Loading...
COC 1999 017uanta Community Development Departmen 78-495, chile' Tampico - P 0 Box '1504 La Quinta; California 92253 (760) 777-7125 - fax (760) 777-1233 Application for Certificate of Appropriateness I: General Information Applicant r 1 i� G�l."r" i/ bc " ret (1- 7 Phone Address "l�- i39 /La- &)ii1. Owners OFFICE USE ONLY Case No. 'A rJ� Date Recvd. ` (� 17' 03 7 Fee:. . RelatedApps.: Logged in by: 1D Nrn 4 CI° /vac Phone V- 70 cr7 Address 3l -d-•Ce S / c Col n Cc. This application is for work on a: () Historic Resource () Historic Landmark Assessor's Parcel Number ? 7.0 / S Z Oo y General Location . s S 0 3 9 C:rr,tot :�,sww� v .� . Acreage Existing Zoning . V C. 9aas3 () Historic District .lis4c /soodsI!. c� Legal Description (give exact legal description as recorded in th attached). Office of the County Recorder - it may be tor"'1 a4.04.4 9 MQ Ol9Jops OfsfAr cc.va_ m Purpose of this Request (type of work to be done) �0d� ;Y. .Pro4 but/LK. LU0d h n A23:\Certificate of Appropriateness -1 II. Project Background 1. Expanded description of the project (including architectural and historical characteristics important to the project).. I/n- rn/ { o_ct f VL r /�.! dui" 4--1 (,xCp posi , M r v< J . 7it-cev" V 2. Common of project, if any 3.. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects, if applicable. Describe how this project relates to other activities, phases and developments planned, or now underway. 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by the City, Regional, State, and Federal agencies. (Indicate approval status, agency name, and type of permit required. May be attached.) What original deed restriction(s), if any, concerning thetype of improvements and class of uses permitted were placed on the property involved? (You may attach copy of original printed restrictions in answer to this question after properly underscoring those features governing the type of improvements and class of uses permitted thereby). 6. When did present owner acquire the property? 7 ` %g 7. When did property obtain historical resource, landmark, or district status? A23:\Certificate of Appropriateness -2- 8. What other level(s) of historical status does this property have: (4 Local () State () National Register III. ADDITIONAL INFORMATLON TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION (1) Site plan in appropriate scale - 25 copies (2) Photographs, old and recent (3) •Elevations - 25 copies (4) Floor plans - 25 copies (5) Other ****************************************************************************************** Signature of Applicant (. Date Authority for this application is hereby given: Date Date IMPORTANT: Any false or misleading information shall be grounds for denying this application. Signatures and addresses of all owners as shown in the Office of the County Recorder must be included. NOTE: Please FOLD all maps down to 8-1/2" x 11" (accordion style excepting presentation material). A23:\Certificate of Appropriateness { • a FILE COPY HISTORIC PRESERVATION. COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 27, 2000 ITEM: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 2000-001 REQUEST: REQUEST TO ALLOW A WOOD PATIO • COVER WITH A • TILE ROOF ON FRONT OF RESTAURANT LOCATION: APPLICANTS: BACKGROUND: 78039 CALLE ESTADO EL RANCHITO RESTAURANT (DAVID AND ALMA CETINA) The building on. the subject property is a City -designated historic structure built in 1936. The entire building is being utilized as a restaurant, but in the past has been used for various commercial businesses. The one story building has painted brick walls, with a. low pitched gable and shed roof covered with red clay tile. Across the east side of the front of the building is a canvas awning patio cover and short steel picket fence that was installed approximately two years ago. The Municipal Code requires that addition's to designated historic structures obtain approval from the City Council. This requires review and recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission. PROPOSED ADDITION: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing patio cover and fence and replace them with a solid patio cover across the entire front of the restaurant. The proposed patio would be constructed out of wood with eight 6" by 6" posts .supporting the cover. The cover willnot be attached to the building, with a one inch separation from thebuilding provided. Wood headers and joists will support a mudded clay tile roof to match that on the restaurant. A new four -footwide sidewalk will be provided between the curb and cover. Around the east half of the cover a three foot high black wrought iron fence will be installed to enclose and define the outdoor, eating area. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7.08.030, the request can be approved if, and only if, it is determined: p:\stan\hpc rpt ca2000-001 el ranchito.wpd 1. That the proposed work would not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape improvement. 2. If the owner of the designated historic site or landmark demonstrates thatsuch property cannot be economically used and denial of a permit would deprive the - owner of all or most of his economic interest in the property, the. City Council may issue the permit with an effective date 180 days from the issuance of. the permit to allow time for the investigation of alternatives to the work proposed in the permit application, such as acquisition of site improvement by the City or a public interest group. 3. In the case of construction of a new improvement upon a historic site, that the ----- exterior o f such improvementwill not adversely. affect and will. be compatible with the external appearance_ of existing historically designated improvements on said site. 4. That the applicant has presented clear and convincing evidence of facts demonstrating to the satisfaction of the City Council that such disapproval will impose immediate and substantial hardship on the applicant because of conditions peculiar to the person seeking to carry out the work, whether this be property owner, tenant, or resident, or because of conditions peculiar to the particular improvement, or other feature involved, and that approval of the application will be consistent with the purposes of the permit procedures. The criteria that the proposed work would not detrimentally alter; destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape improvement cannot be met. The proposed addition does not comply with the recommended Secretary of the Interior's Standards for. the Treatment of Historic Properties. Constructing an addition so that the character -defining features of the historic building are obscured is not recommended. Furthermore, additions should be avoided on "character -defining" or in this case front elevations of the historic structure.. The addition should be of a size and scale that will not overpower the historic structure. The proposed patio cover while using materials used in the original structure, is massive andoverpowers and obscures the facade of the building. The cover stretches . the entire frontage of the building, has a solid top or cover, and uses several layers of wood. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000-_,recommending denial of the requested addition to the restaurant. p:\stan\hpc rpt ca2000-001 el ranchito.wpd Attachment: 1. Proposed plan exhibits 2. Applicable Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties 3. Preservation Brief 14. Prepared by: -Stan B.- Sawa; -Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine .di lorio, 'fanning Manager pi\stan\hpc rpt ca2000-001 el ranchito.wpd' 9 Na W tn 1- a e � .4 op 0 1111111111 MIME aFriP ;1.q tP 7 ELEVATION PROPOSED 73. 9-d y • PATIO / TRELLIS FRAMING PLAN I/4' . EADER PSON' T5 MIN. XI.S) GONG. HARDSGAPE EXPANSION JOINTS EXISTING BUILDING to REMAIN ttp. ; ' t. 'LINE of WROUGHT IRON RAILING w/ PAINT FINISH PAIR Of I'-9' x 5.-O" YQ2OU6HT IRON GATES w/ PAINT FINISH LINE of V. HEADER ABOVE SEE FRAMING PLAN NEW GONG. WALK EXISTING CONCRETE GAS and 6UTTER to REMAIN I2' DIA. GONG. PA'_ x IB' DEEP ril?GE POST BASE PLACE 'COOL FOG' WATER - SYSTEM or EQUAL (14 AROUND PERIMETER.) • FAX 760 369 .4002 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Pteserving' - . bilitating, Restoring tvReconstru Historic Buil Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service . Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships Heritage Preservation Services Washington, D.C. 1995 • 4. dirk) -1Notio N 0 0 0 N 0 Design for the Replacement of Missing Historic Features When an enure interior or exterior feature is missing (for example, an entrance, or cast iron facade; or a principal staircase), it no longer plays a role in physi- cally defining the historic character of the building unless it can be accurately recovered in form and detailing through the process of carefully document- ing the historical appearance. Although accepting the loss is one possibility, where an important architectur- al feature is missing, its replacement is always recom- mended in the Rehabilitation guidelines as the first or preferred, course of action. Thus, if adequate histori- cal, pictorial, and physical documentation exists so that the feature may be accurately reproduced, and if it is desirable to re-establish the feature as part of the. building's historical appearance, then designing and constructing a new feature based on such information is appropriate. However, a secondacceptable option for the replacement feature is a new design that is compatible with the remaining character -defining features of the historic building. The new design should always take into account the size, scale, and material of the historic building itself and, most importantly, should be clearly differentiated so that a false historical' appearance is not created. . --- AltesatioitsJAdditions for the Newv Use Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic building are generally needed to assure its continued 07/20/2000 13:00 use, but it is most important that such alterations do not radically change, obscure, or destroy character - defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes. Alterations may include providing additional parking space on an existing historic building site; cutting new entrances or windows on secondary elevations; inserting an additional floor; installing an entirely new mechanical system; or creating an atrium or light well. Alteration may also include the selective removal of buildings or other features of the environ- ment or building site that are intrusive and therefore detract from the overall historic character. The construction of an exterior addition on a historic building may seem to be essential for the new use, but it is emphasized in the Rehabilitation guidelines . that such new additions should be avoided, if possi- ble, and considered only after it is determined that those needs cannot be met by altering secondary, i.e., non character -defining interior spaces. If, after a thorough evaluation of interior solutions, an exterior addition is still judged to be the oily viable alterative, it should be designed and constructed to be clearly differentiated from the historic building and so that the character -defining features are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Additions and alterations to historic buildings are ref- erenced within specific sections of the Rehabilitation guidelines such as Site, Roofs, Structural Systems, etc„ but are addressed in detail in New Additions to Historic Buildings, found at the end of this chapter. ' 65 • 113 m RECEIVED FROM:760 369 4002 • u, m m N Rehabilitation 07/20/2000 13:46 New Additions to Historic Buildings Recommended . . Placing functions and services required for the new use in non -character -defining interior spaces rather than construct- ing a new addition. Constructing a new addition so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials and so that character -defining fea- tures are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Designing a new addition in a manner that makes dear what is historic and what is new 112 New Additions to Historic Buildings Not Recommended Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a new addition when the new use could be met by altering non -character -defining interior spaces. Attaching a new addition so that the character -defining fea- tures of the historic building are obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Duplicating the exact form, material, style, and detailing of the historic building in a new addition so that the new work appears to be part of the historic building. Imitating a historic style or period of architecture in a new addition. Rehabilitation, like Preservation, acknowledges a building' change over time; the retention and repair ofexisting historic materials and features is thus always recommended However, unlike Preservation, the dual goal of Rehabilitation is to --respectfully — add to or alter a building in order to meet new use requires ensr. This downtown Chicago library was expanded in 1981 when additional space was required with light and humidity control for the rare book collection, . The .compatible 10-story wing was linked to the historic block on side and rear elevations. Its simple design is compatible with the historic form, features, and detailing; old and new are dearly diferentiated Photo: Dave Clifton. RECEIVED FROM 07=20-00 Rehabilitation Recommended Considering the design for an attached exterior addition in terms of its relationship to the historic building as well as the historic district or neighborhood, Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the historic building, 1n either case, it should always be clear- ly differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, Materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color. Placing a new additionon a non -character -defining elevation and limiting the size and scale in relationship to the historic building. • Designing a rooftop addition when required for the new use, that is set back from the wall plane and as inconspicuous as possible.when viewed from the street. Not Recommended Designing and constructing new additions that result in the diminution or loss of the historic character of the resource, including its design, materials, workmanship, location, or setting. Designing a new addition that obscures, es, damages, or destroys character -defining features of the historic building. Constructing a rooftop addition so that the historic appear- ance of the building is radically changed, New Additions to Historic Buildings 113. RECEIVED FROM:760 369 4002 Preservation Brief 14 ATTAR . , httpJ/www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/brief14.htrn Preservation Briefs 14 TTt;hniiOaI Preservation SierviGe# New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns KayD. Weeks I3I'S Table of Contents • Preserving Significant Historic•Materials