Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2006

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

Present: Art Jury Members Ken Markstein, Mark McClure, and Jack Queen

Also Present: Building Commissioner Robert Green, Senior Planner Kirk Dakan, Associate Planner Arnold Keene, Consulting Architect Jim Kelley-Markham and Administrative Assistant Nadine Garcia

Absent: Art Jury Members Diane Larsen and Gail Frazar-Mele

Election of Officers: The election of officers was postponed to the meeting of January 24, 2006 due to Gail Frazar-Mele’s and Diane Larsen’s absence.

Approval of Minutes: The Minutes of the December 8, 2005 meeting were approved as written.

Consent Calendar: A motion was made, seconded and passed to approve the consent calendar.

Staff Reports: Building Commissioner Robert Green showed the Art Jury an example board of some of the items required for a Workshop Application. The Art Jury asked that we put this board in the waiting area during the Art Jury meetings for applicants and architects to look at. Mark McClure suggested that we also put together an example board with pictures and descriptions of design concepts.

Ken Markstein stated that he would like applicants to reference where a particular photo came from in a submitted design theme booklet: a book, another person’s house, etc.

CONSTRUCTION SITE SIGNS: Board Meeting of January 19, 2006

Oster Subject: Property ID 33.14.6
Temporary Construction sign
Simunec Construction Inc

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of your Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board of Directors at the January 19, 2006 meeting.

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

Glancy Subject: Property ID 34.9.6
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (8,810 sq. ft),
Attached Covered Areas (1,770 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing,
Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Pool/Spa

Mr. and Mrs. Glancy, Jim Laret, Gary Stone and Mark House attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. The Art Jury requested that the applicant redesign the second floor element. The following options were discussed:
• Move the second floor over the kitchen (or a more central location on the house).
• Redesign the second story element in its current location and provide more stepping between the ground floor and the second floor building elements.
• Wrap the ground floor element with a loggia (the proposed pad should not be expanded to accommodate this element).

There may be other options for redesigning this element.

You may wish to return to the Art Jury for a Workshop Application review of this portion of the building. Additionally, some story poles may be erected to depict this part of the building as part of the Workshop review. The Art Jury noted that the Preliminary stage of the review includes examination of story poles and additional comments may be forthcoming as a result of this review.

  2. The Art Jury encourages further development of the revised landscape design concept.

Shiebler Subject: Property ID 2129.39
Workshop Application: Addition (283 sq. ft.),
Detached Garage (449 sq. ft.), Basement Storage (164 sq. ft.), Detached Gym (236 sq. ft.), Entry Gate/ Pilasters

Max Wuthrich attended the meeting.

The Art Jury evaluated the revised proposal and made the following comments:

1. An expansion of the existing garage would be acceptable to the Art Jury depending on the design.
2. A small storage building set down at a lower level off the gravel parking area could be acceptable depending on the design.
3. A gate would not be acceptable to the Art Jury for the reasons previously stated in their letter dated December 9, 2005.
4. Small pilasters without a gate may be acceptable depending on the design.
5. Conditions prohibiting the installation of a gate would probably be applied if pilasters are proposed.

S&G (El Vuelo) Subject: Property ID 16.1.6
Workshop Application: Residence/ Garage (12,145 sq. ft.),
Attached Covered Areas (862 sq. ft.), Detached Guest House
(815 sq. ft.), Grading

Chris Cowen-Richards attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. The proposed building is wide and prominent. Please reduce the bulk and width of the building.
2. Move the building away from the southwest property line. Provide significantly more room for landscaping.
3. The mature eucalyptus tree in the northeast corner of the site shall be retained (show on plans).
4. Provide written proof of access to El Mirador. Show proposed drive improvements from the lot to the street.
5. The location of the proposed secondary gravel drive reduces the amount of land available for screen landscaping especially between the south-west end of the building and the property line. Additionally the driveway is perfectly straight. The Art Jury does not find this design to be aesthetically pleasing because it lacks visual interest and requires excessive grading. Please either revise or eliminate this        element.
6. Berms with an unnatural appearance are proposed along the street. Screen landscaping should be used in lieu of berms.
7. The circular turnaround results in too little landscape screening along the south property line. Please redesign this element (use a hammerhead/ relocate). Please return for a further new Workshop Application.
8. A submittal must be made if the project is to include a tennis court since it was not a part of the original application.

