Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
February 7, 2006

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 10 pages

Present: President Mark McClure, Vice President Diane Larsen, Secretary Gail Frazar and Members Ken Markstein 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

The Minutes of the January 24, 2006 meeting were approved as written.

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

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

Domann/Bost Subject: Via de Fortuna - Property ID 6.2.7
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (7,607 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (2,061 sq. ft.), Barn (1,098 sq. ft.), Pool/Spa, Colors & Materials

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please relocate the pool off of the slope. Too much grading would be required to locate the pool in the current configuration.
2. Please relocate the riding ring to a more level area of the property.
3. Please clearly indicate on the site plan those areas which are proposed to be pasture (green and irrigated) and those fenced areas which are to be dirt paddocks.
4. With your next submittal please submit additional exterior elevations.
5. Please submit for another workshop.

During the Art Jury visit to the site, it was noticed that the current horse facilities do not have Art Jury approval. The Art Jury will require the elimination of the current facilities within a reasonable time after the approval of the new horse keeping facilities. 

North County Custom Homes Subject:  Paseo Delicias - Property ID 12.4.3
Preliminary Application: Residence/Garage (7,912 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (510 sq. ft.), Barn (532 sq. ft.), Request to keep 3 horses on 3.17 acres, Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Pool/Spa,

Variance from street setback   

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

1. Please submit a west elevation of the main residence.
2. Please revise the horse-keeping facilities as follows:
1. Provide fenced turnouts outside of each stall.
2. Indicate on the landscape plan that the large fenced area (labeled as “corral”) must be kept as an irrigated, green, healthy pasture. If the area is not to be used as pasture, (but is instead used as a dirt corral) a new 150-foot radius map must be submitted showing the radius drawn from the perimeter of the corral.
3. Have the corral / pasture accessible from the turn-outs and/or stalls.    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.
4. Submit gate and fence details with the Final submittal.
5. 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.

VARIANCE

Based on the following findings, the Art Jury approves the variance subject to the following condition:

1. The swimming pool shall not have a “vanishing edge”.

Following the submittal of a site plan showing the revised swimming pool, the variance request will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for its approval.

FINDINGS:

Required Art Jury finding per Paragraph 209 of the Protective Covenant:

“…said variations are not, in the opinion of the Art Jury, injurious or undesirable to the neighborhood in which they occur…”

The reduced setback for the pool will not be injurious or undesirable to the surrounding neighborhood because there is fifty feet between the edge of the pool and the pavement on Paseo Delicias providing sufficient area for screen landscaping of the pool.          

Olson Subject:  Via Recanto Lot 4 - Property ID 21.4.5
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (9,592 sq.), Attached Covered Areas (1,646 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Pool/Spa

The Art Jury had the following comments:

1. It was the consensus of the Art Jury that the building is too bulky for the site. The bulk of the building should be reduced.
2. The building wings are relatively close to the north and south property lines. Additionally, there is little room for landscape buffering and screening of the building in these locations because of the placement of drives and patios. The Art Jury  considers that this design is not aesthetically pleasing and suggested revisions to  address this issue including but not limited to the following:
   • Reduce the bulk of the building especially at the two wings.
   • Use a detached guest house (place the guest house at the west end of the property). Remove the covered patio at the south end of the building.
   • Revise the garage to move this element away from the property line.
3. 200ft +/- of retaining wall is proposed along the rear of the building. No landscape screening is proposed against this wall. The house should be revised in response to items 1 and 2 above and in doing so the house should be moved to the south and stepped with the topography. In turn, this would allow landscaping to be placed in front of the wall in addition to integrating the residence better with the terrain.
4. There should be no grading between the top of the retaining wall noted in comment 3 above and the north property line.
5. The garage, back up/ turnaround should be reduced to only the minimum size necessary for the Fire Department required turnaround.
6. The pool should be turned 90 degrees to run with the contours.
7. Ultimately the Art Jury will review story poles to help determine the acceptability of this building. Additional comments may be forthcoming at that point.
8. Please submit another Workshop application.

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

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

Overall Comment: The currently proposed architectural design approach is not approvable. The proposed design has an unadorned exterior appearance with few elements to lend visual texture. It is suggested that you pursue a design that reinforces the look of a traditional ranch house with the use of more rustic materials to add visual character or investigate a Mediterranean inspired design which would incorporate materials which inherently have more visual texture such as barrel tile roofing, rafter tails and divided-light windows.

1. It was noted that there is an inconsistency between the proposed appearance of the remodel and the pictures contained within your submitted images booklet. The images are those of traditional architecture using traditional forms and rustic materials, you are encouraged to use those images as a basis for your design.
2. If you wish to have a taller ceiling in some of the rooms of the house it is suggested that the extra height be gained through the use of a vaulted ceiling rather than raising the height of the roof over the different rooms.
3. The following comments are based on the current design. Many of these comments would apply to any design proposal. Regardless of what type of design is proposed it is imperative that the appearance of the house be consistent with that design direction on all facades.  
   1. If you propose a stucco exterior, ensure that the windows are deeply recessed.
   2. Ensure that there is consistency between the windows. The current proposal has a multiplicity of window shapes and sizes, too many window styles will weaken the coherence of any design.
   3. Please do no use high, horizontally-oriented windows such as those proposed for the bathrooms. Substitute other types of windows that are consistent with the overall glazing design.  
   4. Please do not use sliding windows and doors.
4. It is suggested that you submit your next application as a workshop rather than a Preliminary.

