Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2005Return to Art Jury
Present: President Ken Markstein, Vice President Diane Larsen, Secretary Mark McClure and Members Nancy Ullman and Gail Frazar-Mele
Also Present: Building Commissioner Robert Green, Senior Planner Kirk Dakan, Associate Planner Arnold Keene, Consulting Architect Jim Kelley-Markham, Administrative Assistant Nadine Garcia and Director Ken King, who mediated the Singh appeal.
The Minutes of the July 12th meeting were approved as amended.
Consent Calendar: A motion was made, seconded and passed to approve the consent calendar.
Staff Report: Building Commissioner Green distributed the Action Item List from the Art Jury’s Retreat on July 7, 2005 and requested that the Art Jury review and provide comments.
Building Commissioner Green handed out a revised list of architects that have recently done work in the Covenant for the Art Jury’s review and approval.
He also informed the committee of Association counsel’s opinion on the mandatory presence of owners at Workshops and Appeals. Discussion ensued. It was agreed to set aside time on the next agenda to discuss this further.
CONFERENCE ITEMS:
Singh Property I.D. 27.2.2
Appeal: As-Built Entry Gate
Mr. and Mrs. Singh, Luanna Hallstrom, Larry Reddel and attorney Roger Woolley attended the meeting.
Director Ken King conducted the mediation.
The Art Jury APPROVED the modifications to the “As-Built” gate with the following conditions:
- Submit a color sample for all iron work.
- Submit dimensions of the iron features
- Please complete the modifications within 30 days of staff approval of items #1 and 2.
Zagara California Investments LLC Property I.D. 2129.149.6
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (6,500 sq. ft.), Basement (800 sq. ft.), Guest House (1,000 sq. ft.)
Stephen Dunn and Doug Mansfield attended the meeting.
Proceed to Preliminary application.
- The height of the downhill edge of the pool should be further reduced.
- The Art Jury reserved comment on the wing walls until further details are proposed.
- Provide a Rancho Santa Fe Fire Department approved landscape plan with the preliminary application.
Because of the proposal’s location over an existing lot line, any Art Jury decision will be subject to the finalization of the Boundary Adjustment application and Association permits cannot be issued until this is completed.
Ridge/Shannon Property I.D. 45.2.3
Workshop: Grading
Lawrence Shannon attended the meeting.
The Art Jury DENIED the “As-Built” grading.
The Art Jury reviewed as a workshop, the applicant’s proposal to reduce the unapproved flat pad area and modify the slopes to a more natural appearing slope. The applicant stated the need for the flat area was for training dogs in an obstacle course. The Art Jury commented that the man-made graded pad could not be approved if submitted as a preliminary or final application and stated the area shall be restored to the original condition.
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 would be derived from the maintenance of the rural appearance of the site resulting from the retention of areas available for landscaping. The proposal is not consistent with the Protective Covenant objective of “maintaining this character of community and rare landscape features”.
The proposal is for approval of an “as-built” grading violation with modifications that reduce the size of the current unapproved pad. The site originally was sloped downward from the residence to a low natural drainage canyon along the road. Soil was imported onto the site to create a flat pad (9000SF +/-) with the highest fill slope at 10’ feet. The fill slopes currently appear unnatural with slopes exceeding 2:1 in some areas. The modified proposal would reduce the fill slopes to 4:1 and reduce the flat pad to approximately 5400SF (+/-).
The Art Jury noted that the location, on a prominent hillside that is visible from the road, coupled with the large area affected by the grading, add to the level of prominence and do not preserve the rural “character of community”. For the above reasons the Art Jury found the grading to not be aesthetically pleasing and could not make the finding required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant that the proposal would maintain a “… reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance….”
Please remove the imported soil and restore the site to the original condition, including landscaping, within 30 days of the date of this letter.