Wieck Subject: Property ID 36.4.2
Workshop Application: Guest House (756 sq. ft.)

Mr. and Mrs. Wieck and James Chinn attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please proceed to a Preliminary application in accordance with the New submittal deadline.
2. Please erect story poles for the guest house. The Art Jury will reserve final judgment on the placement of the proposed guest house after the Art Jury has reviewed the story poles for the structure.
3. Prior to submitting for the Preliminary application, please revise the architecture per the following comments.
   1. The design of the guest house must strike a balance between looking consistent with the existing house while incorporating design features that are consistent with current Art Jury standards of review.
   2. Please illustrate wood frame, casement windows on the elevations. The current elevations call out casement windows but they are not drawn as casements.
   3. Use lintels on the windows to add architectural interest.
   4. Create a chimney form and chimney cap with more architectural character.
   5. The change of post style from the previous application to the current design did not sufficiently address the Art Jury’s hesitation regarding the front porch design.
      1. Please review the look of the roof overhang and support(s) area and create a different appearance.
      2. Please resolve how all of the design components of the porch work together. For example, the post does not appear to be holding up a beam but instead has one rafter resting on it. 
      3. Use a different approach for holding up the roof over the entry. The entry area has a restricted appearance, perhaps the roof over the entry could be extended the length of the living room; this would add architectural interest.
   6. Please revise the front door. The single-light French door is not consistent with the other components in the design.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Bancroft Subject: Property ID 27.4.8
Final Application: Addition (882 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,666 sq. ft.), Basement (2,258 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining walls, Fencing, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Lighting, Landscape, Pool/Spa

The Art Jury APPROVED the Final Application subject to the following conditions;

1. Wrought iron railings shall be as shown on the plans.
2. The stone selection and installation is not approved at this time. During construction please install a rock sample of approximately 100 square feet and inform staff. The Art Jury will review the rock installation in the field and render its determination at that time. The Art Jury will have the ability to require changes to the material and/or installation if the sample is not acceptable.
3. Landscaping is required to screen the project from off-site. If for any reason the final, approved landscape installation does not meet this objective, the Association may require additional plantings, pursuant to Regulatory Code Section 42.0302. Any existing vegetation not shown and approved on the plans as “to be removed” shall be considered “Critical View” landscaping as defined in that regulation. Any trees or landscaping damaged or destroyed during construction or transplanting shall be replaced in-kind with new materials prior to Final Inspection of the landscaping.

Block Subject: Property ID 17.1.9
Preliminary Application: Guest House (970 sq. ft), Renovation of Main Residence, Grading, Retaining walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Repaint, Colors & Materials, Pool/Spa

The Art Jury APPROVED the Preliminary Application subject to the following condition:

Landscaping is required to screen the project from off-site. If for any reason the final, approved landscape installation does not meet this objective, the Association may require additional plantings, pursuant to Regulatory Code Section 42.0302. Any existing vegetation not shown and approved on the plans as “to be removed” shall be considered “Critical View” landscaping as defined in that regulation. Any trees or landscaping damaged or destroyed during construction or transplanting shall be replaced in-kind with new materials prior to Final Inspection of the landscaping.

Francisco Subject: Property ID G.3 & 4
Final Application: Awnings

The Art Jury DENIED the Final Application with the following comments:

The Art Jury cannot recommend approval of the project to the Association Board of Directors.