S & S Properties Subject:  El Camino del Norte - Property ID 2.1.3 & 4
Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision

This letter is to provide you with the Art Jury’s comments on the proposed 3-lot subdivision (RSFA/TM-05-10) reviewed at the Art Jury meeting of February 7, 2006.  As previously discussed, the purpose of this Art Jury review was to provide specific feedback what changes to the site design and level of detail will be necessary for the Art Jury to fully evaluate the proposed subdivision. Therefore, the Art Jury is not forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Directors, but is deferring a recommendation pending review of suggested revisions and additional information.

The following items must be addressed prior to the Art Jury making a recommendation on the proposed subdivision.

1. General Suggestions
   • Conceptual residences and driveways should reflect fire department standards for turnarounds and hose pull lengths.
   • Larger scale plans are needed to see and evaluate site features and conceptual residences for the proposed development. Provide a separate site plan for each proposed building site at a 1”=20’ scale.
   • Provide a legend for specific lines and symbols, such as for the double lines depicted in some areas of cut and fill.
   • The applicant should be aware that at the time of building permit review, the Art Jury will have to make the additional findings pursuant to Chapter 41 of the Regulatory Code prior to allowing development in areas with slopes greater than 25%.
2. Parcel 1 Site Development Issues
   • Eliminate he north 1/3 of the depicted residence, which is located over the side of a steep hill.
   • Maintain the existing pad elevations. The proposed pad at the top of the hill appears to remove 6’ of elevation from the top of the hill, thereby creating an artificial looking topography.
   • Reduce the amount of paving at the entry court. The excessive paving in this location will eliminate areas for landscaping.
   • The lower pad is too small for a tennis court or similarly sized structure.
3. Parcel 2 Site Development Issues
   • Reduce the amount of proposed grading and increase the amount of stepping in the proposed pad for the overall site and residence. There is an 18’ natural cross slope, which is proposed to be reduced to 6’ of cross slope at the finish grade on the proposed pad. There is also 10’ of natural slope beneath the footprint of the residence.
   • The level edge of the proposed pad creates an artificial appearance.
   • Grading for the “tuck under” garage is awkward with two driveways parallel to one another and steep slope in between.
   • Over reliance on 2:1 slopes creates an artificial landscape.
   • Placement of the garage at the street facing elevation of the house is an undesirable design.
   • Reduce the size of the residence. The house is too big for the pad, leaving insufficient room for screen landscaping, driveways, and turn-arounds.
4. Parcel 3 Site Development Issues
   • The oversized width of the residence will likely result in unusually high roof elevations and a need for oversized windows to obtain enough natural lighting inside.
   • The pad and residence are too close to the street, causing a crowded feeling.
   • Placement of the front door could be problematic.
   • Reduce the amount of grading. There is a 24’ natural cross slope which is proposed to be reduced to 8’ of cross slope at the finished grade.
   • Retaining walls are excessive – 220’ in the back and 180’ in the front.
   • The pad and grading crowd the drainage area.

Upon receipt of the above-listed information, the Art Jury will reconsider the proposed subdivision and evaluate appropriate conditions that may allow for conditional approval of the subdivision. The required subdivision findings can only be made if the Art Jury is able to make the determination that proposed conditions satisfactorily address their current concerns and allow them to make the finding that the application achieves “high artistic result”.

At this time, the Art Jury will not make a recommendation of approval or conditional approval for the proposed subdivision, RSFA/TM-05-10. While your proposal meets the objective standards for a subdivision, the application must also meet the subjective aesthetic criteria contained in the Association’s Protective Covenant, Regulatory Code, and applicable Covenant Acceptance Agreement as illustrated in the Residential Design Guidelines. Based on the proposal reviewed today, the Art Jury cannot make the required findings contained in Chapter 60 of the Regulatory Code, and also cannot find that the proposed map “insures a uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness, in exterior and physical appearance … of property and improvements”, as required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant. 

You now have the option of either submitting revised plans to the Art Jury for review, or moving forward to an Association Board hearing. Please note that if you choose to go forward to the Board without an Art Jury recommendation of approval, then the Art Jury recommendation will be for denial, and a five-member supermajority vote of the Board will therefore be required for the map to be approved.
 

CONSTRUCTION SITE SIGNS: Board Meeting of  February 16, 2006

Galvez Subject:  El Camino Real - Property ID 47.1.6
B & W Architects

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of your Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board of Directors at their February 16, 2006 meeting.

Whitwort  Subject:  La Orilla - Property ID 36.5.4
B & W Architects

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of your Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board of Directors at their February 16, 2006 meeting.

Tyner Subject:  La Crescenta - Property ID 7.3.6
Steigerwald – Dougherty

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of your Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board of Directors at their February 16, 2006 meeting.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: None

CONSENT 1 AGENDA ITEMS:

Clotfelter Subject: La Glorieta - Property ID 33.6.20
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (11,273 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,783 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (1,440 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Pool/Spa

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please further reduce the size of the main residence. The following comments (Comments 2, and 3) indicate that the project still does not fit onto the property’s limited level area without substantial fill.
2. Please reduce the amount of fill from beneath the pool and guest house.
3. Pull the guest house away from the slope. The Fire Department will probably require a 15-foot level area between the guest house and the slope. The Art Jury is not in favor of earth-fill to satisfy the Fire Department’s requirements.
4. Please reduce the size of the guest house back to that shown in the previous application.
5. Please move the trash enclosure further from the property line.
6. Please increase the pitch of the roofs to no less than 4 in 12.
7. With your next application please submit a copy the engineer’s original survey that is the basis of the architect’s topographic plan.
8. Please submit for another workshop.                                                                               

Eggemeyer Subject: La Valle Plateada - Property ID 16.4.5
Final Application: Addition (194 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,225 sq. ft.), Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Colors & Materials to match existing

The Art Jury APPROVED the Final Application 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