and Features • Preserving the Historic Character • Protecting the Historical Significance • Conclusion • Additional Reading Because a new exterior addition to a historic building can damage or destroy significant materials and can change the building's character, an addition should be considered only after it has been determined that the new use cannot be met by altering nonsignificant, or secondary, interior spaces. If the new use cannot be met in this way, then an attached addition may be an acceptable alternativeif carefully planned. A new addition should be constructed in a manner that preserves significant materials and features and preserves the historic character. Finally. an addition should be differentiated from the historic building so that the new work is not confused with what is genuinely part of the past. Change is as inevitable in buildings and neighborhoods as it is in individuals and families. Never static, buildings and neighborhoods grow, diminish, and continue to evolve as each era's technological advances bring conveniences such as heating, street paving, electricity, and air conditioning; as the effects of, violent weather, uncontrolled fire, or slow unchecked deterioration destroy vulnerable material, as businesses expand, change hands, become obsolete, .as building codes are established to enhance life safety and health; or as additional family living space is alternately needed and abandoned. Preservationists generally agree that the history of a building, together with its site and setting, includes not only the period of original construction but frequently later alterations and additions. While each change to a building or : neighborhood is.undeniably part of its history —much like events in human life —not every change is equally. important. For example, when a later, clearly nonsignificant addition is removed to reveal the original form, materials, and craftsmanship, there is little complaint about a loss to history. When the subject of new exterior additions is introduced, however, areas of agreement usually tend to diminish. This is understandable because the subject raises some serious questions. Can a historic building be enlarged for a new use without destroying what is historically significant? And just what is significant about each particular historic building that should be preserved? Finally, what new construction is appropriate to the old building? The vast amount of literature on the subject of change to America's built environment reflects.widespread interest as well as divergence of opinion. New additions have been discussed by historians within a social and political, framework; by architectural historians in terms of construction technology and style; and, by urban planners as successful or unsuccessful contextual design. Within the historic preservation programs of the National Park Service, however, the focus has been and will continue to be the protection of those resources identified as worthy of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. National Register Listing —Acknowledging Change While Protecting Historical Significance 1 of 6 07/19/2000 7:51 AM Preservation Brief 14 • • http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/briefl4.htm Entire districts or neighborhoods may be listed in the National Register of Historic Places for their significance to a certain period of American history (e.g., activities in a commercial district between 1870 and 1910). This ".framing" of historic districts has led to a concern that listing in the National Register may discourage any physical change beyond a certain historical period —particularly in the form of attached exterior additions. This is not the case. National Register listing does not mean that an entire building or district is frozen in time and that no change can be made without compromising the historical significance. It also does not mean that each portion of a historic building is equally significant and must be retained intact and without change. Admittedly, whether an attached new addition is small or large, there will always be some Toss of material and some change in the form of the historic building. There will also generally be some change in the relationship between the buildings and its site, neighborhood or district. Some change is thus anticipated within each rehabilitation of a building for a contemporary use. Scope of National Park Service. Interest in New Exterior Additions The National Park Service interest in new additions is simply this -a new addition to a historic building has the potential to damage and destroy significanthistoric material and features and to change its historic character. A new addition also has the potential to change how one perceives what is genuinely historic and thus to diminish those qualities that make the building eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Once these basic preservation issues have been addressed, alLother aspects of designing and constructing a new addition to extend the useful life of the historic building rest with the creative skills of the architect. The intent of this Brief, then, is to provide guidance to owners and developers planning additions to their historic buildings. A project involving a new addition to a historic building is considered acceptable within the framework of the National Park Service's standards if it: 1. Preserves significant historic materials and features; and 2. Preserves the historic character; and 3. Protects the historical significance by making a visual distinction between old and new. Paralleling these key points, the Brief is organized into three sections. Case study examples are provided to point out acceptable and unacceptable preservation approaches where new use requirements were met through construction of an exterior addition. These examples areincluded to suggest ways that change to historic buildings can be sensitively accomplished, not to provide in-depth project analyses; endorse or critique particular architectural design, or offer cost and construction data. 1. Preserving Significant Historic Materials and Features Connecting a new exterior addition always involves some degree of material loss to an external wall of a historic building and, although this is to be expected, it can be minimized. On the other hand, damage or destruction of significant materials and craftsmanship such as pressed brick, decorative marble, cast stone, terra-cotta, or architectural metal should be avoided, when possible. Generally speaking, preservation of historic buildings is enhanced by avoiding all but minor changes to primary or "public" elevations. Historically, features that distinguish one building or a row of buildings and can be seen from the streets or sidewalks are most likely to be the significant ones. This can include window patterns, window hoods, or shutters; porticoes, entrances, and doorways; roof shapes, cornices, and decorative moldings; or commercial storefronts with their special detailing, signs, and glazing. Beyond a single building, entire blocks of urban or residential structures are often closely related architecturally by their materials, detailing, form, and alignment. Because significant materials and features should be preserved, not damaged or hidden, the first place to consider constructing a new addition is where such material loss will be minimized. This will frequently be on a secondary side or rear elevation. For both economic and social reasons, secondary. elevations were often constructed of "common" material and were less architecturally ornate or detailed. In constructing the new addition, one way to minimize overall material loss is simply to reduce the size of thenew addition in relationship to the historic building. If a new addition will abut the historic building along one elevation or wrap around a side and rear elevation, the integration of historic and new interiors may result in a high degree of loss —exterior walls as well as significant interior spaces and features. Another way to minimize loss is to limit the size and number of openings between old and new. A particularly successful method to reduce damage is to link the new addition to the historic block by means of a hyphen or connector. In this way, only the connecting 2of6 07/19/2000 7:51 AM Preservation Brief 14 • http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/briefl4.htm passageway penetrates a historic side wall; the new addition can be visually and functionally related while historic materials remain essentially intact and historic exteriors remain uncovered. Although a general recommendation is to construct a new addition on a secondary elevation, there are several exceptions. First, there may simply be no secondary elevation —some important freestanding buildings have significant materials and features on all sides, making any aboveground addition too destructive to be considered. Second, a structure or group of structures together with their setting (for example, in a National Historic Park) may be of such significance in American history that any new addition would not only damage materials and alter the buildings' relationship to each other and the setting, but seriously diminish the public's ability to appreciate'a historic event or place. Finally, there are other cases where an existing side or rear elevation was historically intended to be highly visible, is of special cultural importance to the neighborhood, or possesses associative historical value. Then, too, a secondary elevation should be treated as if it were a primary elevation and a new addition should be avoided. 2. Preserving the Historic Character The second, equally important, consideration is whether or not the new addition will preserve the resource's historic character. The historic character of each building may differ, but a methodology of establishing it remains the same. Knowing the uses and functions a building -has. served_. over time will assist in making what is essentially a physical evaluation. But while written and pictorial documentation can provide a framework for establishing the building's history, the historic character, to a large extent, is embodied in the physical aspects of the historic building itself —its shape, its materials, its features, its craftsmanship, its window arrangements, its colors, its setting, and its interiors. It is only after the historic character has been correctly identified that reasonable decisions about the extent -or limitations —of change can be made. To meet National. Park Service preservation standards, a new addition must be "compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character" of the building to which it is attached or its particular neighborhood or district. A new addition will always change the size or actual bulk of the historic building. But an addition that bears no relationship to the proportions and massing of the historic building —in other words, one that overpowers the historic form and changes the scale will usually compromise the historic character as well. The appropriate size for a new addition varies from building to building; it could never be stated in a tidy square or cubic footage ratio, but the historic building's existing proportions, site, and setting can help set some general parameters for enlargement. To some extent, there is a predictable relationship between the size of the historic resource and the degree of change a new addition will impose. For example, in the case of relatively low buildings (small-scale residential or commercial structures) it is difficult, if not impossible, to minimize the impact of adding an entire new floor even if the new addition is set back from the plane of the facade. Alteration of the historic proportions and profile will likely change the building's character. On the other hand, 'a rooftop addition to an eight story building in a historic district of other tall buildings might not affect the historic character simply because the new work would not be visible from major streets. A number of methods have been used to help predict the effect of a proposed rooftop addition on the historic building and district, including pedestrian sight lines, three-dimensional schematics and computer -assisted design (CAD). Sometimes a rough full-size mock up of a section or bay of the proposed addition can be constructed using temporary material; the mockup can then be photographed and evaluated from critical vantage points. In the case of freestanding residential structures, the preservation considerations are generally twofold. First, a large addition built out on a highly visible elevation can radically alter the historic form or obscure features such as a decorative cornice or window ornamentation. Second, an addition that fills in a planned void on a highly visible elevation (such as a "U" shaped plan or feature such as a porch) may also alter the historic form and, as a result, change the historic character. . Some historic structures such as government buildings, metropolitan museums, or libraries may be so massive in size that a large-scale addition may not compromise the historic character. Yet similar expansion of smaller buildings would be dramatically out of scale. In summary, where any new addition is proposed, correctly assessing the relationship between actual size and relative scale will be a key to preserving the characterof the historic building. Constructing the new addition on a secondary side or rear elevation —in addition to material preservation -will also address preservation of the historic character. Primarily; such placement will help to preserve the building's historic form and relationship to its site and setting. Historic landscape features, including distinctive grade variations, need to be respected; and any new landscape features such as plants and trees kept at a scale and density that would 3 of 6 07/19/2000 7:51 AM Preservation Brief 14 • • http://wwv✓1.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/briefl4.htm not interfere with appreciation of the historic resource itself. In highly developed urban areas, locating a new addition on a less visible side or rear elevation may be impossible simply because there is no available space. In this instance, there may be alternative ways to help preserve the historic character. If a new addition is being connected to the adjacent historic building on a primary elevation, the addition may be set back from the front wall plane so the outer edges defining the historic form are still apparent. In still other cases, some variation in material, detailing, and color may provide the degree of differentiation necessary to avoid changing the essential proportions and character of the historic building. 