Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
RSF Association Office - 8:00 a.m.
January 8, 2008

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 16 pages

Present: President Jack Queen, Vice President Paul Slater, Secretary Diane Larsen, Members Bruce Hall and Michael Hammes

Also Present: Building Commissioner Robert Green, Senior Planner Kirk Dakan, Associate Planner Arnold Keene, Consulting Architect Andrew Wright and Administrative Assistant Jasie Gan

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

The following members were elected to office:

Jack Queen for President
Paul Slater for Vice President
Diane Larsen for Secretary

The Minutes of the December 11, 2007 meeting were approved as written.

STAFF REPORTS:

Robert Green welcomed the new Art Jury members, Bruce Hall and Mike Hammes.

The Village Church item will be heard at the Board meeting on January 17, 2008 at 9:30am.

NEW BUSINESS:

Jack Queen would like to see better roadside landscaping on La Bajada. This item was referred to Dick Brockett.

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

CONFERENCE ITEMS:
The Lilian at Rancho  Property I.D. C.3
Santa Fe, LLC  Preliminary Application (Revised Project): Eight (8) Residential Units, Retail Space (4,169 +/- sq. ft.) at Street Level, Parking Structure (portions below grade), Grading, Colors and Materials, A variance from the provisions of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant to allow encroachment of subterranean parking structure into the required front side and rear setbacks.           

Architect Allard Jansen, Todd Ray, Project Manager Lisa Beaumont, Attorney Matt Peterson, Consultant Walter Fritz, George Hershman and Christian Dick from Swinerton, Members Betty Wilcox, Mr. and Mrs. Woolley attended the meeting.

Association Counsel Alan Zuckerman also attended.

The Art Jury DEFFERED the Preliminary Application to the January 22, 2007 Art Jury meeting with the following comments:

  1. The representatives requested that the Art Jury consider procedures for reviewing different versions of the project. It will be necessary to defer the project to allow discussion of this request with Association counsel and for proper consideration of this complex project by the Art Jury.
  2. Provide a complete parking and traffic study which analyzes the impacts on the Rancho Santa Fe Village of the proposed net numerical (not code) deficiency of parking spaces and the traffic impacts of the proposal.
  3. Provide a complete “construction management strategy”. Show where replacement parking (for village users and construction workers) can be provided during construction. Provide written guarantees that such parking will be available (e.g. at the church mentioned in the letter if this is acceptable). Additionally provide the timeframe for the grading phase of the project and details of street cleaning.
  4. Provide details of how the proposed development will be serviced after completion of construction (deliveries of goods and services; trash facilities) and how the existing adjacent uses will be serviced during construction.
  5. Provide revised landscaping plans showing larger trees (i.e. a species other than crepe myrtle) and more and larger landscape materials throughout. Additionally provide materials which are compatible with the existing plant palette of the village.
  6. Provide sketch architectural details throughout showing how the project will achieve a “Lilian Rice” type design (see Section 47.0906 of the Rancho Santa Fe Regulatory Code). Provide proposed stucco details (avoid a machine finish).
  7. As currently designed the project interior courtyard off El Tordo contains an elevator tower and rear, two story residential units placed above a foundation “void” area. When viewed from El Tordo the rear of the courtyard appears to be a three story element. The Art Jury does not consider that this part of the building is aesthetically pleasing. In the opinion of the Art Jury this interior courtyard and elevator tower do not conform “to the existing and prevailing historical standards and the architectural character established in the Village Commercial District” as required by Section 47.07 of the Rancho Santa Fe Regulatory Code. Neither do these elements have Spanish Colonial revival “Lilian Rice” type design as required by section 47.0906.01 of that same Code. Additionally, because of the bulk and design of these elements the Art Jury does not consider that these elements have a “uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness, in exterior and physical appearance” as required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant.

Please revise this portion of the building.

This application was deferred and a formal Art Jury recommendation to the Board or decision was not made at the Art Jury meeting of January 8, 2008.

Although paragraph 7 above focuses on part of the project, please do not assume that the remainder of the proposal is therefore acceptable, because the Art Jury has not completed its review. Application review is progressive; as the design evolves the Art Jury and Board may have additional comments at each stage because the submitted designs are progressively refined and become more detailed. Upon resubmission of new information or the more detailed evaluation of existing information, additional requests for design changes, or potentially a recommendation of disapproval may result if the proposal does not, in the Art Jury’s opinion, meet the standard of artistic result and attractiveness required by the Protective Covenant.

 The applicants and their representatives may not rely on information or opinions obtained from this application review as final decisions of the Art Jury or as an indication of future approval or recommendation of approval. Final and binding decisions as to the appropriateness of a building (or improvement) proposal can only be made after the submission of a complete application pursuant to the Association’s governing documents (including its Regulatory Code), a formal analysis of the required submittal documents and plans by Association staff and the subsequent review, recommendation and approval by the Art Jury and Board.

