Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2006

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 13 pages

Present: Vice President Diane Larsen, Secretary Jack Queen and Member Gail Frazar

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: President Mark McClure and Member Ken Markstein

The Minutes of the March 21, 2006 meeting were approved as written.

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

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

GJS Trust  Via de Fortuna - Property I.D. 5.1.3
Continued Mediation: Residence/Garage (11,290 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (2,613 sq. ft.), Basement Wine Cellar/ Mechanical Rm. (998 sq. ft.), Detached Guest House (1,760 sq. ft.), Colors & Materials, Pool/Spa

Mrs. Jean Shekhter and Architect Wallace Cunningham attended the meeting.

Board member Donna Ferrier conducted the mediation.

1. This is a continued mediation. The conceptual level of detail on the submitted documents is consistent with a Workshop Application; therefore the Art Jury’s comments reflect the conceptual nature of the submitted designs.
1. The submitted vignettes are acceptable, and you are encouraged to remain at this conceptual level until the Art Jury directs you to submit a Preliminary Application.   
2. To better illustrate your design intent you are encouraged to submit photos or drawings that illustrate any aspect of the design.
2. Protective Covenant requirements:
1. The building design is not acceptable to the Art Jury. Paragraph 157 of the Protective Covenant requires architecture that is “…that distinctive type of architecture which for several decades has been successfully developing in California, deriving its chief inspiration directly or indirectly from Latin types, which developed under similar climatic conditions along the Mediterranean or at points in California, such as Monterey.”
2. Paragraph 46 requires the Art Jury to make a finding that the project meets a “…uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness”.
3. The Art Jury believes that the required findings cannot be made at this time; therefore, the Art Jury recommends the revisions contained in the following comments. 
3. The overall size (square footage) of the main residence and the guest house are acceptable as long as the design is revised to the satisfaction of the Art Jury.
4. Please include additional forms and details consistent with the architectural types referenced in Paragraph 157. The Architect’s opening remarks indicated that there was an effort made to reference “early California” architecture. The Art Jury requests that the building be redesigned to be consistent with the Protective Covenant.
   1. Please reduce the very modern, “chiseled” look of the building form.
      1. Submit a design which includes a roof connection that does not have the eave concealed behind a parapet wall.
      2. Do not have floor-to-ceiling glass walls. There must be additional solid mass to the building.
   2. Break up the windows with muntins to avoid the appearance of large sheets of glass.
5. Reduce the prominence of the main residence. The length of the structure coupled with the very straight, linear nature of the floor/site plan, all at the same finish floor level would emphasize its height and bulk and create a very prominent appearance.
   1. If the ridgeline above the living room is kept at 21 feet (as currently proposed) the other wings of the house should be substantially less.
   2. Reduce overall length of the main residence.
   3. Reduce the strong linear aspect of the design.
   4. Please make the building respond to the topography when establishing room locations and heights.
      1. A minor bedroom near the western end of the main residence is over six feet above the existing grade.
      2. Move the above referenced portion of the structure further to the north to place it on higher ground.
      3. Consider angling the western portion of the main residence to more closely conform to existing topography.
6. The Art Jury reviewed this proposal for consistency with the Protective Covenant and for the reasons stated above the Art Jury does not find that the proposal is aesthetically pleasing and consistent with Par. 46 of the Protective Covenant which states the following: “No part of the said property and/or of any property at any time within the jurisdiction of the Art Jury or of the Association shall be subdivided, laid out or improved by buildings, or structures, or its physical contours altered or changed, except in preparing land for orchard or farm use, except with the approval of the Association with the written advice of the Art Jury so as to insure uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness, in exterior and physical appearance of said property and improvements.”
7. Please submit revised conceptual drawings for another workshop-style, continued mediation meeting.

Glancy Los Morros - Property I.D. 34.9.6
Preliminary Application: Residence (12,997 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,672 sq. ft.), Attached Garage/ Storage & Mechanical Room (1,636 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Colors & Materials, Pool/Spa, Propane Tank           

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

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

1. After reviewing the story poles the Art Jury considers that the bulk of the building is excessive and results in a building which does not integrate with the natural features of the site. Additionally the Art Jury noted that the east wing of the building is particularly prominent. Please revise the building to reduce its bulk and SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the prominence of the east wing.
2. The Art Jury does not consider that the roof plan is aesthetically pleasing. Please revise the roof to avoid “colliding” roof shapes and visually confusing forms.
3. The approximate location of second floor elements is acceptable, however please also refine the second floor elements to visually integrate better with the building. Upper floor elements should reflect the design of ground floor elements.
4. Please reduce the size and revise the proportions of the entry “turret” to better integrate with the main house.
5. Please submit clear elevations (perspectives and renderings may be submitted in addition).
6. Please use a darker stucco color.
7. Please resubmit as a Workshop application.

