Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
December 8, 2005

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

Present: President Ken Markstein, Vice President Diane Larsen, Secretary Mark McClure and  Nancy Ullman 

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: Gail Frazar-Mele

The Minutes of the November 22, 2005 meeting were approved as written.

Staff Reports:           

Building Commissioner Green informed the Committee that the County is still looking at putting up a large retaining wall on Via de la Valle. He showed pictures of examples of gunite rock walls that depict what the County is looking to do. The committee requested more information (size, examples, extent).

Associate Planner Keene discussed the Village Master Plan – Phase 1. He showed the committee pictures and physical samples of some of the proposed materials to be installed in the first phase of the Village Master Plan including brick inlaid crosswalks in the core Village area and concrete for the new median and curbing which will look aged and compatible with what is there now. The Art Jury confirmed with Associate Planner Keene that the choice of materials is agreeable.

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

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

Olson Subject: Property I.D.21.4.5
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage/Guesthouse (9,730 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,943 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Pool/spa

Dena Gillespie attended the meeting. 

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. An excessive area of grading is proposed. Reduce the graded area of the site. Avoid modifying natural features (e.g. filling natural gullies). The Art Jury has the following suggestions:
   • Revise the west wing including the garage and forecourt assembly. These elements cross several contours and require excessive grading. Revisions should also include the covered lanai off the family/”bonus” room which is elevated excessively above natural grade. Revisions to these elements should also reduce the bulk.
   • Re-orient the pool to reduce grading.
2. The Art Jury is concerned that the building continues to be prominent and dominate the natural features of the site because of its bulk and width. The structure will continue to be evaluated through the construction of story poles.
3. Eliminate the circular turnaround (per prior comments). Insufficient room is provided for landscape screening to the east of the building as a result of the placement of this element.
4. The Art Jury requested that the following architectural elements be revised:
   • The asymmetrical design of the rear of the living room.
   • Enhance the exterior elevations of the guest suite (flat roofed, plain elevation).
5. Review the proposal with the RSF Fire Department (per prior comments) before re-submitting. Provide a RSF Fire Department stamped plan with the next submission. Reviewing the plan with the Fire Department and obtaining the stamp could avoid later conflicts with Art Jury approvals.
6. Incorporate a substantial quantity of large screening trees between the house and the street for filtering of the residence from off-site views.
7. Return for another workshop.

Clotfelter  Subject: Property I.D.33.6.20
Workshop Application: Residence/Attached Garage (11,568 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,249 sq. ft.), Guest House (1,009 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining walls, Fencing and walls, Entry Gate /Pilasters, Pool/Spa, Landscape

Miguel Elias and John Jensen attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please reduce the total size of the project. The lot has a large portion of un-buildable area which limits the available land for construction.
   1. Explore placing some of the uses below grade which do not require windows: home theater, wine cellar, some or all of the garages, utility and storage areas.
2. Please reduce the width of the proposed structure. The lot is narrow. The shape of the structure must reflect this dominant constraint of the property.
   1. Explore reconfiguring the second floor to reduce the common area and include a bedroom from the ground floor.
3. Reduce the length of the west side of the house. The current design has too much building mass in close proximity to the west property line.
4. Move the garages further away from the west property line. The backup area for the garages leaves insufficient room for landscape screening.
   1. Please take into account an adequate backup area for the garages. The current layout appears too constrained to be functional.  
5. The Art Jury prefers the appearance of the architectural elevation labeled “Concept #1”.
6. The Art Jury is in favor of the design concept expressed in the submitted photographic image showing the front of a building.
   1. The Art Jury is not in favor of design direction displayed in the photos showing the loggias.
7. Realign the driveway so that it does not cross the frontage of the lot. The proposed configuration eliminates too much area that could otherwise be used for landscaping.
8. Please increase the pitch of the roofs to no less than 4 in 12.
9. With your next application please include a copy of the topographic plan prepared by the engineer/surveyor that the architect’s preliminary grading plan is based on.
10. Please submit for another workshop.

