Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
RSF Golf Club - 8:00 a.m.
May 23, 2006

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 12 pages

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

Also Present: Building Commissioner Robert Green, Senior Planner Kirk Dakan, Associate Planner Arnold Keene, Consulting Architect Jim Kelley-Markham, Planning Director Keith Behner, Assistant Planner Liz Avalon, Board Member Ken King for GJS Trust Mediation, Board Member Ron McMahon for Lexar-Mesa Mediation and Monge Appeal and Administrative Assistant Jasie Gan           

The Minutes of the April 25 and May 9, 2006 meetings were approved as written.

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

Staff Reports: Robert Green reported that the Art Jury preview and regular meetings will be moved back into the Board Room beginning June 1, 2006.

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

GJS Trust Property I.D. 5.1.3
Continued Mediation: Residence/Garage (10,701 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (2,613 sq. ft.), Basement Wine Cellar/Mechanical Room (998 sq. ft.), Detached Guest House (1,760 sq. ft.), Colors & Materials

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

Board member Ken King conducted the mediation.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

As the review of the project progresses the level of detail required by the Art Jury for review increases. The overall form and placement of the project has been reviewed by the Art Jury [however, without seeing story poles reflecting the revised project]. The Art Jury therefore needs to see additional information on the particulars of the design. Listed below are areas where the Art Jury would like to see additional details as well as some requested revisions. The added information will give the Art Jury a better overall image of the project and help prevent any misconceptions.

1. Please provide two versions of the proposed south façade.
1. One version would be a dimensioned, scalable architectural elevation with descriptive notes or call-outs as necessary. Please do not include shadows in this version, as the shadows have tended to obscure some of the details.
2. The other version can be a more “artistic” rendering that conveys a feeling of the project as at sits on the property, including landscaping. You may include shadows but do not obliterate large areas with shadow because the amount of shadow will change during the course of the year. During the winter months, the amount of shadow will be far less than shown on previously submitted sketches.  
2. Please propose a different variety of slate.
1. Use a thicker type of slate that will add additional shadow lines and create greater texture and visual interest.
2. Use a slate that has greater color variation rather than a monochrome grey.
3. Please note that prior to the final approval of the roof material, the Art Jury will view a sample installation (approximately 100 square-feet) in the field.
3. Please provide additional details on the posts:
1. Describe the material
2. Include a dimensioned diagram.
3. Indicate if they are round or square.
4. Please provide an additional scaleable, dimensioned section through the room with the tallest plate height on the building.
5. Provide greater detail on the design of the chimneys. The current designs appear somewhat plain.
6. Please reduce the amount of glass on the south facing façade.
7. Please provide dimensions for the trellis timbers.
8. Provide additional details on the gutter/downspout design.
9. Please revise the stucco color. The currently proposed color has too much yellow and gold tone. It has been the Art Jury’s experience that yellow tones have greater visual prominence than some other choices.
10. Describe stucco texture.

Lexar-Mesa Property I.D. 27.7.
Continued Mediation: As-Built Items

Architect Don Looney and Mrs. Rashae Taylor attended the meeting.

Board member Ron McMahon conducted the mediation.

The Art Jury took action on one item which was subject to a Mediation (the as-built driveway) and three other items which were not subject to a Mediation (as-built pergola, patio, and grading).

Mediation item.
As-built driveway.

1. The as-built driveway shall be reduced to a maximum of twelve feet wide adjacent to the pavilion.
2. All free standing pilasters shall be removed.
3. Extensive planting shall be installed to completely screen the tennis pavilion.
4. Plans showing the above revisions (1-3) shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this letter.

The three as-built items were considered outside the mediation proceedings as follows

As-built trellis pergola.

The Art Jury approved this as-built item 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.

As-built guest house patio.

The Art Jury approved this as-built item 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.

Grading to the north of the lawn adjacent to the tennis pavilion.

The Art Jury denied the as-built grading with the following comments.

This slope shall be re-graded to provide more gently sloping, varied, naturally appearing grades. Landscaping shall be provided for the graded areas. Plans shall be submitted showing the above within 30 days of the date of this letter.

The Art Jury noted that the Preamble to the Rancho Santa Fe Protective 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…” (Covenant Preamble).

Additionally, 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 noted that grading and retaining walls have been installed to create a large flat pad on the existing underlying sloping topography in a different location than that shown on the approved plans. The as-built grading uses a combination of retaining walls and steep slopes. The embankments are not contoured with the surrounding terrain but spring at an abrupt angle from the more gently sloping, natural, terrain in an unnatural manner. 

In the opinion of the Art Jury the uniformity and steep gradient of the embankments all serve to emphasize the man-made nature of this feature and fail to integrate it into the natural “landscape features” of the site.

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 would be achieved by maintaining the rural appearance of the site by visually blending man made items into the environment.

For the above reasons the Art Jury concluded that the grading was not aesthetically pleasing and that the findings required by paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant could not be made.

As noted in prior Association correspondence, grading with out an association permit is in violation of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant.

While we do not anticipate any difficulty in resolving this matter, the Association’s adopted regulations require that we inform you that the Protective Covenant, Association Bylaws, and State law provide for both legal and administrative remedies for Covenant violations. If you take no action to remedy the Covenant violation, non-compliance may lead to suspension of Association privileges (e.g. voting, golf, tennis membership, building permits, inspections and approvals, etc.), the recordation of a lien against your property, and other charges. The Association also reserves the right to seek a court order to require you to return the unapproved work to its prior condition.

"Pursuant to the Davis-Stirling Act, you have the right to request Internal Dispute Resolution ("IDR") of this matter. A copy of the Association's IDR Procedures and Guidelines is enclosed.  Please note that a request for or commencement of IDR will not have any effect on the right of the association to initiate legal proceedings for the purpose of seeking the immediate injunctive relief described above."