The subject property is in a commercial land use class. The project therefore requires an approval by the Association’s Board of Directors after it receives a recommendation from the Art Jury, as provided in Article IV, Section 6(b) of the Rancho Santa Fe Association’s Bylaws. If it is requested that the project be sent to the Board for their decision, despite the Art Jury’s recommendation to not approve the project, approval of the project by the Board of Directors would require “an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the Board of Directors.”  Association Bylaws Article IV, Section 6(b).

If the applicant wishes to proceed with the project the Association should be informed so the Art Jury can render a recommendation of disapproval so the project can be presented directly to the Board. If an Art Jury recommendation of disapproval is requested, the Association will deliver a formal notice of such Art Jury recommendation so that you project can be submitted directly to the Board for consideration.

Consistency with the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant

The Art Jury considers that the project as currently proposed is not consistent with the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant. The Preamble of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant states that “…Rancho Santa Fe is unusually attractive and valuable as a high class place of residence because of the rare quality of its landscape, trees and shrubs…”  The Covenant further goes on to state that “…property owners are most desirous of preserving, continuing and maintaining this character of community and rare landscape features and of upholding the quality of all future architecture and improvements; and of restricting the use, height and bulk of buildings;…”  The project would not maintain the character of the community because the proposed awnings would hide from view important architectural detailing that is important to the design of the structure thereby detracting from the character of the village commercial area.

Paragraph 46 of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant requires projects “to insure a uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness.” The Art Jury considers that a “reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness” would be derived from allowing the architectural detailing to remain visible and not be covered by awnings.

Paragraph 154 of the Protective Covenant provides, “A design must be reasonably good in order to be approved by the Art Jury. A poorly designed example of architecture, regardless of proposed costs, shall be disapproved”. The Art Jury believes the proposal is not reasonably good design for this particular building because of the negative effect it would have on the existing appearance of the building.

The application proposes the installation of two awnings over two doorways on an existing commercial structure. One doorway is on the corner of El Tordo and Paseo Delicias the other faces onto El Tordo. Both doorways have a decorative stucco texture around the doorways and decorative fanlights over the doors. The proposed awnings would completely hide the fan lights and detract from the stucco surround, thereby weakening the architectural integrity of the building.

North County Custom Homes Subject: Property ID 12.4.3
Preliminary Application: Residence/Garage (7,912 sq. ft.),
Attached Covered Areas (510 sq. ft.), Barn (532 sq. ft.), Grading,
Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Colors & Materials, Pool/Spa

The Art Jury DEFERRED the Preliminary Application with the following comments:

 Please correct the grading (and the cross-section on page 9, which shows the grading stop at the north property line with no transition to existing grade) to show the full extent of grading. If grading is proposed on the County right-of-way, the County must also sign the application.

1. Please do one of the following with the pool:
1. Move the pool out of the 75-foot setback for accessory structures, or
2. Apply for a variance from the setback for accessory structures to allow the pool to remain in its currently proposed location. Please provide the necessary findings for a variance.
2. Please submit your next application according to the New Submittal deadline and check the “Animal       Keeping” section on the application so that the “Animal Keeping” notices are sent out and so the Association’s horse keeping consultant can review the plans.
3. Please incorporate additional groupings of screening trees at the west side of the site to provide screening from the road.

S & G Construction Subject: Property ID 10.4.13
Workshop Application: Residence/ Garage (10,437 sq. ft.)
Basement (1,163 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,230 sq. ft.),
Detached Guest House (775 sq. ft.), Grading