3. Protecting the Historical Significance -- Making a Visual Distinction,Between Old and New The following statement of approach could be appliedequally to the preservation of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of National Register significance: "A conservator works within a conservation ethic so that the integrity of the object as an historic entity is maintained. The concern is not just with the original state of the object, but the way in which it has been changed and used over the centuries. Where a new intervention must be _-made to save -the -object, either to stabilize it or to consolidate- it; itis generally accepted that those interventions must be clear, obvious, and reversible. It is this same attitude to change that is relevant to conservation policies and attitudes to historic towns... " (1) Rather than establishing a clear and obvious difference between old and new, it might seem more in keeping with the historic character simply to repeat the historic form, material, features, and detailing in a new addition. But when the new work is indistinguishable from the old in appearance, then the "real" National Register property may no longer be perceived and appreciated by the public. Thus, the third consideration in planning a new addition is to be sure that it will protect those visual qualities that made the building eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A question often asked is what if the historic character is not compromised by an addition that appears to have been built in the same period? A small porch or a wing that copied the historic materials and detailing placed on a rear elevation might not alter the public perception of the historic form and massing. Therefore, it is conceivable that a modest addition could be replicative without changing the resource's historic character; generally, however, this approach is not recommended because using the same wall plane, roof line, cornice height, materials, siding lap, and window type in an addition can easily make the new work appear to be part of the historic building. If this happens on a visible elevation, it becomes unclear as to which features are historic and which are new, thus confusing the authenticity of the historic resource itself. The National Park Service policy on new additions, adopted in 1967, is an outgrowth and continuation of a general philosophical approach to change first expressed by John Ruskin in England in the 1850s, formalized by William Morris in the founding of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877, expanded by the Society in 1924 and, finally, reiterated in the 1964 Venice Charter —a document that continues to be followed by 64 national committees of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The 1967 Administrative Policies for Historical Areas of the National Park System thus states, " ... a modern addition should bereadily distinguishable from the older work; however, the new work should be harmonious with the old in scale, proportion, materials, and color. Such additions should be as inconspicuous as possible from the public view." Similarly, the Secretary of the Interior's 1977 "Standards for Rehabilitation" call for the new work to be "compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment." Conclusion A major goal of our technical assistance program is a heightened awareness of significant materials and the historic character prior to construction of a new exterior addition so that essential change may be effected within a responsible preservation context. In summary, then, these are the three important preservation questions to ask when planning a new exterior addition to a historic resource: 1. Does the proposed addition preserve significant historic materials and features? 2. Does the proposed addition preserve the historic character?. 4of6 07/19/2000 7:51 AM Preservation Brief 14 . • http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/brief14.htm 3. Does the proposed addition protect the historical significance by making a visual distinction between old and new? If the answer is YES to all three questions, then the new addition will protect significant historic materials and the historic character and, in doing so, will have satisfactorily addressed those concerns generally held to be fundamental to historic. preservation. --- NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS --- Preserve Significant Historic Materials and Features. Avoid constructing an addition on a primary or other character- defining elevation to ensure preservation of significant materials and features. . Minimize loss of historic material comprising external walls and internal partitions and floor plans. Preserve the Historic -Character Make the size, scale, massing, and proportions of the new addition compatible with the historic building to ensure that the historic form is not expanded or changed to an unacceptable degree. Place the new addition on an inconspicuous side or rear elevation so that the new work does not result in a radical change to the form and character of the: historic building. Consider setting an infill addition or connector back from the historic buildings wall plane so that the form of the historic building —or buildings —can be distinguished from the new work. Set an additional story well back from the roof edge to ensure that the historic building's proportions and profile are not radically changed. Protect the Historical Significance --Make a Visual. Distinction Between Old and New Plan the new addition in a manner that provides some differentiation in material, color, and detailing so that the new work does not appear to be part of the historic building. The character of the historic resource should be identifiable after the addition is constructed. NOTE (1) Roy Worskett, RIBA, MRTIP, "Improvement of Urban Design in Europe and the United States: New Buildings in Old Settings." Background Report (prepared July, 1984) for Seminar at Strasbourg, France, October, 1984. Additional Reading Architecture: The AIA Journal, "Old and New," November, 1983. Brolin, Brent C. Architecture in Context: Fitting New Buildings with Old. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980. Good Neighbors: Building Next to History. State Historical Society of Colorado, 1980. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter), 1966. - National Trust for Historic Preservation. Old and New Architecture: Design Relationship. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press. 1980. 5 of 6 07/19/2000 7:51 AM Preservation Brief 14 • • http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/brief14.httn • Rehab Right: How to Rehabilitate Your Oakland House Without Sacrificing Architectural Assets. City of Oakland Planning Department. Oakland, California, 1978. Ruskin, John. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1925. Schmertz, Mildred F., and Architectural Record Editors. New Life for Old Buildings.. New York, Architectural Record Books, McGraw-Hill, 1980. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Assistance Division. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, rev. 1983. First special thanks go to Ernest A. Connally, Gary L. Hume, and W. Brown Morton, III for their efforts in establishing and refiningour preservation and rehabilitation standards over the past 20 years. (The "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects" constitute the policy framework of this, and every technical publication developed in the Preservation Assistance Division.) H. Ward Jandl, Chief, Technical Preservation Services Branch, is credited with overall supervision of the project. Next appreciation is extended to the Branch professional staff, the _NPS cultural programs regional offices, the Park Historic Architecture Division, and the National Conference of -State Historic -Preservation -Officers for their -thoughtful -comments. Final ly;:the _following-specialists=in the field are thanked for their time in reviewing and commenting on the manuscript: Bruce Judd, AIA, Nore"V: Winter, John Cullinane, AIA, Ellen Beasley, Vicki Jo Sandstead, Judith kitchen, Andrea Nadel, Martha L. Werenfels, Diane Pierce, Colden Florence, FAIA, and H. Grant Dehart, AIA. The photograph of Chicago's Newberry Library with the Harry Weese and Associates' 1981 addition was graciously lent to us by David F. Dibner, FAIA, and Amy DibnerDunlap, coauthors of Buildings Additions Design, McGrawHill, 1985. The front page "logo" by Nore Winter is a detail of historic Burns National Bank, Durango, Colorado, with John Pomeroy's 1978 addition. Washington, D.C. September, 1986 This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information conceming historic properties. Technical Preservation Services (TPS), Heritage Preservation Services Division, National Park Service prepares standards, guidelines, and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public. Order Brief I Technical Preservation Services I Preservation Briefs I Search I Questions/Answers Last Modified: Thu, Feb 24 2000 10:39:30 am EDT MLO . . Natione Tar Service 6 of 6 • • 07/19/2000 7:51 AN State of California -- The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Page 1 of 1 Other Listings Primary # HRl# Trinorniai NRHP Status Code I Review Code Reviewer Date *Resource Name or #: 78-035 and 78-039 Avenida Estado P1. Other Identifier: El Ranchito Restaurant and Tri-State Land Surveyors and Civil Engineers *P2. Location: 0 Not for Publication 0 Unrestricted a. County Riverside b. USGS 7.5' Quad La Ouinta Date 1980 T 06S : R 06E: NE 1/4 of SE1/4 of Sec 1 ; B.M c. Address 78-035 and 78-039 Avenida Estado city La Ouinta Zip d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear feature) Zone ,mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMs, etc. as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) Building is two adjoining structures which were part of the original commercial district and are now occupied by a Mexican restaurant and a civil engineering office. Both are one-story and together form a rectangular plan. The eastern portion has a low-pitched, front gabled roof; the western portion has a shed roof with flat extension at the northern end and a gabled roof at the rear, or southern, end; all roofs are clad in red Mission tiles which form the facie of the shallow eaves. The walls are white -painted brick. The north elevation has large plate glass windows with wood sash and extended lintels at its east and west ends. A central inset area, one brick deep, holds a multi -paned door and narrow fanlight. This central niche is flanked by two French doors. The west elevation has no fenestration. The south elevation has three double -paned windows; the east elevation has a small lean-to addition with a single door opening. *P3b. Resources Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6. Commercial Building, 1-3 Stories *P4. Resources Present: ® Building 0 Structure ❑ Object 0 Site ❑ District 0 Element of District 0 Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, etc.) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: 0 Prehistoric M Historic ❑ Both c. 1936 *P7. Owner and Address: P--Private *P8. Recorded by:(Name, affiliation, address) Vicki Stiegemeyer/Marcy Roth Mellon & Associates Riverside, CA *P9. Date Recorded: 10/06/1997 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) C--Comprehensive Survey *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "none") City of La Ouinta Historic Context Statement *Attachments: ® NONE 0 Location Map 0 Sketch Map 0 Continuation Sheet 0 Building, Structure and Object Record ❑ Archaeological Record 0 District Record 0 Linear Feature Record ❑ Milling Station Record 0 Rock Art Record 0 Artifact Record ❑ Photograph Record 0 Other: (List) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information EXISTING SIGNAGE rdith NEON LETTERS to REMAIN 12 b a EXISTING Mit to REMAIN tip. EXISTING RAISED PLANTER NI/ BRICK GAP to REMAIN EXISTING MASONRY BLK. • "Ith PLASTER FINISH to REMAIN TYP. 0 EXISTING FRENCH DOORS to REMAIN bp- 12 EXISTING ":.- EXISTING Q.= to REMAIN EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION CENTERLINE of POST and PAD FOOTING — 6 x 6 MOOD POST SIMPSON' GEM/ COLUMN BASE or EGIUAL LINE of EXIST. GONG. SLAB to BE SAWGUT and REMOVED I/2' EXISTING CONC. HARD3GAPE to REMAIN 12' DIA. x la" DEEP GONG. PAD FOOTING gsf fL f < 1 CLAY BARR6E- 71L TAR I x 6 110. of"OC s` ATTACH W t. A35 CLIPS 4x NO at 24" O. 4 • 6x12ND r+/ PAIN. —• EXT. P_ MATCH 1) EXISTING SI6NA&E vslth NEON LETTERS to REMAIN `f x 8 TRELLIS JOISTS • t 24* O.G. typ. x 12 ro. HEADER 12 A q •i .1 1 I' . f _ : EXISTING CLAY TILE ROOFING to REMAIN TYP. EXISTING MASONRY ELK. ►.Ith PLASTER FINISH to REMAIN TYP. r NEY4 CLAY BARREL ROOF TILES r4/ HEAVY MORTAR SLOPE to FRONT of 1/4" PER FT. LINE of WROUGHT IRON RAILING PAINTED BLACK PAIR of 2030 NR0116NT IRON GATES PAINTED BLACK H it._ H. •g H Ix6T= MimBE q" O.0 NOTE: SEE EXI5TIN6 FRONT ELEVATION for ADDIT HEIGHTS and NOTES PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION 1/4'•I EXISTING TILE ROOFINS to REMAIN TYP. CLAY BARREL ROOF TILES , / HEAVY MORTAR I x 6 TRELLIS MEMBERS at 4' O.G. r+/ PAINT FINISH 4 x 8 AD. TRELLIS JOISTS .. ."• IrAillialM1 1 I I I Ii�l�ltl�l�l�l1■111"I k Q+.4.p 8J 1441 f(, Aost LINE of VRCU6HT IRON RAILING PAINTED BLACK -I 6x12VV. HEADER (,14 Pos"r Q 1 CURB � I UNE NOTE: SEE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION - FOR TYPICAL NOTES. poi - 4 CURB s� LINE cog, Nit LINE of WROUGHT IRON RAILING • PAINTED BLACK----jc (pAp Pos ♦•�,i•,j,•i�• •i i i• O •S • rS • •, At.) •✓• Ste• • ✓r ✓::••✓ O• Si'.♦ r • •S• •%••i ✓•• • O. 4�l �J • iiA:♦ • • •i • ✓,•+ •�i•PA•• • S ✓ • •••••• • Y• •.:•�O.i ♦O �!�: i i•PJ•••i,•:��Oi• •: i ✓ •":; ::0.4:::•::::i ✓•..:•♦�S•••••••• �,1✓•:?��'✓''Sy,✓•.•1.J•i � � f i i•. i'.' 'i'` i ✓✓t •��•r•,:.•i,• •�7••,.►:•�',�••••�•J• S•S •✓ �•�: • ••:7::•�iy✓:❖♦ 0•✓✓:•i i:•••• J.e• • .0.• i S••s'✓1?i7 ••••':e,::•3i♦✓O•'s •• • •�•i i• •i•✓ •i:•. •Y• �i• �••�:•• j �••♦ •• ✓.•t •i7�ti •SY•,• • i ♦% ♦•✓•• - • ••T• ✓.• ••✓:✓• ••.•• •••••• O.*•••✓✓ •• ✓j• r • •'• .$: SS• ✓iS S ••••i•: • • • % �•:: • •• • ••*•: •.• ✓i •O Y 0:4 S•,�•••.•♦•: 4 ••• • •• •• •.• • ✓• . ✓ •S•• % •►♦' • • •D ce[: -S� • • • ••�i >✓••D ••• O • ••i J .•• • •••• ✓ • • • •i J •: ✓✓J✓� ✓I J'•••9✓iS• J •Sri �i Pi♦••tl•�I,•,:•fi•' � i • • �i co •• • • ✓• . ✓ � i� i • • •i•��•,• • �:}�S • J �.• • ✓S•a✓'••� • i O• ✓♦ ✓•�i •�j • d .ry •yD' '.i ' �i✓' • • .� d Ji•• i• ••• ✓•i► J :• -:coNew i•••. • • • • J♦•✓ k•v s•: •is•♦ ••�•%•r %•S••:�:f✓ :11: J♦ •r•♦* 4 1:4 ✓• • • •" •,�••• ": �f•�• ✓ 7 d• • • 1✓'yS•, • • ♦•••♦ j�• OSS,'�✓+ ✓ ' • i4 iSr . ✓••i�1�+•• %••♦•• ♦ .b•iy" • •O✓ S ✓:• S• •� �•OSb�.Sl . J • • J. .SIT • ,��yy • • ♦ •i S••. ,•k4'. • ✓ S•4.0 o �•: • • • •✓ • .t ✓i• • • • • • :. J'•S'•' ♦ ✓. • s�Y s• , • • .••yTS�✓•✓•!•✓. ••► • t - Sri ♦. •✓i ✓•� •i • �•*•i ✓i• • j �,,•O ,:a�� •{• • • • ♦Wit, • Yi�•i.✓ J♦ . • • •'� • • ✓•• ✓00 J ••i O. ♦ r yJ • • •. •✓ ✓ ✓.v 3... •o. • O✓�'.: •••' • :•, ✓'�•'1 .•L► jib ` ,t,.• ••ri�ji '•ty' �j .•♦,►.f,. �Jy�.•✓i,.;.• • J�..d q•j,:s�.J j •�• ••.•'✓, '�• • • • +•.�i" •� '•%✓{g • �f�-✓ S ✓*✓ S s ♦ •i '"►O� *•S• •.Ji. ✓ .• �.'