Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
RSF Association Office - 8:00 a.m.
November 21, 2006

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 7 pages

Present: President Mark McClure, Vice President Diane Larsen and Member Ken Markstein

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

Absent: Secretary Jack Queen and Member Gail Frazar

The Minutes of November 7, 2006 meeting were approved as written.

Consent Calendar: A motion was made, seconded and passed to approve the consent calendar with the following revision: Koros placed on Regular Agenda.

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

Pasarell Property I.D. 1.1.2
Workshop Application: Living Area Addition (650 sq. ft.), Garden Bath (52 sq. ft.), Recreation (915 sq. ft.), Fencing & Walls

Mr. Pasarell and Architect John Beery attended the meeting.

The additions and alterations to the house were approved as a Preliminary Application with the following conditions:

  1. Increase the mass (depth) at the top of the arch on the entry addition.
  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.

The Art Jury made the following comments on the detached recreation building:

  1. The recreation building is located in a prominent location close to (over) the edge of slope. Redesign and relocate to a less prominent location away from the edge of slope.
  2. Reduce the height of the recreation building significantly.
  3. Any resubmissions must include existing and proposed topography if grading or location on sloping terrain is proposed (not recommended).
  4. Review the project with the Fire Department prior to resubmission (incorporate any revisions).

Meza  Property I.D. 9.8.4
Workshop Application: Additions and Grading

Mr. Meza, Geotech Engineer Danny Cohen, Dennis Griffin, Contractor Marvin Henninger, Landscape Architect Ralph Stone and Civil Engineer Mike Smith attended the meeting.

The Art Jury maintained their prior comments from the letter dated September 14, 2006 as follows:

  1. Combine the two proposed rooms at the south end of the building and contour grade the north east corner of the graded slope in a natural fashion.
  2. Keep the proposed layout of the room additions but recess the northerly bedroom into the grade 4 feet and contour grade the north east corner of the graded slope in a natural fashion.

The Art Jury had the following additional clarifications and comments as follows:

  1. The Art Jury wishes to insure a high standard of attractiveness and maintain the natural, landscape features of the site. Placement of the proposed building at the edge of a steep, manufactured, uniform, slope is not aesthetically appealing and does not maintain the natural features of the site. The Art Jury noted that the aesthetic concerns of grading and placement of a structure in a prominent location were originally pointed out in their letter dated December 12, 2002.
  2. A sketch illustration of the alternative # 2 from the letter of approval dated September 14, 2006 (above) was presented to the applicant showing a retaining wall integrated into the building.
  3. Any grading should have a more natural appearance. Revise the grading to hold the toe of slope and “flatten” the grades to create a more natural appearance and preserve the existing mature trees.
  4. Shrink the northerly bedroom in size and lower the building pad.
  5. A second story may be acceptable in lieu of the proposed ground floor additions depending on the design (drawings would have to be reviewed).
  6. Another alternative may be to construct a detached guest house in lieu of the proposed additions again depending on the design. Such a structure would need to be integrated with the site with a minimal of grading; be sympathetic in design and not be prominent. Drawings would need to be reviewed.
  7. Please submit a further Workshop application. Any revised design should first be reviewed with the Fire Department. Any Fire Department revisions should be incorporated into the submission.

As previously noted in the Association’s correspondence, grading without an Association permit is in violation of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant. If the applicant does not obtain the necessary permit, the unapproved grading must be removed.

Ewing Property I.D. C.3
Workshop Application: Eleven (11) New Court Houses (29,000 sq. ft.), Attached Garages (4,050 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garages (44,000 sq. ft.), One (1) Retail Space (1,000 sq. ft.)           

Joe Pinsonneault, John Bartelli, Conamore Alexander, Architect Allard Jansen and Project Manager Lisa Beaumont attended the meeting.

The item was continued to the Art Jury meeting of December 12, 2006 to allow for verification of the Covenant use class.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

6 Los Morros LLC  Property I.D. 34.9.1
Changes to Exterior

The Art Jury DEFERRED the proposal for staff review and approval with the following comments:

The building should be made up of elements which are either entirely stone or entirely stucco creating the appearance of a building which has been added on to with various materials over time. The Art Jury is not in favor of elements which are entirely stone in combination with elements which are partially stone and stucco (i.e. The Art Jury are not in favor of the quoin elements at the corners with this new design).