Quantum Estates II Subdivision: RSFA/TM 03-02, Revised #1 Paseo Delicias
1. Introduction. On May 6, 2004, the Association’s Board of Directors approved the tentative map of the Quantum Estates II subdivision, with certain conditions. The Board approved the map subject to Sections 60.0801 and 60.0801.01 of the Association’s Regulatory Code, which provide, “No Subdivision approved or conditionally approved by the Board of Directors shall be considered final until: [§] A Subdivision is recorded as final… by the County of San Diego and such Subdivision is found by the Manager to be in substantial conformance with the approval or conditional approval granted by the Board of Directors…” (emphasis added).
The subdivision map you are now processing with the County is different than the map approved by the Association’s Board. Therefore, a determination must now be made whether the current map, with all the proposed revisions, is in “substantial conformance” with the map approved by the Board. The first step in this process is for the Manager to obtain the Art Jury’s comments.
This letter is to provide you with the Art Jury comments from its meeting on July 26th, which you and other representatives of Quantum Estates II attended. These comments respond to the draft subdivision map you submitted to the Association on July 7th to replace RSFA/TM 03-02, Revised #1. Although it was explained to you at the meeting that the next step in the process after Art Jury review would be to take the revised map to the Board, a re-reading of the Regulatory Code shows that the correct process is for the Manager to make the determination of substantial conformance; this is discussed below.
The balance of this letter (1) discusses the need for more complete submittals from the applicant in the future, (2) identifies new features in your revised map that were not a part of the original map previously approved by the Association’s Board, (3) summarizes your reasons for such revisions, (4) discusses the Art Jury’s comments on the revised map and (5) describes the next step in the Association’s review process.
2. Necessity for Submittals to be Complete. Please note that the current map was incomplete. While the Art Jury and staff understand that your intent was to provide the Association with early notice of County and agency requirements, for future submittals and reviews all plans must be signed by the property owner or designated representative, and by you. All features should be labeled (e.g., turn-around drive on Parcel 3), and existing and proposed contours should be labeled and clearly legible. Complete information and/or explanation was lacking on changes to grading, particularly for locations, volume, and configuration, as well as for changes to pad configurations compared to the previous depictions on the tentatively approved map. Also, there was no explanation as to why the gross and net acreages for some of the parcels have changed from the conditionally approved map, even though the parcel sizes and configurations are apparently unchanged.
3. New Features of Revised Map. Below is a listing of the new features depicted on your revised map. These features, which are listed as one proceeds generally from west to east, include but are not necessarily limited to:
1. A realignment of the primary access road as it enters the subdivision
2. A new bridge on the primary access road near Parcels 1 and 2
3. A new bridge to access the driveway to Parcel 1
4. New retaining wall on the primary access road
5. A new detention basin on Parcels 1 and 2
6. A new turn-around drive on Parcel 3
7. Enlargement of the berm on the north portion of Parcel 1
8. New Irrigation District access road over a portion of the berm
9. Revised contouring and grading of the road embankment
10. Swales along the higher elevations of the main access and brow ditches
11. Enlargement of the width of the emergency access road from 12 feet to 24 feet at the northeast corner of the subject site
12. New utility access roads on Parcels 6 and 7
13. Re-location of the tennis court on Parcel 6 from the west side of the pad to the east side
14. A new detention basin on Parcels 6 and 7
15. Changes to pad sizes and configurations on Parcels 1, 2, 6 and 7
16. Modifications to certain gross and net acreages of several parcels, as specified on the right side of the revised map, when compared to the map conditionally approved by the Board
4. Applicant’s Explanations for Revisions to Map. Quantum’s explanation on the realignment of the primary access road: the realignment to the north was done in order to avoid wetlands.
Quantum’s explanation on the bridges: In order to get over the wetland, the main bridge is proposed to be a pre-fabricated metal bridge to be set in place in toto in order to eliminate any disturbance on the wetland that a constructed bridge would entail. The bridge would be approximately 10 feet in length and likely require guard rails on each side, probably extending beyond the length of the bridge. Quantum feels that placing a veneer over the metal bridge will result in “proper aesthetics.” The headwalls of the bridge will be made of concrete rather than metal. A smaller bridge has been added for Parcel 1 in order to obtain access to the driveway.
