Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
RSF Association Office - 8:00 a.m.
May 20, 2008

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 9 pages

Present: President Jack Queen, Vice President Paul Slater and Member Bruce Hall

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

Absent: Secretary Diane Larsen and Member Michael Hammes

The Minutes of the May 6, 2008 meeting were approved as written.

NEW BUSINESS:

Due to the postponement of the Art Jury Retreat, the Art Jury discussed potential Art Jury Retreat dates.

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

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

Rancho Santa Fe Property I.D. 2129.27
School District Additions and Remodel

Superintendent Lindy Delaney and Project Manager Debra Vaughn-Cleff attended the meeting. RSFA Planning Committee Member Paul Curcio also attended.

The Art Jury noted that this project is probably the largest construction project ever to take place in Rancho Santa Fe in recent times. The Art Jury commented at length that they were concerned that they had not been included by the school in the building design review process; that the school was not willing to file an application or accept comments on the site plan and grading.

The Art Jury considers that it is their responsibility to review the project and this is a job which they take seriously. The Art Jury understands the school’s position in not wishing to file an application, but this does not change the Art Jury’s responsibility. Despite the unwillingness of the school to participate in the Art Jury review process or accept its comments the Art Jury considers that they have a responsibility to the community to make comments even if a very limited amount of information has been provided by the school at this time.

The Art Jury made the following comments at the meeting of May 20, 2008. In making these comments the Art Jury noted that they are not making a formal Art Jury decision because the Rancho Santa Fe School has refused to file an application:

1. The Art Jury has not been provided with sufficient information to adequately review and comment on the proposal, nor has an application been filed. Information should be provided in a manner which would allow the Art Jury to properly review and comment properly on the proposal.
2. The Art Jury was not in favor of the proposed site plan design which shows parking spaces on top of a retaining wall along La Granada. The Art Jury is concerned about the appearance of a 450 ft. long +/- retaining wall upon which is placed parking spaces and 500 ft. long +/- building. The Art Jury is concerned that there will be inadequate screening of the school building, parking spaces and retaining wall since it appears there will only be 5 feet between the wall and the property line. The Art             Jury is also concerned about a retaining wall with a utilitarian appearance.
3. Buildings are located within the Protective Covenant required setback. A variance is necessary for this aspect of the project.
4. Insufficient information has been submitted to determine parking requirements and parking provision. 33 parking spaces are shown within the El Fuego street right of way.
5. Plans do not label property lines. Property boundaries may change due to easements, etc.
6. The Art Jury is not in favor of the proposed relocated maintenance buildings which are shown in a prominent location with the rear of the structures facing the Association office entrance.
7. There are conflict points within the proposed parking lots. One conflict point may cause traffic to stack along La Granada. Remedial measures (e.g. a turnout lane) will further diminish room for screen landscaping of the site along La Granada.

Aasted Property I.D. J.2.1
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (5,942 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,028 sq. ft.), Pool/Spa                       

Mr. and Mrs. Aasted, Kristian Aasted and Designer Dena Gillespie attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Please move the Fire Department access stairway further away from the property line.
2. Please revise the layout of the hammerhead to move it further from the street and thereby increase the area available for landscape screening.  
3. Submit a Preliminary Application according to the RSF Association’s “New Submittal” schedule.

ENFORCEMENT ITEMS:

Woolley Post Office - Property I.D. 31.2.2
Enforcement: Covenant Violations

The Art Jury continued the review of the Covenant Violations to the meeting of May 20, 2008 for further discussion when a full Art Jury is present.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Bickoff Property I.D. 7.6.4
Colors and Materials

The Art Jury APPROVED the “Santa Barbara Sandstone” with bricks and tight joints –random, per the sample on site and photograph on file in the Association office.

Bushor Property I.D. 37.7.1
Workshop Application: Addition (856 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (32 sq. ft.), Fencing & Walls.Response to Covenant Violations: Garden Walls, Retaining Walls, Stone Veneer, Entry Gates, Concrete Driveway, Repaint           

The item was continued to the meeting of June 10, 2008 pending attendance of a full membership of the Art Jury.