Gruen Subject: Property I.D.7.1.1
Workshop Application: Additions to Residence (1,825 sq. ft.), Addition to Attached Garage (1,225 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (625 sq. ft.), Conversion of Garage to Guest House, Landscape

Dena Gillespie attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please create a design which is more consistent with the existing home. The Art Jury has the following specific comments:
   1. Please eliminate the semicircular projection above the parapet wall on the north side of the upstairs patio.
   2. Please use a different roof form over the large porch addition. The asymmetrical massing is not in keeping with the style and age of the house.
   3. Use a less massive form for the exterior stairway from the roof deck to the south patio.
   1. Create a stairway that has a more delicate appearance that is more in keeping with the style of the house.
   2. Consider realigning the stairway to avoid having the congested appearance at the bottom of the stairs. Currently, the base of the stairway, the loggia, and the change in building angle all come together in a small area.
   3. Please review some of your submitted photographic images for ideas on the stairway design. 
   4. It is suggested that a shed roof (extending from the existing master bedroom wall) be placed over a portion of the upstairs patio. Such a roof would help soften the transition from the existing structure to the new structure and would be consistent with the style and age of the house. 
   5. Ensure that the roof pitches are the same as on the existing house.
   6. The large window on the north façade of the northernmost bedroom should be centered on the façade below the peak of the roof. Having a major window slightly off center gives that façade an off-balance appearance.  
   7. Please give an indication of what the garage doors will look like.
   8. The Art Jury encourages you to consider the use of a red tile roof. The Art Jury considers that the tile would be more consistent with the architecture of the house. 
2. Please draw the architectural elevations from a single vantage point, or have a clear indication of the “hinge” point for the elevation. You may wish to illustrate different aspects of the design by creating multiple elevations or perspectives. 
3. Please analyze the elevation drop between the last garage and the others, a planter island will probably be necessary to transition the two driveway levels. 
4. Please obtain recommendations from the Rancho Santa Fe Historical Society as well as the Rancho Santa Fe Association’s Historic Preservation Committee. Please do not contact these groups until the Art Jury determines that the design is approvable.
5. Please submit a Preliminary application.

Village Church Subject: Paseo Delicias - Property I.D.27.1.1 & 27.1.4
Workshop Application: Sanctuary & Music/Administration, Classroom Building

Art Juror Diane Larsen abstained.

Architects Lew Dominy and David Keitel, Church Administrator Ray Martinez, Reverend Jack Baca and church members Don Mac Neil and James Burdick attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please submit for a Preliminary application.
2. Please be aware that future decisions may include conditions regarding parking requirements and restrictions on use, and timing of use, of the various buildings on the site to achieve compliance with the conditions of approval regarding parking. If in the future, additional capacity or additional uses are proposed, applications to the Art Jury will be required along with a new parking analysis.
1. As discussed at the meeting, it is understood by the Art Jury that there will be a few instances each year when the normal capacity is exceeded in the Sanctuary and that temporary seating will be required. Those instances will be addressed in the conditions of approval.
3. This item will be scheduled as an information item at the Board meeting of January 5, 2006. Please bring your design team as well as the traffic engineer and anyone else you wish to have in attendance. The Association Board will subsequently (at a later meeting) be required to review and approve the project per Par. 122 of the Protective Covenant because portions of the building exceed 35 feet in height.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: None

CONSENT 1 AGENDA ITEMS:

Beard Subject: Property I.D.16.2.3
Preliminary Application: Guesthouse (1,007 sq. ft.)

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

1. Eliminate the stone from columns and sills.
2. Substitute a rectangular window for the curved window on the north façade.
3. Use a true Santa Barbara stucco finish without the cat eyes.
4. Please submit a new stucco color for the guesthouse. The detached structure does not need to have colors matching the existing house.

Bills Subject: Property I.D.36.10.1
Final Application: Cow sculptures - “as-built”

The Art Jury APPROVED the Final 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.

Houston Subject: Property I.D.2089.65
Final Application: Residence/Garage (7,730 sq. ft.), Basement (1,081 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garage (2,320 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (336 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (756 sq. ft.) Grading, Lighting, Landscape, Colors & Materials

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

1. Please submit a revised plan set for staff review and approval which includes a framing plan showing the windows recessed within an 8-inch deep wall.
2. The material colors are not approved at this time. During construction please provide a mock up of the materials for Art Jury review and approval as follows:
   1. Provide an approximately 100 square foot sample of the chosen color.
      1. Please use a single color for the stucco.
      2. The dark toned stucco could be acceptable if it is a custom blend with a mottled appearance.
   2. Please include a mock-up of the pre-cast stone in a color which is compatible with the proposed stucco. The currently proposed pre-cast color has too much contrast with the proposed dark stucco tone.
   3. Install one square of roof tiles, representative of the roof installation.
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.