Quantum’s explanation on the retaining wall: This wall would only be on the north side of the road, across a portion of Parcel 1 and to a lesser extent Parcel 2. The wall would be about 8 to 9 feet in height and approximately 120 feet in length. The wall is proposed to be of such length in order to accommodate the trail that was a condition of the tentatively approved subdivision map. A three foot rail will be placed along the retaining wall.
Quantum’s explanation of the detention basins: The addition of the detention basins is to treat the runoff prior to entering the wetlands, and are to hold standing water only during the worst rain events, after which they would return to a dry state. The size of the basins have taken into account the maximum amount of development shown on the map as well as the conceptual tennis courts that are depicted. The appearance of these basins is flexible so long as there is sufficient capacity for the designed runoff.
Quantum’s explanation on the berm: The enlargement of the berm on the north portion of Parcel 1 is required pursuant County regulations for noise reduction for the benefit of Parcels 1 and 2, according to Quantum, and will not exceed 10 feet of fill in vertical height.
Quantum’s explanation on the berm road: The new access road over a portion of the berm is at the request of the Irrigation District. This road will be straight over the easement rather than follow topography.
Quantum’s explanation on the swales and brow ditches: Swales along the higher elevations of the main access and brow ditches in various locations throughout the site will be installed, and are necessary in order to provide drainage to the detention basin on Parcels 1 and 2. The concrete drainages are not shown on the map.
Quantum’s explanation on the enlargement of the emergency access road: The width of this access at the northeast corner of the subject site has been increased from 12 feet to 24 feet. This is due to Fire District requirements to improve the perception of emergency responders that this access is indeed an emergency access. The explanation given was that many drivers of emergency vehicles during the fires last year in San Diego County overlooked smaller (e.g., 12 feet) emergency accesses, and therefore the Fire District is now requiring more apparent or obvious access points.
Quantum’s explanation for new utility access roads on Parcels 6 and 7: These are at the request of the Community Services District (CSD) and SDGE. CSD has a master plan for improved sewer alignments and the [15 foot paved] road will allow access for maintenance.
Additional points can be found in your letter dated July 6, 2005. I will now provide the Art Jury’s comments given at the meeting on these changes.
5. Art Jury’s Comments. While detailed grading plans associated with these new site planning features are not being shown with your revised map, it is clear to the Art Jury that the detention ponds, utility access roads, retaining walls, the sound attenuating berm, along with all the other proposed changes, will engender substantial grading at different locations than previously identified on the map. Details regarding the extent and location of grading are undisclosed, as are impacts on pad locations and sizes as well as changes to net and gross acreages and other design features. However, these new features, individually and collectively, constitute a significant departure from the map conditionally approved by the Board, and the Art Jury finds that these revisions materially alter and negatively impact the planning of the site. If these site planning features are indeed inflexible requirements of the County and the other applicable agencies, then the Art Jury believes that such features have so altered the intent of the Association’s original approval as to make the revised map ineligible for finalization as it does not meet either the required findings or the substantial conformance requirement of the Regulatory Code. Overall, the Art Jury noted that although the map boundaries are the same, the proposed and/or conceptual revisions are not aesthetically pleasing.
Finally, while the Art Jury and staff recognize that the County and other agencies may have specific objectives not shared by the Association, it is neither the Association’s duty nor obligation to embrace such objectives if they are undesirable and contrary to the Association’s Governing Documents, including its Regulatory Code and its illustrative Residential Design Guidelines. Rather, where design features are contrary to these authorities and standards, the Association has the obligation to oppose them. The Art Jury finds that the proposed revisions result in a map that is significantly worse and substantially less acceptable than the map tentatively approved by the Board on May 6, 2004.