Alsadek La Orilla - Property I.D. 36.3.3
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (6,772 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,517 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (289 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Pool/Spa

Architect Maxwell Wuthrich attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please reduce the amount of proposed grading.
   1. Please reduce the amount of fill beneath the house. There is up to six and one half feet of existing topographic fall beneath the house.
      1. Although the natural topography of the property has been disturbed by previous construction, the overall form of the property is a sloping hillside.
      2. The house design should respond to the hillside topography of the property, rather than altering the landforms to fit a particular house design.
      3. The currently proposed house design would be more appropriate for a level lot, not a hillside lot. Please include stepping into the design of the house.
      4. Investigate the following options to reduce the grading:
         • Narrowing the structure.
         • Lowering the finish floor level.
         • Locating the structure further to the south.
         • Stepping.
      5. Please include conceptual grading information regarding the pool.
         • Less grading would be required if the pool’s patio area were restricted to one side of the pool rather than surrounding the pool on all sides with patio
   2. Please reduce the amount of fill beneath the north patio. There is between four and eight feet of fill beneath the proposed patio.
   3. Please eliminate the circular driveway. The sloping topography of the site is not appropriate for a large feature like a circular turnaround. There is eight feet of topographic fall below the proposed turnaround.
2. Please simplify the building form and detailing to be more consistent with the submitted images booklet.
1. The current design includes too many stylistic influences.
2. Please make the proposed arched arcade more integral with the mass of the house rather than appearing as a covered patio extension.
3. Please submit for another Workshop Application.

Monge El Tordo - Property I.D. D.10
Final Application: As-built Wall and Architectural Details

Mr. and Mrs. Monge, Architect Jack Smyer and Landscape Architect Patti Ferner attended the meeting.

The Art Jury DENIED the request for approval of the as-built condition of the project (building features as well as the patio wall).

Consistency with the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant

The Art Jury considers that the constructed unapproved changes are 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 constructed deviations from the approved plans result in an appearance that does not have the level of architectural detailing desired by the Art Jury.

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 the construction of the project with the inclusion of high quality architectural elements as originally approved by the Art Jury. 

The application proposes the approval of as-built construction which is not in conformance with the Art Jury’s previous approval of the remodel of the structure. The as-built deviations are as follows:

1. Rosette Window
   The floor plan (page A-103) shows the rosette window recessed within a double wall; however, the rosette window was installed flush with the outside wall. The architectural elevations (page A-201) illustrate a rosette window broken up by muntin bars, the installed window is composed of a large, single sheet of glass.    The window is surrounded by a painted wood molding which was not approved.
2. Northwest Corner Windows
   As a result of the appeal mediation meeting of June 22, 2004 the design for the corner window shown on page A-201 was modified per the Art Jury’s letter of June 24, 2004 which required a revised design with a “heavy wood frame incorporating a lintel and corbels”. The detailing around the installed windows does not reflect the revised design dated 6/28/04. The installed detailing reflects the original detailing that the Art Jury did not approve. Additionally, the copper downspout overlaps the window at the corner.
3. “Cannon Hole” Details
   The architectural elevations shown on page A-201 have two “cannon-hole” features. The construction detail for those features on page A-702 (detail #4) has a stucco recess within a 2x6 furred wall covered with a simple metal grill. The installation has no recess and the metal grill has extra filigree, not shown on the construction detail.     
4. Garage Door
   The garage door opening is not the same as the approved plans. The approved plans show an arched garage door opening, the current garage opening is rectangular.
5. Front Patio Wall
   Page A-201 of the approved plans shows a six-foot-high patio wall. The wall was constructed approximately eight feet high.   

The Art Jury considers the as-built architectural detailing on the façade of the house to be aesthetically inferior to the approved detailing and thus feels that the best way to ensure a reasonably high artistic result is to have the architectural details constructed per the approved plans. The Art Jury has determined that the as-built architectural detailing is not consistent with Paragraph 46 of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant which requires a “uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness…” because of the following: The current construction with its substandard architectural detailing is highly visible from the street because of its close proximity to the right-of-way.  The aesthetic deficiencies of the as-built architectural details are identified below. The noted design deficiencies would be remedied by constructing the project per the approved plans.

Rosette Window:

The rosette window is large (approximately three feet by three feet) and by virtue of its size and uncommon shape is a prominent focal point of the front façade. Because of its prominence, the rosette window must reinforce the traditional design of the building, which the current constructed form does not do.

Northwest corner windows:

This element consists of three windows aligned side-by-side on both the north and west facades (for a total of six windows), with only a dimensionally narrow area at the corner separating the two bands of windows. To create a traditional look for the corner window element and avoid a spindly appearance for the corner post, a substantial amount of visible, decorative, wood framing is required. The installation lacks the necessary visual bulk to achieve the desired appearance.