.k•?i•� • _ • ✓Ai••S•••••►i�••• 6 • 0• •► ii•'•i i•• • •✓ • •,••✓i :. J� ✓i••O✓i•:iOY jOi:•:•.♦�%'••:• .S:••7✓�.Ji • • ••✓O••: • • • •��••• -•O•�O•V�••�•+ ♦ •�•i0ii�.�•i✓ • •S• •.'►✓i ✓S✓•,•� ...... .• •.,7•�. •_ '•�OS.i;♦yr ✓•.••�• Yam• • •✓ i �•�• :•• �• ••j Ofi i •• ••:•i •�•S• ✓ i :•:::i •� •i `• ••i :'• •• ✓ .. • �•iYa•.• is ..•✓i .j•' u❖✓ ••• •:•✓:: ✓•✓✓ dS •• J�•O� y� ✓••••h•�.✓•'✓•i•••• •mil•• •.s. • Ij ♦ 1:L� ♦�{iA••i2•:♦J✓ $ i• • ••� .••Ri •� • ♦ •R✓ •✓ .i�Ji• � f✓ t . �i•••♦•pi •f✓�• 7 • •a►,••'••`'•, �♦�•�• ,✓•••• ♦ •.S • K ✓� Jj J.✓ • � • •••i �� :� ::.-.. _: -= �=` =� `: -C _: _ _..._.. _ :.-.... v � '•i ✓i♦:•'ii :❖:•� • _ •- •• •'•. •.••. •,. • ••� 5;,y • •Oi• •�,,•� • • ✓O • •ii •dui •••✓j •i I�'� _._.._ .... __.. _.:_:: - .. pox: .❖ .....,,✓'•.. :d:•.✓.•:::`� �✓�.a�•�`�j••,;,..;•y.•:;.��:•'tisy.'::A'�°` .•.J:.+:� <;:,• � r''��:•y,•,o \-�-,-'-ts�-I 03,4,..♦J.�Q.S•. . 4MJ.fr y +.A��S%J.�iiJiI�Y7i •�'j•�tA;g:; ��:�YA:� :-•-.�•i•�I'.•�'%%. 'ate*+`•_ � .> ell 3.�s _... _... :•� �ImimIoiimlil-ii�i irk r jai lam����1�1ailt . t�lril���n! ! ���iimlr��lr! Ville!®I��I� f in1m1�1�1�1�r,�i�imir - -1 1 i�1�l�letl�i ■��� 1�1m1�1�1� f. ,, l�1�l�I�I�I�I�I�I�j-f �l�I�j�101ajri�� �l�l�irl�f�l�jrt t l_lmf_I_I►, . ' I I I ! �1�'_lt�1. �+��e�ie�i�t���t�i�I�i�ii�f���umm�leffmti�t�I�eA lam.. -. I_1_1e1—J _l_l�I_i_I_I_I_I_l_l_I_i_! I-l-1 nI—I-I-I-I-i-l-I-I-I I I -I -I -I -I I_I_I_I _I �I ICI i�lei�I_I_ll l l ill 1�1�I�t�1 1 !-imm �t 1�I�It��l�1� � -oi - - __ . 1 f-1,imlt• I i I I 1 I .:I, 1 1 %I 1�II I I l0 -1- 6 x 12 WD. HEADER -- Qu •.'/ V — 6 x 12 ►ND HEADER 6 x 12 V'ID. HEADER m 16.-O' PATIO / TRELLIS FRAMING PLAN ry 5/ 8"ox' at 24 (DRILL 4,e rot TREL. 2_ I/4' EADER PSON' TS MIN. ELLS) '1STS CONC. HARD SCAPE EXPANSION JOINTS TYP. 1 •e 1. , EXISTING EiUILDIN6 to REMAIN ttp. PAIR of 1'-9" x 3'-0" V62OUGHT IRON GATES rw/ PAINT FINISH,- LINE of KO. -HEADER ABOVE SEE FRAMING PLAN NEVI CONC. V'IALK EXISTING CONCRETE CURB and GUTTER to REMAIN 12' DIA.. CONC...PA:: x IB" DEEP_wIUi7CE= POST BASE PLACE_ n COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: ITEM TITLE: 4atha• FILECpy October 3, 2000 Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to Allow a lVood Patio Cover on Front of a Restaurant Located at 78039 Calle Estado. Applicant: El Ranchito Restaurant (David and Alma Cetina) AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness 2000-005, subject to findings and Conditions of Approval. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The building is a City -designated historic structure built in 1936. The entire building is being utilized as a restaurant, but in the past has been used for various commercial businesses. The one story building has painted brick walls, with a low pitched gable and shed roof covered with red clay tile. Across the east side of the front of the building is a canvas awning patio cover and short steel picket fence that was installed approximately two years ago. The La Quinta Charter and Municipal Code requires that additions to designated historic structures obtain approval from the City Council. This also requires review and recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission. Proposed Addition: Tie applicant's proposal is to construct two freestanding wood trellises (Attachment 1 . The trellises would be separated by the middle set of existing doors. The easterly trellis would be horizontal below the existing wall sign; while the westerly trellis would fallow the slope of the shed roof. A short slumpblock/iron railing scalloped wall would P_,STAN\coa 2000-005 cc rpt.wpd II • • enclose the outdoor area. The proposed patio would be constructed out of wood with ten 6" by 6" posts clad in plaster supporting the cover.' The easterly column has been moved inward from the edge of the building to minimize impact and show more of the building. The cover will not be attached to the building, with a one inch separation from the building provided. The City proposed improvements for Calle Estado, will allow the patio cover to now extend to the property line where currently a four foot sidewalk plus the patio exists. The applicant is working with the Public Works Department in regard to the design and size. Discussion: Pursuant to La Quinta Charter and Municipal Code Section 7.08.030, the request can be approved if, and only if, it is determined: 1. That the proposed work would not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape improvement. RESPONSE: The two trellises are compatible with the existing building and minimize the impact on the facade while providing the protection the applicant desires. 2. If the owner of the designated historic site or landmark demonstrates that such property cannot be economically used and denial of a permit would deprive the owner of all or most of his economic interest in the property, the City Council may issue the permit with an effective date 180 days from the issuance of the permit to allow time for the investigation of alternatives to the work proposed in the permit application, such as acquisition of site improvement by the City or a public interest group. RESPONSE: The trellises patio cover is needed to provide a shaded area for dining. 3. In the case of construction of a new improvement upon a historic site, that the exterior of such improvement will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of existing historically designated" improvements on said site. RESPONSE: The trellis allows the existing building to be the primary focus: While using two trellises lightens the appearance of the proposed construction, the character -defining features of the historic building are not obscured with the size and scale of the revised design. 002 P:\STAN\coa 2000-005 cc rpt.wpd That the applicant has presented clear and convincing evidence of facts demonstrating to the satisfaction of the City Council that such. disapproval will impose immediate and substantial hardship on the applicant because of conditions peculiar to the person seeking to carry out the work, whether this be property owner, tenant, or resident, or because of conditions peculiar to the particular improvement, or other feature involved, and that approval of the application will be consistent with the purposes of the permit procedures. RESPONSE: The proposed addition as redesigned complies with the recommended Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Historic Preservation Commission Review: The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) considered this request at its meetings of )'July 27, 2000, and September 21, 2000. At the July, 2000, review the HPC requested the plans be restudied because the single, tile roofed trellis was too overpowering for the building. At the September 21, 2000, meeting, the HPC reviewed the revised plans described herein and adopted Minute Motion 2000-019, on a 4-0 vote, recommending approval, subject to the following conditions: 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. I', The column material and finish shall match that used on the building. 3. i+ 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 HPC meeting minutes are attached for your review (Attachment 2). FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Findings necessary to approve can be made as noted above. IP The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1.' Approve Certificate of Appropriateness 2000-005, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; or 2. Deny the request; or 3. Continue the request and provide staff with direction. 003 P:\STAN\coa 2000-005 cc rpt.wpd Respectfully submitted, r.. rry erman •ommunity Development Director Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, it Manager ger Attachments: 1. Proposed plan exhibit book (bound book) 2. Historic Preservation Commission. minutes for the meeting of September 21, 2000 004 P:\STAN\coa 2000-006 cc rpt.wpd • • ATTACHMENT(S) 51 Exisnio, S161-4AGE im NEON LETTERS to RE ADI /3. CcL 4 1 31cobims ADOFt/44 "7b =AAA., 64 exisTwb MASONRY eLK. • .Nth PLASTER PRISM b REMAIN TYP. Al! to.cit of (Rk 4 7je %e „,,„PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION• E XISTINS TL,E ROOPwd b REMAIN TYP. S)w 3 LikL 4 it IS rd, TREI,LI5 ,ITS }' c lo8o(dj I MADER • sv LeE MOTE. � ,MCLTbM • S eci0-L R44kcs VI n/3 F-caw., W e15, TI ZIOST/ •vRD w• ATIO / TRELLI 007 '• 1- s ri dig bii • • 008 • ATTACHMENT 2 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 A. Certification of Appropriateness 2000-005. 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. 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 improvements 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 be 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. P:\CAROLYMHPC7-27-00.wpd -2- 009 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 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. 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 building. 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. P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -3- 010. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 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 Iorio 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. 12. Planning Manager di Iorio 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 Iorio 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 roofpatio covering on her house which retains the heat, even with fans. She maintained the addition of the patio cover would not 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. P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -4- 011. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 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 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. P:\CAROLYMiPC7-27-00.4d -$- n ,. Histc,ric Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 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 30'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 continuing 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 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 193O'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 . Iorio 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, Iorio stated it was post and beam construction. Chairman Wright asked if that was an alternative. Planning Manager di Iorio answered it was. 29. Mr. Weidenhamer asked if the current design plan utilized post and beam construction. 30. Planning Manager di Iorio 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 27th, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ' P:\CAF_OLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd 013 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 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, 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. 014 P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -7- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 B. 39. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Mitchell to continue this item 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. located on the •orth bank of the Whitewater River Storm Channel between Washi •ton Street and Adams Street. Applicant: Century -Crowell Commu ties (Sienna Del Rey) - Archaeological Consultant: Archaeoloical Advisory Group (James Brock). 1. Planni g Manager Christine di lorio presented the staff report, a copy o which is on file in the Community Development Departm. nt. Staff passed out additional information regarding submissio of materials for City curation: a. "Colle ted cultural/paleontological resources will be deliver- • to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the • operty, properly packaged for long term curation, in polye ylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriat-, all within acid -free, standard. size, comprehen ively labeled archive boxes. Materials will be accompanies by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primy research data, and the original graphics." Planning Manager di I• rio expressed concern as to the timing of the curation materials hich might have to be further along in the process than at the builing permit period because there may be more time needed to do the final report. She will pursue this further with the City's Bui . ing & Safety Department. 2. Commissioner Mitchell had n• objections. 3. Commissioner Irwin had no "o •'ection with the monitoring, but questioned the new material that talked about properly packaging the final report for long-term cura on as she did not think staples should be used in the reports. P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd 015 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 DRAFT C. Certificate of 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 Cetina. 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 Iorio 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 Cetina, 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 round as opposed to square. 8. Mr. Cetina 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. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 10. Commissioner Sharp asked if vines would eventually covering the top of the structure. 11. Mr. Cetina replied that would be nice. He was considering going ahead with that option. 12. Chairman Wright stated ii was a greatly improved project and complimented staff on worcing 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. 017 i • FiE COPy ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW .COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2000 CASE NO.: N.A. APPLICANT: DAVID CETINA EL RANCHITO MEXICAN RESTAURANT REQUEST: FUNDING REQUEST, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF CALLE ESTADO (78-039 CALLE ESTADO) BACKGROUND: This is the second CPIP application that has been deemed complete by staff (Attachment 1). The proposal, as represented in the application, is for "front patios, new concrete." Based on the drawings and contractor's estimates in the applicant's package, the existing front patio will be removed and replaced with stamped concrete, a wood patio cover will be installed, and foam and stucco ' columns will also be installed. The applicant is also proposing to install a new sign, however, because the total project costs without the sign well exceed the $ 15,000 funding limit, the applicant is not seeking funds for the sign. However, because the sign proposal is serving as the application -required photo requirement, the sign plans have been included with the application. Because the applicant .was pursuing this project before the advent of the CPIP, it has already undergone several City approvals including one by the Historic Preservation Commission and, at this writing, is scheduled to go to the City Council on October 3, 2000 for consideration. To facilitate the scoring of this application, a Funding Criteria worksheet is attached to this staff report (Attachment 2). All other attachments (e.g. CPIP brochure, Village Design Guidelines) are included within this agenda packet for the other CPIP application for La Quinta Palms Realty. If approved by the ALRC, the application will be reviewed by the Community Development Department for identification of appropriate planning approvals, if any. After receiving all appropriate City approvals, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency will enter into a rebate agreement with the applicant. The applicant has been made aware of this meeting and has indicated that he will be present at the October 4th ALRC meeting. Prepared and submitted by: Britt W. Wilson, Management Analyst City Manager's Office Attachments: 1. CPIP application: El Ranchito Mexican Restaurant 2. Funding Criteria worksheet G:\MyData\WPDocs\CPIP\ALRCSTAFFREPORTCETINA 1 0-04-00.wpd 002 ATTACHMENTS • La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Commercial Property Improvement Program Application Applicant Information Applicant Name: "1JGl ;.:. ;if 6-4, n 0 Applicant Phone: S (o t/- 70 47 Applicant E-Mail: Name of Business: i6/ /ea n f it i 4, Mailing Address: °7�'63q C:c-/le ESir 4 612$nt, CI22S3 Business Phone: 5 e y- c)0Ce j Business Fax: _cl., i{ !