6. Next Step in Association’s Review Process. Pursuant to Section 60.0801.01 of the Regulatory Code, the Manager shall determine if the revised map substantially conforms to RSFA/TM 03-02, Revised #1 as approved by the Board on May 6, 2004. The Art Jury’s opinion is not binding on the Manager, but the Manager will take such opinion into account in arriving at his decision. The Manager is now considering the opinion of the Art Jury as part of his review process, and staff will contact you as soon as the Manager determines whether the revised map is in substantial conformance with the previously approved map.
Applegate Boundary Adjustment Block 5, Lot 1, Parcels 2 & 4
At their July 26, 2005 meeting, the Art Jury considered the required findings related to the submitted Applegate boundary adjustment map, RSFA/BA-05-06, (date-stamped June 24, 2005), and voted to forward to the Board of Directors a recommendation of conditional approval with applicable standard conditions, as contained in Chapter 60 of the Regulatory Code, and the following special conditions.
- Prior to the finalization of the boundary adjustment, the existing fencing must be removed or relocated so that it does not cross the boundaries of the new property lines.
- Pursuant to Chapter 40 (Animal Keeping Regulation) of the Association’s Regulatory Code, as a result of the proposed changes to the horsekeeping facilities on the proposed parcels, the applicants must apply for new horsekeeping permits prior to the finalization of the application.
- The existing shared driveway access shall be maintained.
The Board of Directors will conduct a public hearing and consider the application and the Art Jury’s recommendations at their meeting on Thursday, August 4, 2005, beginning at 9:00 a.m. at the Association office. You and/or your client are invited to attend this meeting and speak on behalf of the application should you desire to do so. A copy of the staff report will be available for pick-up at the Association office on Friday, July 29, 2005 after 3 p.m.
CONSTRUCTION SITE SIGNS: Board Meeting of August 4, 2005
Park Villas (Marshall) Property I.D. 24.11.11 B & W Architects.
Sanderson Property I.D. 11.5.7 B & W Architects.
The Art Jury is recommending approval of the signs to the Board of Directors subject to the standard Temporary Construction Site Sign conditions.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Bollert Lot 14, Via Recanto - Property I.D. 21.3.7
Preliminary: Residence/Garage (7,605 sq. ft.), Covered Patios (1,317 sq. ft.), Guest House/Cabana (881 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (700 sq. ft.) Pool, Landscape, Colors & Materials, Propane Tank
The Art Jury APPROVED the Preliminary application with the following conditions:
- Lower the height of the guesthouse by three feet.
- Retain mature trees and provide screening on the south boundary.
The Art Jury DEFERRED the Landscape plan for staff review and approval with the following comments:
- Substitute a larger evergreen screening tree species where the Peach trees at the eastside are proposed. The proposed trees will not provide sufficient screening of the residence from off-site views.
- Incorporate additional screening trees at the north side of the garage and adjoining hammerhead. Additional trees should be incorporated north of the exercise room.
- 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”.
Bowen Partners Property I.D. G.1
Final: Replace Garage door, Wrought Iron Arch and Planters with landscape
The Art Jury could not recommend approval to the Board at this time.
1. Please eliminate the iron archway. If it is your intent to create a feeling of separation between the patio and the sidewalk as well as a sense of entry it is recommended that you propose a low gate in place of the arch.
2. The Art Jury believes that the proposed planter wall could be acceptable as long as the detailing was of high quality. With your next application please provide additional information regarding the planter wall:
a. Detail the proposed planter walls.
i. Scaled plans at a ¼-inch scale.
ii. Show dimensions
iii. Provide color and material samples
b. Landscape materials
c. Eliminate the existing white trellis material and propose a screen that is consistent with the rest of the proposed design.
3. The replacement doors with the windows are acceptable and could be approved when the rest of the design is considered acceptable to the Art Jury.