Items 1-7 must be completed and submitted in accordance with Association submission deadlines prior to further Art Jury review.

Haahr  Property I.D. 24.3.7
As-Built Application: Revised Color
Enforcement Action           

Tim Holcombe, Neighbors Frances Hardy, Mr. and Mrs. Kahn attended the meeting.

The Art Jury APPROVED the paint sample labeled “A” on file in the Association office subject to the following conditions:

  1. Within 10 days of the date of this letter, provide a manufacturer’s specification for the approved paint sample “A”.
  2. Within 30 days of the date of this letter, provide plans showing additional landscaping to screen the property for Association review and approval.
  3. Within 30 days of the date of this letter, recolor the entire building the color “A” (approved by the Art Jury January 8, 2007 - sample on file in the Association office).

Flather Property I.D. 10.4.13
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (10,899 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,304 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (1,060 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Pool/Spa

Mr. and Mrs. Flather, Architects Mark House and John Dodge, Landscape Architect Theresa Clark and Contractor Steve Sharratt attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

GRADING:     

  1. Substantially reduce the amount of cut and fill:
    1. Increase the amount of stepping within the floor plan of the house.  The house should reflect the topography of the site. The site should not be changed to accommodate a preconceived concept for a house.
    2. Please use the photographs submitted with the imagery booklet as inspiration for integrating the home with the hillside.
    3. The amount of cut in the vicinity of the driveway is more than allowed by Chapter 41 of the Rancho Santa Fe Regulatory Code. Section 41.07 limits the amount of cut (or fill) to no more than ten feet from pre-existing grade. Parts of the driveway require over 13 feet of cut.
    4. Reduce the amount of fill beneath the garden terrace off the master bedroom wing. Portions of that garden are on up to eight feet of fill.
    5. Reduce the long length of retaining wall at the bottom of the play lawn. Limited areas of retaining wall are allowable, but the proposed retaining wall is over 300 feet long.
    6. Reduce the amount of fill beneath the pool. The southerly portion of the pool is five feet above natural grade.
    7. Reduce the height of the retaining wall at the vanishing edge of the pool to no more than 18 inches.
    8. Please include the floor plan on the grading plan, with interior finish floor elevations shown.

ARCHITECTURE

  1. As stated in the grading comments above, please integrate the forms of the house with the site’s topography. As specifically stated in comment #1.b refer to the submitted photographs as an inspiration for the way in which Tuscan architecture is integrated with landforms.
  2. Please reduce the depth of the building modules. The large width and depth of many areas of the house results in complex roof forms spanning large blocks of building footprint which are at the same (or nearly the same) floor elevation.
    1. Complex roof forms on older, traditional homes more often occurred in response to changes in topography. 
    2. Changes in roof forms can also be the result of gradual additions over the history of a structure; however, such additions would usually be carried out as a series of wings and would seldom result in a large building block.  
  3. Please make the second-story balcony more integrated with the form of the building.  The long stretch of metal railing does not fit with the chosen architectural type.
  4. Revise the arches made of stone to reflect stone construction. The design contains narrow, vertical bands of rock under the patio roofs. These bands of rock are not a convincing use of stone because they contain no visual support; with traditional stone construction such long beds of unsupported stone would be impossible.     

SITE PLAN / LANDSCAPING

  1. Increase the area devoted to citrus grove. The subdivision that created Vista de Fortuna was processed with the intent of retaining as much of the citrus grove appearance as possible. The site plan and landscaping should retain sufficient areas for new grove plantings to complement and extend the appearance of the existing and newly planted groves on the other parcels within this subdivision.
    1. The current site plan does not allow enough area for citrus grove. Reduce the amount of coverage devoted to building, driveways and other hardscape, lawn and other ornamental landscaping.
  2. The Art Jury is not in favor of the large amount of paving for the driveway and the extensions. Please reduce the amount of driveway paving and the hammerheads.
  3. The Art Jury noted the circular motor-court appears prominent and produces a formal appearance. Please use a less formal and understated design in this area.
  4. Substantially increase the use of screening trees around and below the pool area and reduce the size of the lawn in this area.

PROCEDURE

  1. Please submit another Workshop Application.

Bulicek Property I.D. 24.4.4
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (8,160 sq. ft.),
Attached Covered Areas (888 sq. ft.)