/ 2 9 Property Owner. Yes: ✓ No: Business Owner. Yes: r No: Project Information Business Location: •73p '1-)3(4 /if ES - dp Type of Business: /-(P j!a t.4 Pt AS tr" (G-n 1- Project Goals: 'To ;M p 7 ,J re ✓r CC Proposed Improvements: PC 4 J iLLiL 4 4) W toiler fie-4) Total Project Cost (please attach cost estimate): 3 1, .2,3S wr Requested Agency Assistance 00//��d'''' Applicant Budget Amount /.6)000 Description of Applicant Funding Sources: .�Y-3 ARS S 5 Proposed Project Duration: 6 Q C� Attachments • Two (2) color photographs of the property where improvements will be installed • Project sketches or plans (based upon funding level) • • Cost estimates Certification Statements If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property, the following certification must be completed by the property owner 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) given fiscal year. Signature: Date: The following statement must be completed by the applicant and property owner. Uwe acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that all above information is true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. I/we 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: f ° Date: Signature: Date: 004 Sap-22-00 09:03A P.01 Southwest Design, Inc. 4aa� S ui Center imas OEP 25 P11 2 26 Pal 60j674--97722 26CITY OF LA QUINTA Fax (760) 674-9742T Y MANAGER'S OFFICE CALic0767196 PROPOSAL To: = Renchito Restaurant 0 David Cetina L Quints. CA Remov : concrete patio Install stamped concrete Supply nd install wood patio cover Foam a d Stucco Columns per drawing TOTAL $ 32,450.00 005 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION <- 73-091 Country Club Drive, Suite A4-2 Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 360-8453 (760) 772-0010 FAx NAME i ADDRESS . .__..._ . . . . 11 Ranch ito -Resta urant 7$tii Calls hstado La Quinta, CA 9 tji/cu (mAt-wficvt-62 C.--eyitf 07'1/11-0.0 / • 41; ea/t-e-f-f Est' te DATE ESTIMATE # 9/8/2000 cc co zic7t- (ic 6.-e6, EA-1. WI c(,44sgt.46 eotz c / Z- 41- tvc 0 / ti Fityraeceiets as 9 •77C' • DESCRIPTION Remove and replace patio with stamped concrete with wood patio cover, painted finish including foam and stucco columns. Excludes: Plans/Permits Itic() 1 e 428 TWCZ9. PROJECT Ranchito OTY RATE TOTAL 32,000.00 TOTAL. 32,000.00 S32,000.00 0 CO 0 • 0 • • art P.O. Box 10758 Palm Desert, CA 92255-0758. el Ranchito. Restaurant CIO David Cetina La Quinta, Ca DESCRIPTION bi:v-fAAa-ecelAA-45( - DATE PROPOSAL # 09/07/2000 1020 C O Gt L. i « DSJG jSh4 ' /4-7/0/ c3111-1: 44. ( 32333 At/4 SLr-�0-r1e ea(6 V / � A-Ag JOB ADDRESS sOx AMOUNT Remove ove -concrete patio and replace with stamped concrete including 20' saw cutting Supply and install wood patio cover including corbels, hardware, painting, and column footings Foam and Stucco columns per drawing Total 12,400.00' 12,000.00 3,840.00 $28,240.00 1hSUY v r\ Contractors License Number #537333 Phone (760) 340-2726 ' Fax (760) 568-2776 007 1s 1• I Vat €1 1111110.0 in 0 a i�. i(1 •COootp ram\ sue, ffl .00 • Es 009 010 PATIO / TRELLIS FRAMING PLAN V4• N • CO • 012 zz LANOLORO APPROVAL CObTO 4 J APPROVAL DUSINESS NAME: El Ranchito Restaurant CUSTOMER NAME: David & Alma MAIL ADDRESS : 7&-039 Calle Estadc JOB LOCATION: La Quinta Vt zpstS—ot 40 o<A AA V0 zO 8t- un N • • 013 • l�D 10111 nib W J, oCiL 3 014 • Imperial Sign Co., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 9 1 1(760) 347-3566 Fax (760) 347-0343 (800) 706-8882 Contr. Lic., # 207136, C45, C10, C61 To/For Address City Attn: Date Phone Job Address Ship ToNIA Fax Ref P.O. f IDRAWING/SKETCH I FAX [ QUOTE/ESTIMATE (OTHER) MEASURE/SURVEY I ORDER DESCRIPTION/MESSAGE 1,/,o;i) k6IC-4‘ /-614,1e- / _dno(14)/VieZ- 3 / 5- ----- 610. -/l< 4 b6 8==-- . - lee-i ci 5 /4 t5-`J? t ��{--/ I-on / S D© . ,-- 9§--- FROM/BY 1 015 ATTACHMENT 2 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. 50 Scale 0-10 points x 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. 25 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. 10 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. 10 Scale 0-10 points . x Category Weight = weighted score Total of all weighted scores: divide by 10 (70 points required to receive funding) (FINAL SCORE) 016 FILE COPY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ' STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2000 ITEM: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 2000-005 (REVISION) REQUEST: REQUEST TO ALLOW A WOOD PATIO COVER ON FRONT OF. RESTAURANT LOCATION: 78039 CALLE ESTADO) APPLICANTS: EL RANCHITO RESTAURANT (DAVID AND ALMA CETINA) BACKGROUND: Request for Revision: The applicants are requesting a revision to the previously approved patio design for the front of the El Ranchito restaurant. The previous design was reviewed by the HPC at its meeting of September 21, 2000, and approved by the City Council on October 3, 2000. After the approval the applicant applied for a Commercial Property Improvement Program (CPIP) grant to help pay for the improvements. The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC), on October 4, and 18, 2000, reviewed the grant request to determine funding eligibility as required by the program (Attachment 1). Building Description: The entire building is being utilized as a restaurant, but in the past has been used for various commercial businesses. The one story building has painted brick walls, with a low pitched gable and shed roof covered with red clay tile. Across the east half of the front of the building is a canvas awning patio cover and short steel picket fence that was installed approximately two years ago. PROPOSED ADDITION: The applicant has revised his proposal to include two horizontal freestanding wood trellis patio covers separated by the entry door into the restaurant (Attachment 3). The short slumpblock/ scalloped iron railing wall enclosing the outdoor area remains. Previously,. the westerly trellis followed the slope of the shed roof behind it. The p:\stan\hpc rpt ca2000-005 rev #2 el ranchito.wpd • • revision includes constructing this trellis horizontally at the same height as the easterly trellis. Rather than 12" by .12 plastered columns, the proposed cover would be supported by 8" 'by 8" wood posts mounted in the slumpstone columns of the short wall enclosing the front patio. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7.08.030, the request can be approved if, and only if, it is determined: 1. That the, proposed work would not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape improvement. 2. If the owner of the designated historic site or landmark demonstrates that such property cannot be economically used and denial of a permit would deprive the owner of all or most of his economic interest in the property, the City Council may issue the permit with an effective date 180 days from the issuance of the permit to allow time for the investigation of alternatives to the work proposed in the permit application, such as acquisition of site improvement by the City or a public interest group. 3. In the case of construction of a new improvement upon a historic site, that the exterior of such improvement will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of existing historically designated improvements on said site. 4. That the applicant has presented clear and convincing evidence of facts demonstrating to the satisfaction of the City Council that such disapproval will impose immediate and substantial T hardship. on the • applicant because of conditions peculiar to the person seeking to carry out the work,'whether this be property owner, tenant, or resident, or because of conditions peculiar to the particular improvement, or other feature involved, and that approval of the application will be consistent with the purposes of the permit procedures. RESPONSE: With the revised trellis the findings needed to be made can be met. The use of two trellis' is compatible with the existing building and minimizes the impact on 'the facade while providing the protection the applicant desires. The use of two trellis''lightens the appearance of the trellis. The proposed addition as redesigned complies with the recommended Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The character -defining features of the historic building are not obscured•with the size and scale of the revised design. p:\stan\hpc rpt ca2000-005 rev #2 el ranchito.wpd RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000 recommending approval of the requested addition to the restaurant, 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 as closely as possible that used on the building. 3. The westerly trellis shall be horizontal, rather than sloped. 4. 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. Attachments: 1. Minutes of October 4, and 18, (to be available at the meeting) 2000, ALRC meetings 2. Minutes of July 27, 2000, Historic Preservation Commission Meeting 3. Proposed revised plan exhibits Prepared by: Submitted by: (-1 WI 4-/cj Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner. Christine di Iorio, Planning Manager p:\stan\hpc rpt ca2000-005 rev #2 el ranchito.wpd 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. anagement Analyst Britt Wilson asked how the Committee mbers wanted to determine the scoring. Committee Member Bor'bitt stated he would prefer an open discussion on each of the poi areas. 9. Comm tee Member Cunningham stated they need to look at what is view by the public eye. Staff stated the idea of. the grant is to see s• ething from the street scene. Discussion followed as to the crit is the funds could be used for and how the applicant would be h- d accountable to be sure they complete the work as it was subm '.ted. 10. Committee Me ber Bobbitt asked what the process will be once it passes this mmitt'ee. Staff stated it will depend upon the applications the will need to submit for the planning approval process. Committ Member Bobbit stated that if the landscaping is part of the applic nt, he would like it to come back to the ALRC. Staff stated it wo, Id be up to the Community Development Department to dete ine the process after the CPIP approval. Committee Member B °: bbitt stated that if the applicant wanted to do just landscaping hich normally would not need Planning approval, what will kee ' the applicant from putting something in that was not attractive. Staff stated that if it is significant new landscaping it will be bro ght back to the ALRC. 11. There being no further disc sion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbi Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-018 . recommending •proval of Commercial Property Improvement Program 2000-01 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC10-4-00.wpd 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. C,etina 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? 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\ALRC10-4-00.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\WPDOCS\ALRC10-4-00.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 - Vlll. 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 Landscapirig 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\WPDOCS\ALRC I 0-4-00.wpd w -4 •ATrACHMENT..2 MINUTES FILE COPY 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 Pres vation Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Wright at 3:04 p.m. wh• led the flag salute and asked'for the roll call. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegia B. Roll Call. Present: Co; missioners Irwin, Puente, Mitchell, and Chairman W ight. was moved and seconded by Commissioners I in/Mitchell to excuse Commissioner Sharp. Unanimously pproved. 0 Staff Prese Planning Manager Christine di' lorio and .Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMME.'T: None. III. CONFIRMATIO OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT C ENDAR: A. Planni g Manager Christine di Iorio informed the Commissioners RJT Hom:., applicant for.ltem "C", has asked to withdraw their application and ill resubmit at a later date. They will present Phase I and II at one tim: It was. moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Puente to fa• e Item #C. Unanimously approved. B. I was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/MitchelFto approve e Minutes of June 15, 2000 as submitted. Unanimously approved. BUSINESS, ITEMS A. Certification of Appropriateness 2000-005, 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:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -1- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio 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 improvements 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 be 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:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -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 building. 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 alsosuggested 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:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -3- • • Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 12. Planning Manager di Iorio. 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. 1 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 not 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 Iorio 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:CCAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd • 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 30'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 continuing 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\HPC7-27-00.wpd l 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 Iorio ifshe 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 Iorio stated it was post and beam construction. Chairman Wright asked if that was an alternative. Planning Manager di Iorio answered it was. 29. Mr. Weidenhamer asked if. the current design plan utilized post and beam construction. 