The subject property is in a commercial land use class. The project therefore requires an approval by the Association’s Board of Directors after it receives a recommendation from the Art Jury, as provided in Article IV, Section 6(b) of the Rancho Santa Fe Association’s Bylaws. Please be advised that if the Art Jury recommends approval of your project (or if the Art Jury recommends approval with conditions and you are satisfied with such conditions), the Board will be able to approve the project by a simple majority vote of the Board. Conversely, if the Art Jury eventually recommends disapproval of your project, (or if the Art Jury recommends approval with conditions and you are dissatisfied with such conditions), then approval of the project by the Board of Directors requires “an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the Board of Directors.” Association Bylaws Article IV, Section 6(b).
It is the Art Jury’s belief that the project can be revised to the satisfaction of all parties. The Art Jury therefore requests that you revise the design so that the Art Jury may eventually recommend to the Board to approve the project.
You therefore have a choice at this time. You can either submit a new proposal to the Art Jury that is responsive to the Art Jury’s comments, or you can inform the Association that you want the Art Jury to render a recommendation of disapproval so that you can present your project directly to the Board. If you request an Art Jury recommendation of disapproval, the Association will deliver a formal notice of such Art Jury recommendation to you, so that you will be able to submit the project directly to the Board for consideration.
Feldman Property I.D. 16.5.4
Preliminary Application: Residence/Garage (8,708 sq. ft.), Guest House (898 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (136 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fence, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Pool, Landscape, Lighting
The Art Jury DENIED the Preliminary application with the following comments:
GRADING / SITE PLAN
1. As previously stated, please keep the home and associated development (patios, etc.) on the existing pad.
a. Please reduce the amount of fill on the slope at the rear of the house.
b. Reduce the height of the retaining walls at the rear of the house.
c. Large amounts of fill and or retaining walls will create an artificial appearance to the topography.
d. It is recognized that there is some stepping in the home’s floor plan, but the stepping is insufficient considering the severely sloping site.
e. To achieve the above will require alterations to the home’s currently proposed footprint.
f. Show elevations of all the different pad levels including patios, pool and terraces.
2. The proposed new driveway could be acceptable to the Art Jury, contingent on appropriate grading for the driveway and the project as a whole.
ARCHITECTURE
3. Please create a cohesive appearance for the architecture. The current design uses a multiplicity of architectural elements, that when taken together, do not accurately describe any definable design type. Please create a design with a stronger, definite character.
a. Create greater consistency with the glazing elements.
i. There is a multiplicity of window forms and proportions. A certain amount of variety can be desirable; however, the currently proposed glazing incorporates too many disparate shapes and sizes.
ii. The proportion of the large window on the west end of the garage has a horizontal orientation whereas the other windows on the house have vertical orientation.
iii. The proposed pocket doors should be consistent in appearance with the other glazing elements.
b. Please revise the patio roof columns. The proposed patio roof columns are not consistent in appearance either 1) between the different patio roofs, or 2) with the appearance of the rest of the house.
4. Please create an overall building form that has more visual interest. It is not enough to break up the bulk of the proposed building with roofed projections and window placement.
5. Use roof shapes that are compatible with the design as a whole. The use of flat roofed areas can be appropriate with some architectural types; however, the proposed flat roof does not have any relationship to the rest of the design and appears foreign to the balance of the structure.
6. Create a design that is specifically designed around the unique characteristics, (both opportunities and constraints), of the subject site.
PROCEDURE
7. Submit a new design concept which responds to the above comments for a Workshop before applying for a Preliminary Application.
Any revised application will be considered a “new” application and must be submitted according to the “new” submittal deadline found in the Art Jury Submittal Schedule.
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…” 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;…” In the opinion of the Art Jury the project does not maintain the character of the community because the design’s inconsistent use of incompatible forms and materials creates a disjointed appearance for the architecture.
Paragraph 46 of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant requires projects “to insure a uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness.” Paragraph 154 further states that “A design must be reasonably good in order to be approved by the Art Jury. A poorly designed example of architecture, regardless of its proposed cost, shall be disapproved.” The Art Jury considers that a “reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness” would be derived from the use of consistent building forms and consistent use of architectural detailing.
The presently proposed design, with its use of inconsistent and inappropriate forms and detailing is “a poorly designed example of architecture.”