Humber Subject: Property I.D.2129.93
Workshop Application: Grading, Landscape, Pool

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. The Art Jury is not in favor of the proposed pool and suggests alternative designs are available and should be developed. The Art Jury noted the following concerns with the proposal:
1. The exposed point of the pool is approximately five to six feet above the proposed grade at the highest point.
2. The exposed walls would be prominent from off-site views.
3. The shape of the exposed walls, a square corner, is not compatible with the surrounding contours and the Art Jury suggests a more informal or organic design may be acceptable, pending further review.
2. Some grading of the existing, disturbed slope may be acceptable for the proposed pool, pending further review of the concept.
3. Please contact staff for further direction.

Los Arbolados, Ltd Subject: Property I.D.30.2.1
Final Application: 6 Units (18,400 sq. ft.), Basement (1,075 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garage (1,215 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,310 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining walls, Fencing, Landscape, Pool/spa

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

1. Inadequate screening room is provided to the south of unit 6 due to the configuration of the proposed retaining walls. The approved Preliminary plan showed un-interrupted landscape area in this location. Please return to the previously approved design.
2. A retaining wall, up to ten feet in height, has been added at the south eastern corner of the site. This wall is proposed in close proximity to the property line and will be unsightly in the opinion of the Art Jury due to its size and the limited room for screening. The approved Preliminary plan showed a lower wall in this location. Please return to the previously approved design.
3. Final plans show a “bio-filter” which was not shown on the Preliminary Approved Plans. The installation of this bio-filter appears to result in removal of existing trees. The Art Jury is not in favor of the “bio-filter at the proposed location for this reason.
4. Resubmitted plans must conform to Rancho Santa Fe Association submission requirements including but not limited to:
   • TW/BW information every 10 feet.
   • Show all proposed retaining walls.
   • Show and label all property lines.
   • Plans must be submitted in accordance with Rancho Santa Fe Association submittal deadlines.
5. Please show materials for all retaining wall faces.
6. Paragraph 142 of the Protective Covenant requires that “no building for residence use shall be built nearer in any part than fifteen (15) feet from any other building for single or multiple residence ….”.  Submitted grading plans show buildings closer than this distance. Additionally, grading plans appear to show less than the required minimum front setback. Please correct the plans to comply with the Protective Covenant.
7. Please provide garage door and exterior door specifications throughout. The doors should be enhanced to have the same consistently high design quality as the remainder of the building.
8. Roof tile shall be 30% boosted and mudded.
9. Please add shutters per the preliminary approved plans.
10. Please return to the approved transom window design rather than the mullion and transom.
11. Please provide exterior detailing (call outs and detail sheets) throughout for all exterior detailing, including but not limited to, doors, window grilles, etc.
12. The gate is not approved. Gating of a group of residences would be contrary to the Association’s policy of avoiding gated enclaves.
13. Please incorporate a taller screening shrub between unit 6 and the property line. Submit a revised species for this area.

McClanahan Subject: Property I.D.9.5.5
Final Application: Pool and Patio

The Art Jury DEFERRED the Final Application for staff review and approval subject to the following conditions:

1. Please submit professionally prepared landscape and pool plans for staff review and approval.
2. Please move the pool support equipment to a less prominent location and enclose with a masonry wall and wood gate.
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.

Morris Subject: Property I.D.17.4.5
Workshop Application: Residence/Attached Garage (6,400 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (585 sq. ft.)           

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please create a design with a stronger architectural direction. The structure appears to be based on the Santa Barbara style; however, the detailing as well as the placement and style of the windows is not consistent with that style.  
1. Create a design which is consistent with a particular style of architecture. 
2. Submit an images booklet as required for new homes. See the “Application Requirements Checklist”. 
3. As a resource, the Association has a library of architectural books that is available for review, including books specifically on Santa Barbara design. Please call the Association staff planner to access the library.  
2. Revise the alignment of the driveway to provide more distance between the driveway and the property line. The realignment will allow for a larger landscape buffer between the two properties.
3. Please submit for another workshop.