Arco Iris Property I.D. 1.3.2
Final Application: Addition to Approved Residence/Garage (11,414 + 309 sq. ft.)

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 bulk, positioned in relatively close proximity to the perimeter driveway (which cannot be landscaped with screening trees or shrubs), would result in the high prominence of the structure on the hillside building site.

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 a reduction in the proposed bulk of the house resulting in the construction of an unobtrusive structure on the site consistent with the previous approval which allowed greater area for landscape screening between the structure and the perimeter driveway and property line.

The application proposes an amendment to a previously approved design to increase the amount of floor area on the west side of the structure approximately 36 feet from the perimeter driveway on the west where the previous design had been separated from that driveway by approximately 52 feet. The proposed addition would also be wider than the previously approved building mass on the west side of the residence. The Art Jury considers the form of the proposed addition to be too massive and thus feels that the previously approved design was superior in that it reduced the visual prominence of the structure from the west. The previous design allowed more space for the placement of vertical landscaping to screen the view of the structure from westerly directions. The proposed addition, with its placement of additional building bulk relatively close to the paved driveway area as well as the property line would make the structure visually dominate the site rather than being subordinate to the natural landscape.

Koros Property I.D. 2089.50
Preliminary Application: Residence/Garage (5,950 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (475 sq. ft.), Basement/Tick-under (1,450 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garage (1,225 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Pool/Spa, Propane Tank

The project was continued to the December 12, 2006 Art Jury meeting.

Poage Property I.D. 43.2.3
Preliminary Application: Residence/Garage (14,009 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (2,857 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (1,194 sq. ft.), Stable (2,550 sq. ft.), Request to keep 3 horses on 5.14 acres

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

  1. The revised house location is acceptable.
  2. Provide a grading plan which clearly shows existing and proposed grades on the same plan.
  3. Provide Fire Department stamped plans with the next submission.
  4. Please revise/relocate the guesthouse so that no trees have to be removed or relocated.
  5. Please further reduce the size of the barn.
  6. The barn access road could meander more to reduce the gradient.
  7. Provide revised plans per submission requirements.

CONSENT 1 AGENDA ITEMS:

Aguilera Property I.D. 32.11.8
Preliminary Application: Attached Trellis (455 sq. ft.), Fireplace, BBQ, Colors & Materials

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

  1. Wall shingles are to be real wood shingles, not synthetic.
  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.

Block Property I.D. 29.4.19
Alterations to Approved Plans           

The Art Jury APPROVED the application subject to the following condition:

  1. 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.

Chu Property I.D. 46.2.4
Workshop Application: Living Area Addition (1,547 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (1,085 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Lighting, Landscape, Propane Tank

The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. The Art Jury thanks the applicant for the changes made in request to the previous comments.
  2. Further refine the exterior appearance of the main residence addition. The addition still appears more “modern” than the existing structure.
    1. The element that seems the most foreign to the current design is the two-story vertical element. Please substantially revise this portion of the project.
      1. Ensure that it does not penetrate the roof plane, since this emphasizes the strong vertical nature of the element.
  1. Clarify the area of the second floor addition that is above the ground floor main entrance. It appears that that second floor area is volume space and may need to be reduced in size and/or height.
  2. Please reduce the size of the guest house. Concentrate on reducing the size of the west wing that encroaches onto the 15% to 25% slopes.
  3. Use real clay tile on both the new roof and on what will be left of the existing roof. So little of the existing roof will remain that the existing concrete tile should be replaced with real, two-piece clay tile.
  4. Ensure that all new windows will be inset into the equivalent of an eight-inch wall.    
  5. Please submit another Workshop Application. With the next Workshop Application, please:
    1. Submit the conceptual site plan overlaid on the full-sized slope map.
    2. Include more architectural elevations of the main residence at a ¼ inch scale.
    3. Include more architectural elevations of the guest house at a ¼ inch scale.
    4. Show conceptual grading for the widened access driveway down to the proposed guest house.

Elias Property I.D. 33.6.20
Final Application: Residence/Garage (9,238 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,144 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (600 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Pool/Spa

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

  1. The revised driveway is acceptable.
  2. As previously requested, please revise the roof over the family room and adjacent covered patio. The current transition between the gable roof and flat roof creates an awkward appearance. It is suggested that the flat roof be continued across the entire patio and that the gable roof cover only the family room.