30. Planning Manager di Iorio 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 27th, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 31. Chairman Wright reiterated his supportto 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 Iorio 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:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd .. -6- 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 item 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. Fi • - : -oari on Archaeological Monitoring for Tract 23995;:located on the north bank of the Whitewater River Storm Channel between Was gton Street and Adams Street. Applicant: Century -Crowell Comm ities (Sienna Del Rey) - Archaeological Consultant: Archaeo • • ical Advisory Group (James Brock). P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -7- 1 COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: ,ITEM TITLE: thli 44ai FILE COPY 4 November 21, 2000 Apprcval of a Revision to Certificate of Appropriateness 2000-005 to Allow a Wood Trellis Patio Cover on Front of a Restaurant at 78039 Calle Estado. Applicants: David and Alma Cetina (El Rancl- ito Restaurant) AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMENDATION: Approve a revision to Certificate of Appropriateness 2000-005, subject to findings and Conditions of Approval. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Previous Review The applicants are requesting a revision to the previously approved wood trellis patio cover design for the front of. the El Ranchito restaurant which is a designated historic structure. The previous design was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) at its meetings of July 27, and September 21, 2000, and approved by the City Council on October 3, 2000, as required by Chapter 7.02 (Historic Preservation) of the La QLinta Charter and Municipal Code (Attachment 1). After the approval, the applicant applied for a Commercial Property Improvement Program (CPIP) grant to help pay for the improvements. The application went before the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) on October 4, and was continued to October 18, 2000. At the second meeting, the ALRC determined the proposal did not warrant adequate points, thus denied the grant request for funding (Attachment 2). P:\STANI\coa 2000-005 rev cc rpt.wpd Building Description The entire building is being utilized as a restaurant, but in the past has been used for various commercial businesses. The one story building has painted brick walls, with a low pitched gable and shed roof covered with red clay tile. Across the east half of the front of the building is a canvas awning patio cover and short steel picket fence that was installed approximately two years ago. Proposed Revision The applicant has revised his proposal to include two horizontal freestanding wood trellis patio covers separated by the entry door into the restaurant (Attachment 3). The short slumpblock/scalloped iron railing wall enclosing the outdoor area remains. Previously, the westerly trellis followed the slope of the shed roof behind it. The revision includes constructing this trellis horizontally at the same height as the easterly. trellis. Rather than 12" by 12" plastered columns, the proposed cover will be supported by 8" by 8" wood posts mounted in the slumpstone columns of the short wall enclosing the front patio. Discussion Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7.08.030, the request can be approved if, and only if, it is determined: 1. That the proposed work would not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape improvement. 2. If the owner of the designated historic site or landmark demonstrates that such property cannot be economically used and denial of a permit would deprive the owner of all or most of his economic interest in the property, the City Council may issue the permit with an effective date 180 days from the issuance of the permit to allow time for the investigation of alternatives to the work proposed in the permit application, such as acquisition of site improvement by the City or a public interest group. 3. In the case of construction of a new improvement upon a historic site, that the exterior of such improvement will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of existing historically designated improvements on said site. 4. That the applicant has presented clear and convincing evidence of facts demonstrating to the satisfaction of the City Council that such disapproval will impose immediate and substantial hardship on the applicant because of conditions peculiar to the person seeking to carry out the work, whether this be property owner, tenant, or resident, or because of conditions peculiar to the 002 P:\STAN\coa 2000-005 rev cc rpt.wpd • • particular improvement, or other feature involved, and that approval of the application will be consistent with the purposes of the permit procedures. RESFONSE: With the revised trellis patio cover the required findings can be met. The use of two trellis' is compatible with the existing building and minimizes the impact on the facade while providing the protection the applicant desires. The use of two trellis' lightens the appearance of the structure. The proposed addition as redesigned complies with the recommended Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The character -defining features of the historic building are not obscured with the size and scale of the revised design. Historic Preservation Commission Review The Historic Preservation Commission considered this revision request at its meeting of November 9, 2000, and adopted Minute Motion 2000-028 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 westerly trellis patio cover shall be horizontal. The two patio covers shall be connected with a single horizontal beam extending across the north end, adjacent to Calle Estado. 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 Historic Preservation Commission meeting minutes for November 9, 2000, are attached (Attachment 4). FINDIIIGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The findings necessary to approve this request can be made as noted above. The a ternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Approve a revision to Certificate of Appropriateness 2000-005, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; or 2. Do not approve a revision to Certificate of Appropriateness 2000-005; or 3. Continue the request and provide staff with alternative direction. P:\STAM\coa 2000-005 rev cc rpt.wpd 003 Respectfully submitted, Herm unity Development Director Approved for submission by: • Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Historic Preservation Commission minutes for the meetings of July 27, and September 21, 2000, and City Council minutes for the meeting of October 3, 2000 2. Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee minutes for the meetings of October 4, and 18, 2000 3. Revised plan exhibits 4. Historic Preservation Commission minutes for the meeting of November 9, 2000 P:\STAN\coa 2000-005 rev cc rpt.wpd 004 • ATTACHMENTS • ATTACH M E NT 1 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 •... .4A. Certification of Appropriateness 2000-005. 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. 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 improvements 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 be 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. P:\CARoLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -2- - - 005 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July-27, 2000 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. 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 building. 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. P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -3- -- 006 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 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 opinionthe 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)'li 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. 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 bu Iding? 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 it he patio cover would not make the patio more useable year-round because of the intense heat in June, July and August. 16. Chairman Wright commented 11 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. • P:ICAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -4- - 007 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 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 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. P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -5- 00g Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 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 30'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 continuing 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 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 Iorio if she remembered the patio covenon the back of Tradition that was approved by the Commission and what type of construction. was used. Planning Manager di Iorio stated it was post and beam construction. Chairman Wright asked if that was an alternative. Planning Manager di Iorio answered it was. 29. Mr. Weidenhamer asked if the 'current design plan utilized post and beam construction. 30. Planning Manager di Iorio 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 27th, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. P:\CARCLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd -6- 009 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 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, 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. 010 n..... nn• •n,mmnwi 1"7 nn .....a { Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 27, 2000 39. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Irwin/Mitchell to continue this item 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. located on the orth bank of the Whitewater River Storm Channel between Washi •ton Street and Adams Street. Applicant: Century -Crowell Commu ties (Sienna Del Rey) - Archaeological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group (James Brock). 1. Planni g Manager Christine di lorio presented the staff report, a copy o which is on file, in the Community Development Department. Staff passed out additional information regarding submissio of materials for City curation: a. "Colle ted cultural/paleontological resources will be deliver-. to the City prior to issuance of first building permit for the • operty, properly packaged for long term curation, in polye ylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriat all within acid -free, standard. size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes. Materials will be accompanier by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics." Planning Manager di Itirio expressed concern as to the timing of the curation materials hich might have to be further along in the process than at the buil ing permit period because there may be more time needed to do the final report. She will pursue this further with the City's Bui ing & Safety Department. 2. Commissioner Mitchell had n objections. 3. Commissioner Irwin had no o 'ection with the monitoring, but questioned the new material that talked about properly packaging the final report for Tong -term cura on as she did not think staples should be used in the reports. P:\CAROLYN\HPC7-27-00.wpd - - 011 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 Certificate of 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 Cetina. 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. 0 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. One of the owners, Mr. David Cetina, 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 round as opposed to square. 8. Mr. Cetina 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. - 012 It• Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 21, 2000 it IE 10. Commissioner Sharp asked top of the structure. f vines would eventually covering the 11. 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 worki,lg 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 prcject. 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. - 013 City Council Minutes 3 October 3, 2000 3. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 29586, CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES. (See separate action on Page 4.) 4. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 29421, KSL LAND CORPORATION. (RESOLUTION NO. 2000-125) APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALLOW A PATIO COVER ON THE FRONT OF A RESTAURANT. LOCATED AT 78-039 CALLE ESTADO. APPLICANT: EL RANCHITO RESTAURANT, DAVID AND ALMA CETINA. 6. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH TRACT 28935, J.P.W. CONSTRUCTION. 7. APPROVAL OF A JOINT USE AND IRREVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR IRRIGATION LINES ON JEFFERSON STREET BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND CVWD. 8. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL 29724, KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC. (RESOLUTION NO. 2000-126) 9. SEE BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 8. 10. APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REVISE THE ENTRY AREA OF THE RESTAURANT TO THE WEST OF THE HOTEL LOBBY ENTRY AREA LOCATED AT 49-499 EISENHOWER DRIVE WITHIN .THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB. APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC. 11. AUTHORIZATION FOR OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE COMMUNITY SAFETY MANAGER AND , THREE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS TO ATTEND A TRAINING CLASS GIVEN BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, INC. IN BUELLTON, CALIFORNIA, OCTOBER 27-28, 2000. 12. AUTHORIZATION FOR OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR A CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSIONER TO ATTEND THE CALAA CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 26-27, 2000, TO BE HELD IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. - 014 ATTACHMENT 2 FILE COPY Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 4, 2000 6. Committee Member Reynolds, stated it i a good idea as it is in a conspicuous location in the City. 7. Committee Member Cunningham revi ed the proposed changes with Mr. Cathcart, the applicant. 8. Management Analyst Britt Wils• asked how the Committee Members wanted to determine t scoring. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would prefer . open discussion on each of the point areas. 9. Committee Member Cunnin •. am stated they need to look at what is viewed by the public ey-. Staff stated the idea of the grant is to see something from t street scene. Discussion followed as to the criteria the funds ould be used for and how the applicant would be held accoun =ble to;be sure they complete the work as it was submitted. 