“Cannon Hole” Details:

These are architectural details found on traditional Spanish revival architecture. The purpose of the details is to add additional visual character to otherwise blank areas of stucco but not to be prominent elements in themselves. The approved project has two such “cannon-hole” details; one above the garage door and one above the patio doors. As installed, the details are inconsistent with their Spanish revival origins. A recess in the stucco is meant to add a shadow line while the iron grate references the common use of iron in Spanish and Spanish revival architecture. The constructed shiny painted surface of the steel grill along with the additional filigree makes these details visually prominent and draws undue attention to what were to have been minor architectural features.

Garage Door:

An arched garage door was approved by the Art Jury. The current opening of the building has a rectangular shape. The proximity of the garage door, (approximately 25 feet from the curb on El Tordo) makes the garage door a prominent feature of the design and therefore must conform to the original quality of the approved design.     

Patio Wall: The as-built patio wall is tall and imposing, and results in the wall dominating views of the subject property from the street.

1. The wall appears too tall for its setting and out of proportion with the rest of the house.
2. The proposed wall is sitting up above the level of the street making it seem taller than it otherwise would if it were located at a lower level relative to the street.
3. The wall is not integral to the design of the house. The extra two feet that were built are not necessary to complete the appearance of the structure, and instead make the wall out of proportion with the front façade of the house.
4. The applicant’s stated desire for privacy could be obtained through the use of landscaping.  

Applicants submitted examples of walls

In support of the their request for approval of the as-built wall, the applicants submitted a list of walls in the vicinity (approximately a three-block radius) of the subject property as examples of similar walls that are of similar heights (approximately eight feet) The examples of walls submitted by the applicants are not analogous to the subject wall for the following reasons:

1. 6178 El Tordo: These walls are retaining walls. As seen from the street (except for the view down the driveway at a distance) the walls are low because the back sides are below grade and therefore the entire height is not readily visible.
2. 6126, 6112 and 6108 Paseo Delicias:  These are all row houses built in the 1920’s. The street walls are an integral part of the overall architecture of the structure.  In some instances the walls do not even appear as patio walls, but instead appear to be an extension of the exterior building wall. The structure at 6108 is within a commercial district.
3. 6036 La Flecha:  As with the above row houses, the street wall is an integral part of the design. The building is within a commercial district.
4. None of the walls submitted as precedent are on the same block as the applicant’s wall.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Agee Via del Alba - Property I.D. 37.3.6
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (10,679 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,036 sq. ft.), Barn (1,438 sq. ft.), Detached Guest House (602 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Pool/Spa, Request to keep 3 horses on 3.03 acres

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please reduce the overall height of the structure.
   1. The proposed Monterey style has more restrained proportions. While some of the proposed features of the house bespeak a Monterey style, the scale and proportions are contrary to the chosen style.
   2. Keep the two-story section no higher than approximately 25 feet.
   3. The wings should be proportionately lower.
   4. The side wings should be stepped back from the front façade of the two story section.
2. Please substantially reduce the amount (number, height, width, proportions) of glazing, particularly the middle, two-story section.
3. Please keep the architectural detailing simple, consistent with the chosen style. Including, but not limited to the window/ French door surrounds.
4. Please indicate where the turnouts will be from the horse stalls. The turnouts must respect the 150 feet separation radius as well. The stable will probably need to be moved further from the property line or rearranged to have the stalls open in a different direction.
5. Please submit for another Workshop Application.

Comerford Sobre Los Cerros - Property I.D. 2129.48
Workshop Application: Addition (742 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (284 sq. ft.), Attached Garage (927 sq. ft.), Cabana (305 sq. ft.),

Re-roof, Repaint

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

1. The rock wainscoat shall be eliminated.
2. The entry trellis shall be revised to match the remainder of the house.
3. The garage door elevation shall be screened with landscaping. Submit details with the Final Application.

Lexar-Mesa Las Colinas – Property I.D. 27.7.7
As-BuiltFinal Application: Retaining Walls, Revised pavilion exterior and expanded service drive

This item was continued to April 25, 2006 meeting at your request.

Rababy Protective Covenant Violation
Paseo Arbolado – Property ID 30.4.3.
Request for Time Extension on submission of plans to remedy the Covenant Violation.

On December 20, 2005 The Rancho Santa Fe Association issued an Initial Notice of Covenant Violation. This notice listed the unapproved work on your property, the Covenant paragraphs which you have violated and remedies for the violation including deadlines to remedy the violation (21 days from December 20, 2005).

On January 9, 2006 you wrote to the Association requesting that the deadline for submission of plans to remedy violation be extended to the first week in February 2006. On January 13, 2006 you again wrote noting that you would like to submit by February 15, 2006. On February 15, 2006 you again wrote to request a further one month extension for submission of plans. The Art Jury granted this latter request and set the submission deadline as March 17, 2006.

On March 20th the Association received a letter from you (dated March 18, 2006) requesting a 10-month extension of time to submit plans. The Art Jury reviewed your letter at the April 11, 2006 meeting and denied your request for a 10-month time extension but determined that your plans may be submitted no later than June 13, 2006.

cont. on Page 2