Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
RSF Association Office - 8:00 a.m.
June 10, 2008

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 13 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

The Minutes of the May 20, 2008 meeting were approved as written.

Staff Reports:

Robert Green updated the Art Jury on the progress of the school design.

The Art Jury discussed the Update Committee’s changes to Chapter 44 of the Regulatory Code. Staff was instructed to research the parking standards of other communities and report back to the Art Jury.

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: Eight (8) Residential Units, Retail Space at Street Level, Subterranean Parking Structure, Grading, Landscape. 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, Floor Area Ratio Bonus Application           

Mr. Pinnsoneault, Architect Allard Jansen, Project Manager Todd Ray, Attorney Matt Peterson, Owner’s representative Lisa Beaumont, Traffic Engineer Justin Rasas, George Hershman and Christian Dick from Swinerton Management and Consulting attended the meeting.

Current Board Members Marie Addario, Lois Jones, Bill Beckman, Tim Sullivan, Steve Shillington, Kim Higgins and Incoming Board Members Tom Lang, Deb Plummer also attended the meeting.

Association Counsel Alan Zuckerman attended on behalf of the Association.

A staff report was presented with this item which is on file at the Association office.

The Building Commissioner noted that there was a discrepancy in the application between the stated number for the net lot area and the actual plan net lot area when measured by computer. Because this discrepancy causes the project to exceed the Regulatory code required FAR, it must be corrected or a variance must be filed before proceeding with this project.

The Art Jury deferred the proposal with the following comments:

1. Reduce the bulk of the project, particularly in the center of the property, so that it is more in harmony with other properties in the Village Commercial District. The Art Jury recommends eliminating unit # 7 for this purpose.
2. Redesign the center courtyard area. This area should have a more distinct Spanish Colonial Revival ‘Lilian Rice’-type design, in accordance with the "Village Architectural Design Guidelines".
3. The earth-filled void at the rear of the property below the two story units should be replaced with parking, as follows: the Art Jury is amenable to raising the elevation of the central courtyard so that any parking structure to the rear would be no more than 3.5 feet above the surface of this elevated courtyard. The surface of this elevated courtyard could then be interpreted as “finished grade” per the Regulatory Code. As a result, the adjacent parking structure which replaces the now earth-filled void would be interpreted to be a below-grade parking structure. Based on plans previously submitted, the Art Jury envisions that this new design would accommodate 17 more parking spaces than the currently submitted plan.
4. If the project is approved, it would be detrimental to the community if the project is then halted during construction due to a claim by an adjacent property owner that it has a prescriptive easement or other form of legal right to the dog-leg commonly known as the "alley". Please therefore provide further information about this potential risk, such as legal documents or a legal analysis of the potential for such claims and methods of reducing the risk of such claims.              
5. Assuming the applicant can revise the project to the Art Jury's satisfaction, the Art Jury is currently inclined to make the necessary findings to grant a variance from the applicable setbacks for the subterranean parking.  Please be advised, however, that (1) the Art Jury has not granted any variance to date, (2) the applicant should not rely on this letter as evidence that the Art Jury will grant the variance (and the Art Jury expressly reserves the right to deny the variance after considering all factors, including the revised plans) and (3) the applicant will also need to obtain the Association's Board of Director's approval of the variance in any event, and the Board is not bound by the decision of the Art Jury.              
6. The Art Jury looks forward to receiving the applicant's re-submittal. However, given the size of this project and its impact on the community, please be advised that Association staff will send notices to the community about the next Art Jury meeting on this matter under the same notice procedures as if this project was a new submittal.

Elmonte 3, LLC Property I.D. 11.1.3
Workshop Application: Residence (7,251 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (847 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (2,655 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garage (1,195 sq. ft.), Pool Cabana (225 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Pool/Spa

The project, submitted May 23, 2008, was continued to the June 24, 2008 Art Jury meeting.

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

Mr. Kunkle and Designer Dena Gillespie attended the meeting.

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

Please continue to refine the facades of the structure reviewed at the previous Workshop. At the Art Jury meeting, Ms. Gillespie agreed to meet with staff to resolve the Art Jury’s remaining design issues which primarily arise from a desire to simplify the facades and bring greater consistency to the design elements. Following Ms. Gillespie’s meeting with staff, a revised design must be submitted to the Art Jury incorporating the requested changes.