Nye/Tosdal Subject: Property I.D.16.5.6
Preliminary Application: Addition (143 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (127 sq. ft.), Fencing and Walls, Stone facing on residence

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

1. Please create a design for the additions which is consistent with the style of the existing home and creates a unity of materials.
2. Please do not introduce a new building material to the structure’s design. The current development already has a multiplicity of materials in a small area: board-on-board, brick, concrete and stone. Any new stone elements should match the existing variety of stone.
3. Redesign the exterior stairway.
   1. Please reduce the massive appearance of the stairway.
   2. Use board-on-board material to match the house.
   3. Make the railing portion open, with wood railing and stiles.
   4. If you wish to continue the use of stone at the base:
      1. Limit the stone to the height of the other existing stone planter walls.
      2. Use the same variety of stone as the existing stone walls.
4. Please eliminate the stone surround from the lower doorway. The proposed stone surround does not relate to any other feature on the house, nor is it consistent with the building’s architecture.
5. Submit a detail of the appearance of the new stone wall in the front yard as well as indicating on the site plan the exact length, location and height of the stone wall.

Patten Subject: Property I.D.2089.74
Preliminary Application: Garage Addition (477 sq. ft.), Grading, Fencing and Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Repaint

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

1. Please submit a cut sheet of the proposed garage door for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The door shall be a wood door appropriate to the style of the house.
2. 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.          

Shiebler Subject: Property I.D.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           

The Art Jury made the following comments:

There is limited area on this site available to add buildings in such a manner that would not be prominent or add to the appearance of a crowded building pad.

The currently proposed garage building would be prominent. Additionally, the structure would create the appearance of crowding and overdevelopment of the site.

Please redesign the proposal.  The Art Jury encourages you to consider expanding the existing garage and relocate the exercise room off the master bedroom service wing.

Because of the placement of the existing building, turnarounds and drive, no room exists to place a gate on the property in a less visible, screened location. A gate, therefore, should not be included in the project.                      

Venekamp/Schireson Subject: Property I.D.32.9.6
Preliminary Application: Addition (352 sq. ft.), Attached Garage (1,512 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing and Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Re-roof, Repaint, Colors and Materials, Pool/Spa, Solar, Propane tank

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

1. The Art Jury strongly urges you to consider the overall plan for the design of the property. It appears that the roofs over the two major living areas of the house will be removed and replaced. A large portion of the remaining area is the existing garage which is being converted to living space. Only a small portion of the existing house would remain in its current configuration (but with altered windows, new exterior siding and new roofing material).  It seems that the proposed design is trying to maintain a semblance of the existing structure, but the vast majority of the house will be completely reworked. The only portion of the existing home that will remain relatively intact is the small amount near the existing garage. It does not seem appropriate for the small “undisturbed” area to be the model for the rest of the house. It might be more appropriate, (and expeditious) to create a new home with the floor plan and appearance that you desire.     
2. Please submit an images booklet (photos and/or drawings showing similar project designs). The booklet will give the Art Jury a better understanding of the project’s design direction.  
3. Please verify that the existing roof can support the weight of the slate without reinforcing the existing roof structure.
4. Please provide a detail of the window surrounds so that the Art Jury understands the final appearance.
5. Please depict the appearance of the fascia / eave area. This detail must provide architectural interest while being consistent with the overall design of the house.  
6. Please recess the windows within the equivalent of an eight-inch thick wall. This may be accomplished in a variety of ways. Stucco walls require the inset to give architectural interest to a stucco façade.
7. Please clarify the proposed texture for the stucco.
8. Please reduce the height of the retaining wall located to the east of the pool.
9. Please submit manufacturers’ specifications and photos of the proposed solar panels.
10. Please submit a detailed drawing of the proposed gate and pilasters.        

Yayanos Subject: Property I.D.33.3.5
Final Application: Retaining Walls, Landscape, Pool area renovation, Relocate pool equipment, Driveway, BBQ, Trash Enclosure           

The Art Jury APPROVED the Final 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.

CONSENT 2 AGENDA ITEMS:

Bagley Subject: Property I.D.29.6.8
Workshop Application: Grading, Retaining walls, Fencing, Landscape, Pool/spa, Driveway

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

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.

cont. on Page 2