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please reduce the height of the roof over the outdoor living room. The tall height of the roof negates the effect of the stepping of the floor levels with the slope of the terrain because the outdoor living room’s roof is higher than the roofs found on rooms with a higher finish floor elevation. This is particularly evident in Section “A” on Sheet A 4.1. The profile of the roofs should reflect the fall of the natural terrain.  
1. On the outdoor living room add mass to the area between the top of the arches and the gable. Currently that area is too small to have the proper proportions. 
2. Please reduce the height of the roof over the interior living room for the same reasons expressed in Comment #1 above. The roof over the living room is higher than the roofs over the north side of the house despite the fact that the living room has a lower finish floor than the north side of the house. This is evident in Section “C”. The profile of the roofs should reflect the fall of the natural terrain.  
3. Use stone on the entry tower as well as the facades with the arches. The design of the project is clearly of Tuscan inspiration with a large amount of stone, yet the tower and arches (which will be a dominant feature) are of stucco. Using stucco on the arches creates a discontinuous appearance and weakens the Tuscan concept.
1. Please refer to the arches in your submitted concept images booklet for guidance on the design of the arches.
2. Please use a stone variety that is consistent with the Tuscan appearance.
4. The Art Jury will reserve judgment on the guest house until additional architectural elevations are submitted and the rest of the project is further refined.
5. The Art Jury appreciates the perspective sketches; however, please also include elevations as well.
6. Please ensure that the floor plans are consistent with exterior elevations / sketches.
1. The floor plan shows the living room with a bowed window, the sketch does not. Please clarify.
7. In those limited areas where they are proposed, shutters add architectural character. Please increase the use of shutters.
8. Please eliminate all of the large-paned window panes wherever they occur in the design. To be consistent with the proposed Tuscan appearance, the windows should not have large panes of glass that do not have muntin bars.
9. Please submit for another workshop.

Thomas Subject: Property ID 39.1.6
Final Application: Fencing

The project was continued to January 24, 2006 meeting.

CONSENT 1 AGENDA ITEMS:

Beard Subject: Property ID 16.2.3
Preliminary Application: Guest House (1,007 sq. ft)

The Art Jury APPROVED the Preliminary Application subject to the following conditions:

1. Any of the proposed colors are acceptable.
2. With your final application, please submit a Rancho Santa Fe Fire Department approved landscape plan.
3. Please use a Santa Barbara stucco finish. Please eliminate the term “cat-eye” from the plans in reference to the stucco texture.
4. Landscaping is required to screen the project from off-site. If for any reason the final, approved landscape installation does not meet this objective, the Association may require additional plantings, pursuant to Regulatory Code Section 42.0302. Any existing vegetation not shown and approved on the plans as “to be removed” shall be considered “Critical View” landscaping as defined in that regulation. Any trees or landscaping damaged or destroyed during construction or transplanting shall be replaced in-kind with new materials prior to Final Inspection of the landscaping.

Carlson Subject: Property ID 29.5.4
Final Application: Addition (565 sq. f t.), Attached Covered Areas (144 sq. ft.),
Storage Shed (218 sq. ft.), Door & Window Changes, Stone Veneer on existing
Pilasters, Repaint & Re-roof, Colors & Materials

The Art Jury APPROVED the Final Application subject to the following conditions:

1. The stucco color/texture is not approved at this time. During construction please install a stucco sample of approximately 100 square feet and inform staff. The Art Jury will review the stucco installation in the field and render its determination at that time. The Art Jury will have the ability to require changes to the color/texture if the sample is not acceptable.
2. The stone selection and installation is not approved at this time. During construction please install a rock sample of approximately 100 square feet and inform staff. The Art Jury will review the rock installation in the field and render its determination at that time. The Art Jury will have the ability to require changes to the material and/or installation if the sample is not acceptable.
3. The roof selection and installation is not approved at this time. During construction please install a roof sample of approximately 100 square feet and inform staff. The Art Jury will review the roof installation in the field and render its determination at that time. The Art Jury will have the ability to require changes to the material and/or installation if the sample is not acceptable.
4. The tile roof shall be installed to achieve visual texture. Please have the roof:
   • consist of the tile varieties/colors, and in the same percentages, shown on the approved “colors & materials” board.
   • boosted a minimum of 20%.
   • mudded a minimum of 20%.
   • installed with a random stagger.

cont. on Page 2