Although not previously discussed, staff has become aware that Chapter 62 (Common Interest Development Regulation) of the Rancho Santa Fe Regulatory Code pertains to this project if it were to be condominiumized. If it is the intent to make the units condominiums, a subdivision map per the requirements of Chapter 62 must be approved through the Rancho Santa Fe Board of Directors prior to filing a condominium map with the State of California.   

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

EcoStar Carlisle Review of Potential Pre-approved Roofing Material

Please provide photos and addresses of sites where the material has been used for 2 + years.

ENFORCEMENT ITEMS:

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

The Art Jury thanked Mr. Woolley for the letter submitted. The Art Jury will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that the post office is in compliance.

Fardeen Property I.D. 33.7.4
Enforcement: Grading Violation

The Art Jury requested staff conduct an inspection to confirm that the applicant is in conformance with the Art Jury letter dated May 8, 2008.

Additionally, the Art Jury will require that applicant provide a landscape plan for staff review prior to June 24, 2008. 

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Bushor Property I.D. 37.7.1
As-Built Items/ Response to Covenant Violations: Garden Walls, Retaining Walls, Stone Veneer, Entry Gates, Concrete Driveway, Repaint

The Art Jury considered the As-Built structures and made the following decisions:

The Art Jury approved the following items:

1. Revised pool design.
2. Repaint.

The Art Jury does not consider that the following as-built structures and modifications are aesthetically pleasing.

The Art Jury denied the following as-built items:

1. Garden walls/pilasters/ gate/ pilaster lights
2. Applied rock at residence entry.
3. Water slide.

The Art Jury deferred the following items:

1. Retaining wall at parking space.
2. Landscaping.

The Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant contains the following statement:

“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).

The Art Jury considers that the as- built garden walls are uneven and shoddily constructed. Additionally, the rock material which has been applied to the walls is not consistent with the design features of the main building. Walls have been placed at the edge of slope which make the walls difficult to screen with landscaping (if perimeter landscaping is removed).

Further, the rock has been applied in a piecemeal manner (some portions of the wall are clad in stone; other portions are stucco) and the rock material itself has the appearance of pavers rather than rock walling material.

Slender stucco pilasters of varying heights are included in the wall and the walls are capped with a thin layer of stone facing material. The design of the pilasters is not consistent with the

design of the residence and the capping material appears insubstantial visually in the opinion of the Art Jury.

The same type of rock that was applied to the perimeter walls has been applied to the area around the entrance to the residence. Additionally a water slide and fountain has been constructed of similar rock and stucco material. The Art Jury considers that this type of rock and stucco material with this particular design and application is not consistent with the ranch style of the original residence.

Lights have been placed on top of pilasters. In accordance with the Rancho Santa Fe “Outdoor Lighting Regulation”, “light sources shall not be visible from any public road, public space, or street or, from any other property”. Lights placed on top of pilasters are visible from offsite and are therefore not consistent with this regulation.

A retaining wall has been constructed to support a parking space. The Art Jury considers that this element is unsightly and prominent and should be screened adequately with landscaping.

Landscaping has been added to the site which is tropical in nature and is not consistent with landscaping for the majority of Rancho Santa Fe. A “hedge” of palm trees has been planted to screen portions of the property. Over time this hedge will not provide effective screening. Submit a plan which shows the effective screening of the residence by materials which are consistent with plantings throughout Rancho Santa Fe.

It is the responsibility of the Art Jury to make aesthetic judgments. The Art Jury does not consider that the as-built items are aesthetically pleasing for the above reasons and is not able to make the finding under, 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.”  

In order to correct the violations the following must be completed within 21 days of the date of this letter:

• Remove the items that have been denied and return these areas to the original condition. Call for an inspection when these items are completed.
• Submit a plan with modifications for the items that have been deferred.

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

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Submit a Preliminary Application according to the RSF Association’s “New Submittal” schedule.

Corpal Property I.D. 31.1.13
Final Application: Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Repaint, Colors and Materials, Stone Veneer

The Art Jury APPROVED the patio cover over the deck on the side of the house.

