I am the owner of Property involved in this application. I acknowledge that only one (1) tenant of the subject property involved in this application may be awarded program funding in any one 1;1) given fiscal year. Signature: _ Date: The following statement must be completed by the applicant and property owner: IAve acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that all above information is Irue and coned to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. IAve understand that a Building Improvement Rebate Agreement must be signed and authorized by the La Ouinta Redevelopment Agency Prior to commencing any work on the ject- Signature: I \ _ Date: %-lam._ Signature: _ Date: 02; Sep-22-00 09rl Southwest Design, Inc. 44489 s is o�as ft, 25 Pa1mDesert CA 92260 �80)6748772oITY OF LA Qi ItdTA Fax (760) 674-9742TY I.I, NAGr S CiFIC CA Lie 0 767198 PROPOSAL To: f$Ranchito Restaurant 0 David Celina Quints. CA Install n+w stamped concrate Supply #nd install wood patio cover Foam s6d Stucco Columns per drawing TOTAL $ 32.450.00 025 Sep-08-00 04:21P V `9 Cr o h - 1 Piyrf±9.;. hitp://www�.wa,,.ca.gov/iXpress/CSLB_Library/CSLB+Book/License+Detail.DML 09/13/2000 g%3ev P.O. Box 10758 Palm Desert, CA 92255-0758mm el Ranchito Restaurant C v David Cetina La Quinta, Ca DESCRIPTION DATE PROPOSAL # 09/07/2000 1020 A4 L.i c °t- 3506 S'z 'f' r: b -* cS3'?'m 'Y'gTe t�fl4 --�i ffosa$�-�� /47/o ff 0, -bus (or l41 JOB ADDRESS Remove concrete patio and replace with stamped concrete including 20' saw cutting Supply and install wood patio cover including corbels, hardware, painting, and column footings roam and Stucco columns per drawing Total AMOUNT 12,400.00 12,000.00 3,840.00 $28,240.00 Contractors License Number #5373K Phone (760) 340-2726 • Fax (760) 568-2776 •'- ; J 027 Mm 1 I 3 0 I9 d �I ram' I I 1 1 u , jay � * I 1 I 1 P 1 I I 032 Rl% m 033 ;`l° l,�► Lu Cl 034 _imperial Sign Co., Inc. 46-120 al oun Street, Indio, CA U2201 ( (760) 347-3566 Fax (760) 347-0343 (800) 706-8882 r...i it 8 9n7136_ C45. C10. C61 To/For F l� ^�/11C�1 �1�� Date Address nb - v� Phone City Fax Attn: Ref Job Address ___— P.O. Ship ToNIA_ FAX [= QUOTEIESTIMATE Q DRAWING/SIKETCH QMEASUREISURVEY [=ORDER 0(OTHER)_ DESCRIPTION/MESSAGE tJA - -j - FROM/BY 0 ATTACHMENT 4 FUNDING CRITERIA WORKSHEET BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS: This includes the reconstruction or removal and replacement of structurally unsound or non- conforming uses (i.e. signs), and other improvements that enhance the general appearance of the subject property. Scale 0-10 points x 50 Category Weight = weighted score SCALE AND QUALITY OF FACADE IMPROVEMENTS: This may include the reconstruction or removal and replacement of signs, awnings/canopies, exterior wall finishes, doors and windows, decorative roof treatments, and landscaping to the entrance and visible sides of the subject property. Sensitivity to adjacent land uses must be considered. Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score STIMULATION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT: Proposed improvements must make the Project Area more attractive and visible to customers, neighboring merchants, and residents. Special consideration of up to 10 additional points will be provided for those improvements related to the creation of new businesses, or the expansion or relocation of existing businesses within the Project Area. Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score OTHER: This may include improvements related to historic preservation, unique structural and site design, and the promotion of cultural, educational, and/or recreational opportunities. 10 Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score APPLICANT MATCHING FUNDS: Applicants may receive up to 5 points for exceeding the required 10% applicant funding match. Scale 0-5 points x 10 Category Weight = weighted score Total of all weighted scores: _ divide by 10 = (FINAL SCORE) (70 points required to receive funding) 036 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS: REQUEST: OCTOBER 18, 2000 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-664 TIBURON HOMES, LLC HERMANN &ASSOCIATES APPROVAL OF IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR 19 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE NORMAN GOLF COURSE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD, EAST Of MADISON STREET BACKGROUND: The property is in the Norman golf course on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of PGA West. These units are proposed for Tract 29348-1, 19 lots on Royal St. George, north of Tiburon Drive. The three prototype plans proposed for these 19 lots was reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Commission on January 11, 2000. One of the Conditions of Approval was that the front yard landscaping plans be approved by the ALRC and Planning Commission prior to final occupancy of the first residence built by this developer. Irrigation and landscaping plans have been submitted for each lot. PROJECT PROPOSAL: All lots have at least five minimum 24" box size trees proposed, with a combination of canopy and palm trees. Minimum 5 and 15 gallon size shrubs are used in combination with lawn and ground cover to complete the front yard landscaping. The plant material substantially conforms with the suggested specific plan plant pallette and are well designed. The plans are also required to obtain approval from the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the irrigation and landscaping plans, subject to the following conditions: C:alrc rpt sdp 99-6641andsc.wpd t J 3 7 L 1. Submit to the: Community Development Department verification that the irrigation and landscaping plans have been approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to the starting of installation Attachment: 1. Landscaping Plan exhibits Prepared by: G&, E2 C�lnnrrn _ Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager C:alrc rpt sdp 99-6641andsc.wpd 038