Clark Property I.D. J.2.7
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (5,133 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (502 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Pool/Spa           

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 is submitted). 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. The floor levels shall be depicted between the poles with blue tape/ribbons.
3. 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.

Please note: The Art Jury required that unpaid submittal fees ($275) must be paid prior to any further project review.

Hanlon Property I.D. 22.2.3
Final Application: Addition (268 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (1,137 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing, Landscape, Propane Tank

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

1. The existing orchard shall be retained.
2. Submit a revised landscape plan for staff review and approval:
1. The proposed rock retaining wall for the rear lawn area has an unnatural shape and is not compatible with the topography. Boulders should be placed in natural patterns such as the proposed walls at the west side.
2. Incorporate additional landscaping in the area where the driveway is proposed for removal for screening from off-site views.
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.

Hardin Property I.D. 14.9.6
Preliminary Application/Response to Covenant Violation: Revise Entry Gate/Pilasters           

The Art Jury DENIED the revised Entry Gate and Pilasters with the following comments:

The Art Jury noted the Preamble to the Rancho Santa Fe Covenant contains the following statements;
 
"WHEREAS, 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 and the fine architecture and other improvements established by its property owners; and WHEREAS, these 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;..." (Covenant Preamble).
 
It is the opinion of the Art Jury that a " ...reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance..." required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant, and "fine architecture" is not achieved by the unapproved Entry Gate and Pilasters located at the driveway of the residence. 
 
The DENIED "as-built" Entry Gate includes the proposed modification of lowering the gate height to approximately 8 feet. The gate and pilasters are located within 120 feet of the edge of the road and are visible from the road. The gate is constructed of wrought iron and is currently over 9 feet tall and 16 feet wide. The pilasters that attach to the gate are approximately 8 feet tall and 3 feet wide. Wing walls extend approximately 20 feet from each pilaster to an end height of approximately 6 feet. The walls and pilasters are veneered with stone.

The gate at its present height and the proposed modified height of approximately 8 feet and the pilasters present height of 8 feet do not preserve and are not compatible with the “character of the community and rare landscape features and of upholding the quality of all future architecture and improvements.." as required in the Protective Covenant. Man-made features such as the gate and pilasters located near a road do not preserve the "the rare landscape features of Rancho Santa Fe".   
 
For the above reasons, the Art Jury could not make the finding required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant that the "as-built" gate and pilasters would maintain a "... reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance...."

Please remove the unapproved entry gate and pilasters within 21 days.

Kaestner Property I.D. 16.4.8
Workshop Application: Residence (6,731 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (709 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (748 sq. ft.), Detached Guesthouse (618 sq. ft.)

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Submit a Preliminary Application according to the RSF Association’s “New Submittal” schedule.
2. Reduce the size of the window on Bedroom #2, or eliminate the shutters. The shutters are not large enough to span the size of the window opening.

Kalench Property I.D. J.2.4
Preliminary Application: Residence/Garage (8,653 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,610 sq. ft.), Pool House (460 sq. ft.), Grading, Landscape

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

With the Final Application, please revise the retaining wall on the south side of the house to limit its height and prominence. Create a softer transition between the home’s pad and the slope, within the constraints of the leach field location. Consider a combination of retaining walls and slopes. 

Kunkle Property I.D. 30.1.3
Preliminary Application: Two Story Duplex (4,890 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (522 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (709 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garage (1,229 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Landscape, Colors and Materials

The Art Jury continued the application to the meeting of June 10, 2008 for further discussion when a full Art Jury is present.

Weller Property I.D. 10.4.2
Preliminary Application: Attached Covered Areas (120 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under Addition (449 sq. ft.), Fencing           

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

1. The existing landscaping shall be retained.
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.

cont. on Page 2