Architect Bill Currier attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. Please completely redesign the building. Please create a design that has more visual interest and an appearance that is unique to this project. The current design lacks any elements that would describe any definable design type other than a generic Mediterranean. Please create a design with a stronger, definable character.
  2. The revised design for the project now proposes the almost complete demolition of the existing residence along with substantial additions to the footprint; therefore, the design will be reviewed as a new structure rather than as a remodel.
    1. To create an approvable design it will be necessary to break away from the footprint and form of the currently existing home as shown in the following comments. 
  3. The overall form of the building must be revised to reduce its visual bulk. The building is deep as well as wide.
    1. Please narrow the profile of the building mass from all sides. This can be done by making use of wings rather than the building being primarily a large rectangle.
  4. Please simplify the massing and the roof design. The current design is typified by a large number of recesses on the second floor. Although these recesses were probably intended to break up the mass of the structure; it gives the overall design a somewhat busy and contemporary appearance. Please create an overall design that relies on simple massing and simple roof forms. Using wings to create a narrower building profile as requested in Comment #3 above would allow simpler roof forms. 
  5. Bring a greater design focus to the home by moving it in a more traditional direction. The structure currently straddles both traditional and contemporary design.
  6. Please substantially reduce the scale of the front door and associated front entry porch.  
  7. A greater emphasis must be placed on the exterior details. There is a definite lack of architectural detailing.
  8. Revise the orientation of the garages so that they do not face the street.
  9. Please submit a revised design for another Workshop Application.

CONSTRUCTION SITE SIGNS: Board Meeting of January 17, 2008

Rosetta Property I.D. 33.6.20
Temporary Construction Sign
“M.V. Agee Construction”

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of the Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board of Directors at the January 17, 2008 meeting.

Steffensen Property I.D. 2089.20
Temporary Construction Sign
“B & W Architects”

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of the Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board of Directors at the January 17, 2008 meeting.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Badger Property I.D. F.3
Final Application: Commercial Sign
“Netgain Financial”           

The Art Jury cannot recommend approval to the Board of Directors at this time.

Please create a cutout pattern that will be clearly understood in silhouette. The currently proposed cut-out pattern would not be plainly perceived as a pair of trees and could therefore create a random appearance to the sign’s design that is not in keeping with the traditional signage of the village area.   

Bellezza, LLC Property I.D. 9.8.6
(Farasa, LLC) Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (7,927 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (93 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (2,255 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (697 sq. ft.)

The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. Please construct story poles for an Art Jury bulk check (the Art Jury wishes to check the bulk of the building with story poles before a Preliminary Application). Submit the following according to the RSF Association’s “Re-submittal” schedule:
    1. A site/floor plan that includes the location of the story poles in relation to the proposed building, as well as the height of each pole. All plans shall be at least 1/8”-1’ scale.
    2. A statement (certification) signed and stamped by a California Registered Surveyor or Civil Engineer stating that the proposed grade datum, location, height of the poles and the marked pad height is accurate.
    3. No application fee is required.
  2. Submit Fire Department stamped plans with the next application.

Bellezza, LLC Property I.D. 9.8.7
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (9,225 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (660 sq. ft.), Pool, Fountain

The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. Please construct story poles for an Art Jury bulk check (the Art Jury wishes to check the bulk of the building with story poles before a Preliminary Application). Submit the following according to the RSF Association’s “Re-submittal” schedule:
    1. A site/floor plan that includes the location of the story poles in relation to the proposed building, as well as the height of each pole. All plans shall be at least 1/8”-1’ scale.
    2. A statement (certification) signed and stamped by a California Registered Surveyor or Civil Engineer stating that the proposed grade datum, location, height of the poles and the marked pad height is accurate.
    3. No application fee is required.
  2. Submit Fire Department stamped plans with the next application.
  3. Lower the ridge height of the “Living/Great Room” roof (max. 18ft.).

Elmonte 3, LLC Property I.D. 11.1.3
Workshop Application: Residence (6,655 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (986 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (1,914 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garage (1,880 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Pool/Spa, Request to keep 3 horses on 3.1 acres, Existing Barn to remain           

The Art Jury was not able to comment fully on the proposal due to the incompleteness of the application. The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. Correctly show current property lines.
  2. Correctly and clearly show the existing grading and proposed conceptual grading on the site (including the tennis court pad). Provide a current topography flown within 2 years.
  3. Provide Fire Department stamped plans.
  4. Provide larger scale massing studies/building elevations.
  5. Please review the submittal requirements checklist and submit a complete application.
  6. The residence should be located on the tennis court pad and not pushed out over the edge of slope.
  7. Resubmit a further Workshop application.

Holcombe Property I.D. 2089.69
As-Built Application: Covered Patio (200 sq. ft.)

The Art Jury DENIED the As-Built Application with the following comments:

Please remove the unapproved construction by February 29, 2008.