Pursuant to Paragraphs 64-68 of the Protective Covenant, appeal rights are available to you.  In order to initiate an appeal, a letter requesting same must be received within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter.

Monge Property I.D. D.10
Appeal: As-built Wall and Architectural Details

Architect Jack Smyer and Lawyer Matt Peterson attended the meeting.

Board member Ron McMahon conducted the mediation.

The mediation was successful.

Please submit the following for staff review and approval:

1. A revised drawing of the patio wall as follows:
1. Show the east side of the patio wall (adjacent to the neighbor’s driveway) stepped down to a height no greater than six feet on the north side of the patio.
2. Illustrate a plaster top for the wall with a rounded edge.
2. A revised drawing of the front elevation showing a new design for the garage as follows:
1. The garage door and the garage door opening shall have a squared top in contrast to the curved top that was previously approved. The currently recessed, curved area shall be furred out so that the stucco is flush with the rest of the garage structure façade.
2. Include a manufacturer’s cut sheet of the proposed vertical-board garage door design to replace the previously approved panel design. The proposed garage door and hardware must be of a high quality.
3. Construction details of the corner window consistent with the approved design.
4. Construction details of the rosette window consistent with the approved exterior appearance.
1. The recess shall be beveled.
2. There shall be muntins in the glass per the approved plans.
3. Do not use the existing glass, submit a sample of the proposed glass.
5. When completing the balance of the project please ensure that all wood trim is consistent in color with the exposed rafter tails.

Heidel (Bickoff) Property I.D. 7.6.4
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (8,700 sq. ft.)

Mr. Bruce Bickoff, Ms. Jamie Steward, Mr. Steve Heidel and Architect Max Wuthrich attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. The Art Jury were not in favor of the building in the location proposed. A different structure roughly in the same location as the existing building is preferred.

S & S Properties Property I.D. 2.1.3 & 4
Subdivision

This letter is to provide you with the Art Jury’s comments on the proposed 3-lot subdivision (RSFA/TM-05-10, revised #1) reviewed at the Art Jury meeting of May 23, 2006.

In their letter dated February 9, 2006 the Art Jury provided specific feedback regarding what changes to the site design and what level of detail would be necessary to fully evaluate the proposed subdivision and address identified issues. The Art Jury reviewed your response to these requests at their meeting of May 23, 2006, and determined that in some cases you inadequately address issues the Art Jury raised and in other cases issues went completely unaddressed.

The following is the specific list of items that the Art Jury requested to see addressed prior to the Art Jury making a recommendation on the proposed subdivision. During their review on May 23, 2006, the Art Jury made the following comments regarding the subdivision proposal submitted response to their request.

1. General Suggestions
   • Conceptual residences and driveways should reflect fire department standards for turnarounds and hose pull lengths.
   • The applicant did not provide any documentation that he had contacted the fire department or made any effort to ensure that the residences and driveways reflect fire department standards. There was no change to the size of the turnaround depicted on proposed parcel 2, which the Art Jury had noted appears much too small. 
   • 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.
   • The applicant refused to provide these plans. The Art Jury was therefore unable to see the plans at a level of detail that may have helped them evaluate their concerns regarding the proposed building sites.
   • Provide a legend for specific lines and symbols, such as for the double lines depicted in some areas of cut and fill.
   • The applicant did not provide this information.
   • 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%.
   • Although there was no specific action required, the applicant did not change proposed designs to avoid areas with slopes greater than 25%. An example of this is detailed in the Parcel 1 site development issues.
2. Parcel 1 Site Development Issues
   • Eliminate the north 1/3 of the depicted residence, which is located over the side of a steep hill.
   • This proposed building location on a slope exceeding 25% was not changed.
   • 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.
   • The proposed grading and pad elevation was not changed.
   • Reduce the amount of paving at the entry court. The excessive paving in this location will eliminate areas for landscaping.
   • The applicants complied with this request.
   • The lower pad is too small for a tennis court or similarly sized structure.
   • The applicants complied with this request.
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.
   • Proposed cut and fill quantities were unchanged. There was no noticeable difference to pad stepping or proposed grading.
   • The level edge of the proposed pad creates an artificial appearance.
   • The proposed pad still has a level edge that will create an artificial appearance.
   • Grading for the “tuck under” garage is awkward with two driveways parallel to one another and steep slope in between.
   • The plans still depict two driveways parallel to one another with a steep slope in between.
   • Over reliance on 2:1 slopes creates an artificial landscape.
   • The plans continue to depict a reliance on very steep and 2:1 artificial slopes.
   • Placement of the garage at the street facing elevation of the house is an undesirable design.
   • The applicants complied with this request and changed the angle of entry to the garage.
   • Reduce the size of the residence. The house is too big for the pad, leaving insufficient room for screen landscaping, driveways, and turn-arounds.
   • The applicants reduced the size of the residence only slightly - from 9,450 square feet to 9,000 square feet.
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 residence still appears to be oversized in width.
   • The pad and residence are too close to the street, causing a crowded feeling.
   • The applicant has pulled the pad back from the street slightly. The improvement is considered to be minimal.
   • Placement of the front door could be problematic.
   • Without detailed plans, the Art Jury was unable to assess whether the applicant responded to this request.
   • 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.
   • Proposed cut and fill quantities were unchanged. There was no noticeable difference to pad stepping or proposed grading.
   • Retaining walls are excessive – 220’ in the back and 180’ in the front.
   • The applicant did reduce the length of retaining walls somewhat, but without detailed plans, the Art Jury was unable to assess whether the applicant responded to this request sufficiently.
   • The pad and grading crowd the drainage area.
   • The applicant complied with this request and pulled the pad out of the lowest point in the drainage area
     
   cont. on Page 2