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

1. Please make the pilasters at the front wall narrower (as viewed from the roadway) to reduce their mass.
2. Please eliminate the stone from the front wall pilasters.
3. Please eliminate the stone veneer from the front of the house.
4. Please revise the details of the shade structure to include “knife-blade connections” and other hidden connections.
5. Please move the walls that are closest to the house further back to allow room for landscaping between the autocourt and the walls.

Delaney Property I.D.20.4.1, 2 & 5
Workshop Application: Story Poles Bulk Check – Residence/Garage (6,515 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (800 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (1,210 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (1,280 sq. ft.)

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Overall comments regarding the entire proposed development.
1. The Art Jury requests that the applicant reconsider their position on the merging of the parcels. The processing of the applications will be easier if the parcels are merged. Alternately, submit a separate application for each lot. The individual parcels could be developed in the future without a subdivision; therefore, the Art Jury is requiring the applicant to submit separate applications for each parcel. See the comments for each respective parcel below.
2. Since the proposed project would occupy all three parcels and be developed as a whole, (even though each parcel will have a separate application) the Art Jury will require that all of the applications for each of the lots be reviewed concurrently. No parcel will receive approval prior to the other parcels also receiving approval.
3. Prior to Final approval on any parcel, the proposed driveway must have a reciprocal access agreement (to the satisfaction of the Association) recorded over it.
4. Please resubmit the grading plan for the entire length of the proposed driveway with each application.
5. Art Jury members expressed concern regarding the placement of a guesthouse alone on a separate legal lot.
2. Comments regarding Block 20, Lot 4, Parcel 1  (APN: 266-20-31)
1. The mass and bulk of the proposed home based on observations of the story poles appears acceptable.
2. Please reduce the amount of hardscape.
3. Submit a Workshop application concurrently with Workshop applications for the other two parcels.
3. Comments regarding Block 20, Lot 4, Parcel 2  (APN: 266-20-24)
1. Reduce the height of the retaining wall along the south side of the pool.
2. Provide a ¼” –scaled, dimensioned, cross-section through the pool area to illustrate the height of the retaining wall (show existing and proposed topography).
3. Submit a Workshop application concurrently with Workshop applications for the other two parcels.
4. Comments regarding Block 20, Lot 4, Parcel 5  (APN: 266-20-23)
1. The Art Jury will discuss the advisability of the guest house with the next application.
2. Provide a ¼” –scaled, dimensioned, cross-section through the slope below the guest house and adjacent driveway (show existing and proposed topography). 
3. Submit a Workshop application concurrently with Workshop applications for the other two parcels.

Dlugos  Property I.D. 33.14.5
Final Application: As-Built Landscape, As-Built Solar, Repaint           

The Art Jury reviewed the following items:

1. The Art Jury APPROVED the repaint as submitted.
2. The Art Jury APPROVED the artificial grass subject to staff review and approval:
1. The Art Jury noted substantial landscape screening shall be planted along the fence surrounding the grass area within 21 days of the date of this letter. Contact staff for further direction.
2. The area is under 1000 S.F. and is located in an area where a lawn is compatible with the surrounding landscape. 
3. The Art Jury APPROVED the larger solar panel subject to staff review and approval:
1. Provide landscape screening at the downhill side of the panels within 21 days of the date of this letter.
4. The Art Jury APPROVED the landscaping along the fence subject to staff review and approval:
1. Incorporate additional large shrubs for screening of the fence from off-site views within 21 days of the date of this letter. Contact staff for further direction.
5. The Art Jury noted the garage has been modified and is in compliance with the RSF Protective Covenant.
6. The Art Jury DENIED the smaller solar panel with the following comments:
1. The solar panel is within the side-yard setback. Accessory structures such as solar panels may not be placed inside building setbacks. The existing smaller solar panel is within the 20 foot side-yard setback.
2. Remove the solar panel or locate it outside the set-back pending further review by the Art Jury within 21 days of the date of this letter.

Floit Property I.D. 29.5.15
Workshop Application: Story poles Bulk Check – Residence/Garage (10,381 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,824 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (750 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (600 sq. ft.)           

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Submit a Preliminary Application according to the RSF Association’s “New Submittal” schedule.
2. The circular turnaround at the entry shall be redesigned to include more landscaping (please use a hammerhead design with a garden- like appearance).

cont. on Page 2