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;…” . In the opinion of the Art Jury the project does not maintain the character of the community because the unapproved structure’s bulk results in a tightly constricted appearance for the portion of the property in which it was built.

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 by maintaining the more open nature of the site by removing the unapproved structure.

Huntington Hotel Property I.D. 2129.14
Final Application: Commercial Signs
“Citi Smith Barney”

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of the Commercial Signs to the Board of Directors. The Art Jury recommendation will be forwarded to the Board at the January 17, 2008 meeting.

Huntington Hotel Property I.D. 2129.15
Final Application: Multi Tenant Commercial Sign

The Art Jury cannot recommend approval to the Board for the following reasons:

  1. Multi-tenant signs are intended to reduce sign clutter on buildings which would otherwise have a multiplicity of signs.  The subject buildings do not have an excessive amount of tenant signs visible from the street.
  2. The clients for the offices in question will be approaching the buildings from La Sendita and the associated parking lots, not from El Tordo.
  3. A more appropriate location for a directional sign would be in the parking area on La Sendita.

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…” 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;…”  In the opinion of the Art Jury the project would not maintain the character of the community because the proposed sign facing onto El Tordo would create a multiplicity of signs intended for pedestrian usage on a section of street that is not the source of pedestrian traffic for the office buildings. This increase in the amount of signs with little practical utility would detract from the character of the community.

Paragraph 46 of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant which 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 the preservation of views which are predominated by “fine architecture and other improvements” without the intrusion of visually prominent commercial signs.

The application requests the approval of a Multiple Tenant Sign for two buildings which face onto both El Tordo and La Sendita. The parking areas for both buildings as well as other nearby office buildings are accessed from La Sendita. The section of El Tordo where the Multiple Tenant Sign is proposed has very little pedestrian traffic thus the main views of the sign would be from passing cars severely limiting the effectiveness (and thus the need) of small multiple tenant signs. The Art Jury considers that the erection of more signs with limited utility does not result in the required “reasonably high standard of artistic result” and does not result in the preservation of  the “rare quality “ of the community’s landscape and therefore cannot recommend approval of the request to the Board of Directors. 

Leonard Property I.D. 9.1.4
Preliminary Application: Guesthouse (1,340 sq. ft.), Grading

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

  1. Please locate the guest house in a location that does not decrease the amount of open,  landscaped area – thus the guest house can be located on either the sand volleyball court or the paddleball court. Locating the new guest house in either of these locations would move the guest house away from the slope, place the structure in an area that is less visible from neighboring properties and maintain the existing amount of open, landscaped area on the property.

Prior to the approval of the existing main residence in 1997, the Art Jury had required reductions in the amount of development on the property because of concerns over the amount of development on the site. The Art Jury still has concerns regarding the amount of development on the property and therefore does not want to see a reduction in the undeveloped portion of the property. Therefore, the Art Jury requests that the new building be placed where it will not require grading, will not reduce open areas and will not reduce landscaping. 

CONSENT 1 AGENDA ITEMS:

Cambon Property I.D. 7.2.6
Preliminary Application: Addition (891 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (312 sq. ft.)           

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

  1. Please revise the appearance of the new columns and chimneys. The shapes, proportions and stone material do not relate to the rest of the house design.
  2. If stone is still proposed with the revised design, please use real stone and not manufactured stone.
  3. Please submit a manufacturer’s cut sheet for the proposed garage doors.
  4. Please eliminate the secondary access driveway. The Art Jury is not in favor of the new access road. This proposed road will require the removal of mature trees and appear prominent from the road.

Carlson Property I.D. 6.4.4
Preliminary Application: Guesthouse (1,087 sq. ft.) with Tuck-under (1,087 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Lighting, Landscape, Propane Tank           

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

  1. Please return to the previously submitted design which was only single story, the currently proposed daylight design is too large for a secondary residence.
  2. As previously requested in the Art Jury letter of March 22, 2007, please submit a landscape plan stamped approved by the Fire Department. 
  3. Please submit a grading plan with two-foot contours rather than the submitted five-foot contours.
    1. Include a copy of the topographic survey used as the base for the grading plan. The topographic survey must be stamped by a Civil Engineer or licensed surveyor.
    2. Submit full-sized sheets for both the grading plan and topographic survey.
  4. Eliminate the glass block.

Doan Property I.D. 12.2.3
Final Application: Residence/Garage (9,412 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (890 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (1,205 sq. ft.), Barn (3,150 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Lighting, Landscape, Pool/Spa           

cont. on Page 2

 
  
Home | Members | History | Location | Association | Covenant | Art Jury | Clubs | Services | Numbers | Contact Us | Site Map | Links
© Rancho Santa Fe Association
PO Box A, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Email: info@rsfassociation.org