Engel Property I.D. 27.7.9
Final Application: Replacing Asphalt Driveway with Concrete Pavers

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

  1. Please submit an application with the signature of the party who owns the land that the driveway is on.

Gordon Property I.D. 6.2.3 & 9
Workshop Application: Gate House (135 sq. ft.), Fencing, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape           

The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. Provide detailed plans with a Preliminary submittal.
  2. Modify the existing hedge along the street with random planting inserted to create a less formal appearance.

Kuehler Property I.D. E.14
Preliminary Application: Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Waterfall

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

  1. Submit a paving sample. The Art Jury does not feel a “classic” red used brick is compatible with the residence.
  2. The proposed arbors and gates appear prominent because of their height and close proximity to the street. Design gates and entry features to a smaller scale.
  3. The design of the arbor and gates are ornate and has a “Victorian” appearance. An understated design that is more compatible with the existing architecture is suggested.
  4. On the next submittal, please include landscaping proposed on the outside of the privacy wall. Landscaping outside of the wall should be increased with trees and large shrubs to provide filtering of the residence from offsite views.
  5. Submit details for the proposed outdoor fireplace.

Marshall Property I.D. 33.6.7
Preliminary Application: Living Area Addition (1,084 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (440 sq. ft.), Garage Addition (874 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (921 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (280 sq. ft.), Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape

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

  1. The proposed roof material is acceptable.
  2. Please limit the stone exterior to the new, detached structure.
  3. Use stucco on the existing structure.
  4. Show details of how the bay windows will be handled. The narrow wall areas between the windows are not appropriate for stucco or stone, because the stucco would appear too “spindly”.  
  5. Submit details of the gates and pilasters.
    1. The gates must be true wrought iron, not tubular steel.
    2. Use stone on the pilasters to match the new detached structure, the drawing still shows brick.
  6. Use a more muted green color.
  7. Relocate the proposed fencing along the street to a minimum of 20 feet inside of the property line to allow a sufficient area for landscape screening.
  8. Relocate the proposed Rose Garden to an area further from the street or reduce the size of the Rose Garden in the proposed location. The proposed location does not allow an area for larger landscape screening between the residence and the street.
  9. The gate at the 12-foot driveway shall be placed at the location indicated on sheet A1. This location meets the 50-foot minimum separation for driveway gates per the RSF Guidelines.
  10. Reduce the lawn area along the road and increase the planter area available for shrubs and trees. A larger planter area will provide better opportunity for landscape filtering of the residence from off-site views.

Pleiades, N.V. Property I.D. 9.8.6
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (8,127 sq. ft.), Pool House (210 sq. ft.)

The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. Please further reduce the height of the highest parts of the building.
  2. The Art Jury welcomes the architectural concept portrayed in the latest photograph package. The new building should include:
    • True arches (in lieu of segmented arches).
    • “Andalusian” detailing (as proposed in concept on the photos)
    • Stone elements (per the photos)
    • Clarified eave detail

The drawings were very preliminary in nature and did not clearly include the defined “Andalusian” design features shown in the photos. Please include the features shown in the photos in the conceptual plans and resubmit as a Workshop Application.

  1. The Art Jury is strongly in favor of utilizing a single driveway to serve the two sites. Please avoid a straight alignment and use a curvilinear design. These comments are provided without prejudice to the review of future proposals on the adjoining lot which will share the drive.

RSF Association Property I.D. 38.2.1
Temporary Rain Gutters, Stucco Removal, Grading                       

The Art Jury APPROVED the Final Application as submitted.

Ryan Property I.D. 20.2.1
Workshop Application: Living Area Addition (1,415 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (320 sq. ft.)

The Art Jury made the following comment:

  1. Please submit a Preliminary application.

CONSENT 2 AGENDA ITEMS:

RSF Property I.D. 33.10.1
Development LLC Final Application: Barn (1,388 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (600 sq. ft.)           

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

  1. Submit revised grading plan.

ART JURY SITE VISITS:

The Art Jury made site visits from 1:30 to 3:15 p.m. to the following locations:

Name

Address

Bellezza LLC (Finley)

La Bajada

Bickoff

Avenida Alondra

Cuthbertson

Linea del Cielo

Gatlin III

La Gracia

Mezzino

Paseo Delicias

Oberschmidt

Mimulus

Rancho Cielo Holdings Corp.

Linea del Cielo

Sunranch LLC (Viterbi)

El Vuelo

                                                              

 
  
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