10. Committee Mem r Bobbitt asked what the process will be once it passes this • mmittee. Staff stated it will depend upon the applications t . y will need to submit for the planning approval process. Co ittee Member Bobbit stated that if the landscaping is part of the, applicant, he would like it to come back to the ALRC. Staff state it would be up', to the Community Development Departme to determine the process after the CPIP approval. Committ Member Bobbitt stated that if the applicant wanted to do just . andscaping which normally would not need Planning approv , what will keep the applicant from putting something in that . s not attractive. Staff stated that if it is significant new land . aping it will be brought,pack to the ALRC. 11. Th e being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by C ' mittee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2 00-018 recommending approval of Commercial Property S s • - �� - �. • • ram 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. - 015 .......�•••,n, ..., r. A A AA ..._J • 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 theapplicant's design. Mrs. Cetina stated their original submittal did notcontain 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\WPDOCS\ALRC 10-4-00.wpd 4 016 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 structureand 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 ithe 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 - 017 C:\Mv Documents \WPDOCS\ALRC 10-4-00.wod 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 Co.uncil. 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. NCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. A ► OURNMENT: There being • further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/ nolds to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Re -w 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, B TYvl 'SAWYER, executive Secretary • City of La Quinta, California - 018 C:\ My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC 10-4-00.wpd MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October .18, 2000 I. `i CALL TO ORDER A. 10:00 a.m. This meeting of the Architect al and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 11:08 a.m. by PI. ning Manager Christine di lorio who led the flag salute. Committee Members pre ent: Bill Bobbitt, Dennis Cunningham, and Frank Reynolds. Staff present: Planni g Manager Christine di lorio, Management Analyst Britt Wilson, and E ecutive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: N ne. III. CONFIRMATION OF HE AGENDA: ! A. • Committee ember Reynolds asked that the date of the Minutes for approval . - changed to October 4, 2000. It was moved and seconded by Com issioner Reynolds/Bobbitt to confirm the agenda as, corrected. IV. CONSENT C LENDAR: A. Pla ing Manager Christine di lorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 4, 2000. There being no corrections, it was m ved and seconded by Committee Members Reynolds/Cunningham to utes as submitted. V. ('BUSINESS ITEMS: `A. 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 and Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the informa-ion contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. C:\My, Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC I0-18-OO.wpd - 1 019 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 18, 2000 2. Committee Member Reynolds stated he had gone through all the material and criteria contained in the staff report and to him it did not appear the Historic Preservation Commission had followed the rules. The slope of the patio cover on the one building is incongruous to what is there. It they try to match the roof lines with the cover it will be a disaster. If built the way it is shown, the owner will have to put up a rain gutter as it is sloped right into the entrance. 3. Commissioner Bobbitt stated the patio cover is an open lattice. He agrees that the slope of the patio cover on the right side of the building and the post treatment are not appropriate, which were the two issues raised at the last meeting. From an architectural standpoint it would look better to have a flat roof. He asked staff where the idea came from to slope the patio cover. He understood the owner's original design was to have a flat roof. 4. Commissioner Cunningham stated that if this had come before the. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and the ALRC reviewed it architecturally and then moved to approve the funds, hopefully changes could have been made to the architecture. What happened was the HPC had voted on this design and the ALRC did not want to hold the applicant up nor disagree with another Commission, therefore the ALRC continued it to allow staff time to provide the ALRC with information. He apologized for the time it was taking, but the Committee wants to make the process work for this grant and future grants. The Committee is suggesting that it be given a rated, but go on record that they ° do not agree with the architecture. The goal being to work with applicant to move the project along, but put their comments on . record. Staff suggested the Committee could grade it and staff will relay the Committee's comments on to the HPC and they can accept the information and if they chose to they can change their recommendation. 5. Commissioner Bobbitt asked if any buildings that did not have to be reviewed by HPC would come directly to the ALRC. Staff stated that was correct. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he also did not want to hold this up or withhold the funds as they do deserve the funds, but would like to know how this idea to tilt the patio cover up came from, as it does detract from the existing building. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC10-18-00.wpd 020 • Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 18, 2000 6. Committee Member" Reynolds stated it is in conflict with the Secretary of Interior State Guidelines as stated. 7. Committee Member Cunningham asked if they could meet with the HPC to discuss this. 8.. Management Analyst Britt Wilson stated .the Council receives copies of the minutes and staff could relay any concerns of the Committee. 11 li 9. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if that is it and it is fully approved by the HPC and City Council, why is it before this Committee? Staff stated for approval of the funding request. Management Analyst Wilson stated it is difficult to separate the review of the architecture and approval of the funding, but that is the way the Ordinance is set up. Planning Manager di lorio stated the Mr. Cetina had been going through the approval process for the patio cover when the funding became available. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern that the applicant is stuck in between the HPC and ALRC. !k 10. Mr. Cetina asked, if he could take it back to the HPC. Management Analyst Wilson stated yes, he could resubmit his application. Committee Member Cunningham asked Mr. Cetina what he would like to do. Mr. Cetina statedhe wanted the structure to be flat with the tile work, but the HPC did not want the tile so they went to the lattice. Committee Member Cunningham stated the ALRC agrees that it should be flat to work with the posts, slump stone columns and trellis. If they would deny it, would it have to go back to the HPC, Council and then back to the ALRC? Staff stated yes. Committee Member Cunningham stated this change would be here for a long time and is a major part of its appearance and the ALRC feels strongly that the architecture is wrong. Staff stated the recommendation is for funding not architectural approval. If the application does not meet the point system the applicant can resubmit to the HPC, Council, and ALRC. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it seems the ALRC's opinion is not important in regard to the architecture. Staff explained that in this case it has not been submitted to the ALRC for architectural review. The building elevations and landscaping may come back to the ALRC for their review.,; Discussion followed regarding the process. 021. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRCI0-18-00.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 18, 2000 13. Committee Member Reynolds asked what would happen if the ALRC would took no action. Staff stated it would then have to go to the Council. 14. Committee Member Cunningham stated he thought if it was resubmitted to the HPC they would probably agree with the ALRC recommendation. The choice is up to the applicant based on the ALRC's grading value. 15. Management Analyst Wilson reviewed the Committee's grading on the project for grading for the funding criteria worksheet which received a final score of 7 which does not qualify for the funding. The applicant now has the option to redesign and resubmit the project. 16. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there is a problem with the system and it is not fair to the applicant to put them through this. 17. Committee Member Cunningham stated this is a new program and apologized to the applicant for making him go through this, but he could not vote for the design as submitted. In the end the building will be there for a long time and if he resubmits he should get what he wants. B. Si of pr Airport 64; a request of Tiburon Homes for review ction home landscaping plans for the Norman Course, north of levard, east of Madison Street. 1. Planni ' Manager Christine di lorio presented the information containe• in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Communit 1 evelopment Department. 2. Committee Me •er Bobbitt stated he has no objections. The plant palette is standa for what is used in the desert. He had asked. staff if CVWD had quested any direction toward drought tolerant plants. Staff stated .. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what type of control syste will be used on the irrigation. Mr. Peter Jacobs, Marvin Homes, stated they are stand alone clocks and homeowners maintain t clocks. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the units were cone •s or single family. Staff stated single family. Mr. Jacobs stated the homeowner owns the front yard but it is maintained by HOA. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC10-18-00.wpd 4 022 ATTACHMENT 3 • ATTACHMENT 4 Excerpt from Historic November 9, 2000 c. • Preservation Commission Minutes Certificate of Appropriateness 2000-005 (Revision): request to allow a wood patio cover on front of restaurant; located at 78-039-Calle Estado. Applicants: David and Alma Cetina (El Ranchito Restaurant). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community DevelopmentDepartment. - 1' •c • 2. Commissioner Irwin had a question on Condition #2, whichsaid "the following material shall match as closely as possibleto that w., used on the building". She alsoreferre.d to the Architecture and Landscaping Review Commiteetminutes'that said #2 on page 7 "Committee member Cunninghammstated'ahe approved of the proposed work exc ptft or plaster ng of, .t a columns. He questioned why the Historic'; PreservationCommission changed the applicant's design. M Cr etina.stated the original submittal did not contain the plastering of tlercolumnsbu"t the HPC requested that he redesign it as it is currently submitted." She did not recall the Historic Presewation 'Commission asking that the columns be plastered i' I -I 1 f' David Cetina stated first) plaster ,' EZ \,44; 1Planning Manager di lorio 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. lt h'+ 4. Cp`mrnissioner Irwin said the reason she objected to the first design was 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. was wood, then it was changed to 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. Alma Cetina told the Commission they wanted something nice at the entrance like they have at a lot of restaurants with awnings; 024 • possibly in a round shape which makes the building appear larger at the entrance 7. Commissioner Sharp said his impression was, architecturally, it would make more sense to add an 8" x 8" board across the opening. 8. Alma Cetina replied she thought it would look�betterif the top was all one piece instead of leaving an,; openingrm•thetmiddle. 9. Council member Don Adolph• asked if sh'was,referrrring to the 4,4 curved awning, at T-bo's, thattthe•Council approved.a1year torso ago. .10. Alma Cetina replied affirmatively:: Commissioner Sharp asked if that was'a canvas awning 12. Council member DonAdoIphansweredFyes r .. a 13. Alma Cetina commentedthey:verspent a lot of money on the canvas patio cover and;1they didn_,t:get the results they wanted, �'-/ ill l but that was.the only option they had available to get a canopy up quickly tocover their °�outside'#patio. She said people wanted a patio andthis wasiy�the what was available at that time. She stated she preferred,The straight across style the Commission was A `it A ' t x.Y ys" suggestinghand it was..closer to the original style patio cover they had intended:, ommissioner Sharp asked what the gates were for. 15. `David:Cetna replied they lock them at night. 16. AlMa Cetina added sometimes they moved items in and out through that opening. 17 ! Commissioner Sharp asked if the block low wall was going to be painted. 18. David Cetina answered they would be painted the same color as the building. 19. Commissioner Sharp asked the height of the decorative fence. 20. David Cetina said the block portion would be 18 inches and with 025 the wrought iron it would be approximately three feet. 21. Commissioner Sharp asked i the wood would be painted. 22. David Cetina answered it would be stained dark brown. 23. Commissioner Mitchell asked if the suggested bea -n' would go across the lattice top, just to tie it in andmakeit `flow a little bit better. ` �' 24. Commissioner Sharp replied yes,,it would ,lookrjust like the design submitted except it wouldn't F ave a soli-' roof \ _.'i_ , 25. Council member Don AdolpF asketl Principal Planner:4Stan Sawa how much room would there; bba ih1front,of the restaurant with the art �. new street design._.�X~ 26. Planning Manager di Iorio^ swered eight feet'.for the sidewalk. 27. Council member D n A I ;stated four to eight feet's a little p narrow. , if . q 28. Planning Manager di Iorio replied,that was what was designed for Calle Estado ' J. , ' I " . ,, \29. CounciLrnember Don",Adolph replied not for commercial and this w. uld be commerrcialt-People walking up and down, especially whenyowhave street fairs. r - ''Planning Manager di Iorio said the applicant had talked with the `Citys8onultants who were working on the improvements for Calle"`Estado. 31. D avi Cetina said theywere;allowed togo upto the property line p p Y leaving an eight or nine foot sidewalk. f r. �` '; 32. ,Council member Don Adolphjthen commented that would cause no problem, but was concerned about the safety of narrower sidewalks 33. Planning Manager di Iorio asked the Commission if they wanted to make a recommendation to delete condition #2. it II 34. Discussion followed regarding how to word the condition. 026 • • a 35. 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 were the options available to the Commission. 36 Commissioner Mitchell felt Mr. & Mrs. Cetina had made an excellent effort to follow the requests of the Commission and thought the Commission should finalize the projectaat this meeting. �.,• A', 37.. Commissioner Irwin was concerned about -'setting a precedent. where a historic building was concernedShe said there weren't many historic commercial buildings ands feltthe Commission needed to be very careful abouttheirtdeCision. ,-,, _,..?-- 38. Planning Manager di lorio sugg"est;"ed.�the Commission consider the recommendation of a single beam oingracross the top to lessen the focus on the central doors as\tiey .are, not original to the buildings. 39. Commissioner Irw.into d themlat one time the building had three businesses in it,two ofwhichftwere a Cantina and a furniture store. 40. There followed generaI discussion among the Commissioners and the applicant as to'rthe best approach to finishing off the top portion ofithe .patiozcovers to provide continuity while preserving thehistoric integrity..,of the building. Councils member Don Adolph had some concerns about the ',visibility ofthe building signage. 42. Commissioner Irwin asked Commissioner Sharp to do a drawing of what- he/was suggesting (Attachment 1). This was followed by general discussion of what should be included in the drawing. 43. The drawing was passed around to the Commissioners and the applicant and all agreed it was compatible with the building and was acceptable to all. 44. 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. 027 • z3 zzl 028 I ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2000 CASE NO.: N.A. APPLICANT: DAVID CETINA EL RANCHITO MEXICAN RESTAURANT REQUEST: FUNDING REQUEST, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF CALLE ESTADO (78-039 CALLE ESTADO) BACKGROUND: This item was considered by the ALRC on October 4, 2000 and October 18, 2000. At the October 18 meeting, the ALRC scored the application by Mr. Cetina, however, it did not garner sufficient points to achieve a passing score (i.e. 70%). In accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Property Improvement Program (CPIP), the applicant was advised that he could redesign and resubmit his improvement plans to the ALRC. Subsequently, Mr. Cetina did. redesign his project and resubmitted it to the City for consideration. Specifically, Mr. Cetina revised his original proposal to include two horizontal freestanding wood trellis patio covers separated by the entry doorinto the restaurant. Additionally, the westerly trellis, which previously mirrored the slope of the existing roof, was redesigned to be flat to match the easterly trellis. Finally, in place of the original design of plastered columns, the applicant is proposing wood posts mounted in slumpstone columns of the short wall enclosing the front patio. In recognition of the historical significance of the building and City codes, the redesign • needed to be reviewed again by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). On November 9, 2000, the HPC approved the redesign with 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 westerly trellis patio cover shall be horizontal. The two patio covers shall be connected with a single horizontal beam extending across the north end, adjacent to Calle Estado. . City Manager's Office Attachments: 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 HPC's recommendation (for a revision to the previous design and Certificate of Appropriateness) was considered and approved by the. City Council at its November 21, 2000 meeting. The matter is now before the ALRC for additional consideration and scoring under the CPIP: A drawing of the revised plan is attached (Attachment 1). Additionally, the original application is attached (Attachment 2). The standard funding criteria worksheet is also attached (Attachment 3). The applicant has been made aware of this meeting and has indicated that he will be present at the December 6, 2000 ALRC meeting. Prepared by: n Submitted by: Britt W. Wils.on, Managemee Analyst Christine di lorio, Planing Manager Community. Development Department 1. Revised design drawing 2: Original CPIP application 3. Funding Criteria worksheet G:\MyData\WPDocs\CPIP\CETINA-ELRANCHITO\ALRCSTAFFREPORTCETINA 1 2-05-00.wpd 002 ATTACH M E.N TS • ATTACHMENT 1 f% Qtrh ri)1"?•)17"cl FM h lbl.f 1,11 - qt x • Ph -Fc7 • 4-sod co WO 4)2/21S VktI.CY1 r.ntpti $47 YPIts/7 EX1—\ oictl Crdvs. ,,a1 v.6.401-92 --\ tin.)n 0144 IlvJaVIC119C— niLT__LT_L\ Tr! _ fif f '•)ttl,0J70 �TTACMMENT 2 La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Commercial Property Improvement Program Application Applicant Information Applicant Name: b i,y� LCf t ri!! Applicant Phone: S !o h (4'7 Applicant EavMafi: Name of Business: E/ Lc nl lu / Mailing Address: •75i- L) 3 4 & I e ES/eo 0 , ; ' 2 Z s? Business Phone: Ste (%- [JUfx j Business Fax: sG `l i/ .2 9 Property Owner. Yes: ✓ No: Business Owner. Yes: No: Project Information Business Location: 71)ti34 (4 //t Id() Type of Business: He icu•4` N ' / y .' t ann Project Goats: 'To ;' j g. - l-ecatk1c_o_Cc' c f.� S'ii flS Proposed Improvements: PC A-1 n , /14' LL, G v nr f�e . car.✓ S; j„, Total Project Cost (please attach cost estimate): 31 z3s u`� Requested Agency Assistance: 50000'' Applicant Budget Amount isfJ 00 Description of Applicant Funding Sources: ../g owtS S •I-u ra 5 Proposed Project Duration: 6 Q d� Attachments • Two (2) color photographs of the property Where improvements will be installed • Project sketches or plans (based upon funding level) • Cost estimates Certification Statements If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property, the following certification must be completed by the property owner. • 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) given fiscal year. Signature: Date: The following statement must be completed by the applicant arid property owner. Uwe acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that all above information is true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. I/we understand that a Building Improvement Rebate Agreement must be signed and authorized by the La Ouinta Redevelopment Agency Off to commencing any work on the jest. • • Signature: 1 1 Date: 9-/i-vim Signature: Date: 006 Sop-22-OO O0:03A P.01 Southwest Design, Inc. 44489 Town Center Suite D.445' 0�%EP 25 1111 2 26 Palm D9.ort, CA 92260 (760) 674-9772 CITY OF LA QUINTA Fax (760)674-97etTY ;.TANAGER'S OFFICE CALlc0767198 PROPOSAL To: = Ranchlto Restaurant 0. David Celina Quints, CA Remov concrete patio Install stamped concrete Supply nd install wood patio cover Foam a d Stucco Columns per &awing TOTAL $ 32.a50.00 007 .U4,4 ji IS jp3CIPILLXV/WO L./UV TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 73-091 Country Club Drive, Suite A4-2 Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 360-8453 (760) 772-0010 rA x NAME i ADDRESS . .._..... . . . El Ranchito Restaurant 7141 ;34, Calk Estado La Quinta, CA 9 .2i3 --nz • 1)DiLW 44_ /4-r •Fotritwetstes `5/t•--Ve0 (-7,4,44Axel.449 1_.--(A442A4/ DESCRIPTION Zee;24.440 eza4)14- (----fly./%0Mtfterf 071 (11 , • ES tl te DATE ESTIMATE* 9/8/2000 428 COC,CV 464. • Lc 7tc 96t • •-r-iftreGrr. (lc # • 6 P-A /0/241 C./A144-s gr.,' Nif c 41- e .D" -7 9 k/ct Remove and replace patio with stamped concrete with wood patio cover, painted finish including foam and stucco columns. Excludes: Plans/Permits /Ft ti• 00 OTY y, PROJECT II Ranchito RATE TOTAL 32,000.00 32,000.00 TOTAL (n 0 co 0 0 0 • • • $32.000.00 : 0 umbil% P.O. Box 10758 Palm Desert, CA 92255-0758 el Ranchito Restaurant CIO David Cetina La Quinta, Ca 1:1-6 (0370 DATE PROPOSAL # 09/07/2000 1020 C ll o C>t 1- I c ECG /g1u1 /477/0/ o &O,vr• c T 3 233 r 8 `s1�� /W/4 sl-rVie, /(0 30 $`/ , — 9 JOB ADDRESS 14-4 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 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 Foam and Stucco columns per drawing Total 12,400.00 12,000.00 3,840.00 $28,240.00 009 Contractors License Number #537333 Phone (760) 340-2726 • Fax (760) 568-2776 al T 010. a 11111:111111 1 1111111I111111111111411111I11111is11111i 11111111�1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1�1 1�P4,1 1111111-1111111-111111111M11-11111111 111111I`/Ia111I11111111111111_1N41I_I_t111111_1 -1-I-I-I-I-at *I-1-1-1-1 01111111-1-1-iKSA-1111111-I111111111111 OI-1-1111111-tM1-1-11111111111111111111 SI-1-11111111WANi111111®111111111111111111111 111111Ie1111111S1M01-1-1-111•11111111 �1151�1�:��1-I-I-t�101�l 1111111111111-111N A11®111111111111111111111-111101 11111111M111111111WZ1-1-1-11111M111111111111111111111 51111111-1N1111-1111111111111-111MIIM1i1111111 i 1 1 1 (� �Ir1�loLL■�I 1 1 '1, 1 1 1 6 x 10 PO. HEADER -I-I-1i1i1MId 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/11111111 11111111-1-1-1-11111111/1111111 111111-I-1-1-I-1`tM 11111I-1-I-IOI_I_I_I 111111-1-1-1-1-1-11.11 e11111111-1-1-1-1-1111111 1111111111111-I-1-tvl®1r-T! 11111®1-I-1-1-1-1-1 -11111111-I-I-I-I-I-I -Ivt-1-1-1-I-I-1 11111111111-11•1111•11®1-1-I. -I_I-I-I-I-1 -I_I I�1-1�1�1-I-IrI� PATIO / TRELLIS FRAMING PLANS V4* • ATTACHMENT 3 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. to 50 Scale 0-10 points x 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. 10 25 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. I0 10 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. 5 10 Scale 0-5 points x Category Weight = weighted score Total of all weighted scores: divide by 10 = (FINAL SCORE) (70 points required to receive funding) 014 P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 October 25, 2000 Mr. David Cetina El Ranchito Mexican Restaurant 78-039 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Cetina, (760) 77777000 FAX (760) 777-7101 As you know, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) reconsidered your Commercial Property Improvement Program (CPIP) application at its special meeting on October 18, 2000. Your proposal did not garner sufficient points to allow the ALRC to give it a passing score. Under the provisions of the CPIP, you can resubmit your application, with a new design, to be reconsidered for funding. If you choose to re -design, you may choose to submit -it to the ALRC prior to obtaining any other City approvals (e.g. Historic Preservation Commission) or you may obtain other City approvals prior to resubmitting your design/application to the ALRC. Thank you for your interest in the CPIP. If you have questions concerning the CPIP, please call me at 777-7035; if you have questions concerning other City approvals, please contact the Planning Manager, Christine di lorio, at 777-7125. Britt W. Wilson Management Analyst City Manager's Office c. Mark Weiss, Assistant City Manager (Christinedi_-lorio, Planning-Manager- cal Vi419=124 aW6 b Tag/ P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 78-495 CALLS TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 October 27,. 2006 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 42700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 317 • Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 SUBJECT: ALCOHOL LICENSE REQUEST. (760) 777-7000 FAX (760) 777-7101 Dear Sirs: . The City Council adopted Resolution 96-66 on August 6, 1996, whereby authorizing the City Manager, or his designee to determine if a public convenience and necessity is warranted pursuant to Business and Professional Code Section 23958 and 23958.4. Therefore, please be advised that it is my determination that a public convenience and necessity will be served by the issuance of a liquor license for beer, wine and distilled spirits to El Ranchito Restaurant, for their facility located at 78-039 Calle Estado, within the City of .La Quinta. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Community Development Director, 760-777-7125. Sincerely, ‘1)-20L-o THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Manager TPG:bjs c: O3T • PREMISES: LICENSE TYPE TRANSACTION partment Of Alcoholic Beverage Control APPLICATION CHECKLIST . 'PRIORITY APPLICATION. CHECKLIST_ Instructions to Applicant: 'Please .submit all checked items at the time you file.your.application. When completing forms, print in ink or For an appointment to file your license application, please call: 7 6 0 -9 6 8 - 09 9,0 PART 1- Applicant and"Fee Information:Rilli_r _A APPLICANT ENTITY: � _ ,a�� . /1119 -117 47 Extsti ng FILE NUMBER: fir jg.ina or intercnunty PART 2 -;Items Neededarerthecked Beiow: ; ORIGINAL OR TRANSFER FEES ANNI)AL FEE S.7 = TEMPORARY PERMIT FEE S OTHER FEESS iar/ _"ATE FINGERPRINTS I' .00EACH -FEDERAL FINGERPRINTS . 6 $24.00 EST; Payment of Fees.- Personat/business/cashier's check or money order no cash please. = Blank checkia. 1e [ABC-211:SIG, Application Signature Sheet {"Sign On') - Signature pagefor applicants who araunable to appear at the. ABC district office to sign the application Form ABC-211. Signatures must be notarized. [ABC-21.1-A, License Transfer Request ('Sign Off") - Signatures must be notarized or witnessed by an ABC employee. Includes separate instruction page. C-217, Application Questionnaire - Signatures must be notarized or witnessed by an ABC employee.See form instructions. QABC-227, Notice of. Intended Transfer (Section 24073 or 24074) - Required for transfers. Obtain the blank form.from ABC or your escrow company. Must be recorded and certified. See form instructions: DABC-227-A, Notice of Intended Transfer (Section 24071.1 or 24071.2).- Required on transfers of 50% or more involving. corporations, limited partnerships, and limited liability companies. Must be recorded and certified. See form instructions State -issued identification, driver's�ticense or passport.for person(s) appearing at ABC to sign application. EABC-69, Statement of Citizenship, Alien and Immigration Status and supporting document (e.g., certified copy of birth certificate or passport; see List A and B) - Required if you are applying as sole owner (includes U.S. citizens, U.S. Nationals and Aliens). ABC-208-A/B, individual Personal Affidavit/Individual Financial Affidavit -'Must be completed by (a) sole owners; (b) each'general partner, (c) persoris holding 10% or more of the capital or stock of a corporation, limited liability • company, or limited partnership; and (d)"spouses. Signatures' must be notarized or witnessed by an ABC employee. A$C-253, Supplemental'Diagram - Drawing of the real property you own or otherwise control. An exterior view of the premises and surrounding area, including cross streets. , • 257 (or ABC-257 NR for non retail), Lfcensed'Premises Diagram/Planned Operation -'Drawing of your,floor plan, including `l. overall dimensionsand patios to be licensed, and description Hof proposed operation. t1fof'3;. I Is .R *AiwaVira Enna OCI 2 di ATTACHMENT 3\ • w II COMMJ�° .