Paragraph 155 of the Protective Covenant states that: “The design of the building must be such as will, in the opinion of the Art Jury be reasonably appropriate to its site and harmonize with its surroundings.” The Art Jury determined that the site plan and design are not “appropriate to its site” and would not “harmonize with its surroundings” because the project proposes significant amounts of grading and fill slopes on the hillside.
The project proposes the replacement of an existing home with a new residence. The site is a hillside with an existing graded pad that was created for the existing home. The proposal would increase the size of the level, graded pad by cutting into the slope on the west and increasing the amount of fill on the east side of the pad as well as tall retaining wall. The architecture incorporates the use of roof forms and design elements which create an incoherent overall appearance.
Holmlund Property I.D. 36.14.3
Preliminary: Detached Garage/Workspace (500 sq. ft.),
Pavilion (289 sq. ft.)
The Art Jury denied the proposal. The Art Jury evaluated the revised proposal, however they considered that the project did not address the comments which they had previously provided. The Art Jury re-iterated their prior comments on the proposal with additional comments as follows:
The building is proposed in a prominent elevated location and grading of a portion of a natural knoll is proposed. The Art Jury noted that the original home and accessory buildings were designed to minimize grading and be screened by the knoll. The Art Jury is not in favor of this proposal since it will eliminate the screening effect of the knoll and place a structure in a prominent location.
Some grading is also proposed in 25% slopes. Chapter 41 of the Regulatory Code states the following:
“No grading for any purpose, ….shall be permitted in existing slopes of greater than 25 percent gradient”. (41.0301)
Because of the proposed design location (graded into a knoll in front of the existing buildings on the site) and building size, the proposed building will be prominent. The Art Jury does not consider that the “grading, architecture and building locations are all designed to preserve as much as possible the natural aesthetic appearance of the property as well as to fit the buildings as unobtrusively as possible into the restricted slopes”. Additionally because of the size of the structure and its placement on and adjacent to a knoll a “material effect on a significant landform will result” and the proposal will not “preserve natural landforms”, or “maintain the rural character of the community”.
The Proposal therefore does not comply with the purpose and intent or the specifics of Chapter 40 of the Rancho Santa Fe Regulatory Code.
Because the building does not preserve the natural features of the site and will be prominent the Art Jury found that the proposal was not aesthetically pleasing and therefore they also found that the project does not “insure a uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness, in exterior and physical appearance of said property and improvements” as required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant.
The Art Jury again encouraged the applicant to explore alternate locations and designs including but not limited to the following:
- Split the structure into separate buildings,
- Locate the building behind the existing garage,
- Add a tandem space behind the existing garage.
- Consider a location between the rear of the existing cabana and the vineyard.
- Convert the existing guest house to a garage – extend behind the existing garage.
Please note any proposed location should not be prominent and should not result in grading of prominent natural landforms.
Huntington Hotel 2129.147
Preliminary: Outdoor Fireplace, Landscape Screening
The Art Jury DEFERRED the Project for staff review and approval as a Final application with the following comments:
- Within 21 days of the date of this letter provide a landscaping plan which shows complete screening of all the fireplaces by a continuous hedge. Minimum 15 gallon size materials shall be used.
- The screen hedge shall be installed within 21 days of the date of approval to the satisfaction of the Art Jury.
- 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”.
Janopaul Property I.D. 2129.50.1
Pool, Deck, Stairs
The Art Jury DEFERRED the project with the following comments:
1. Eliminate the steep, artificial-looking fill slopes by utilizing retaining walls for cut and fill.
a. The retaining wall below the pool should be no higher than 18 inches.
2. Submit an accurate, scaled and dimensioned cross-section through the pool/patio and the slopes above it and below it.
3. Make the pool enclosure fence work with the existing landscaping and topography:
a. The fence should follow the contours and be placed between the rows of citrus rather than forming a rectangle that has no relation to the topography or grove.
b. The pool fence shall have wood posts.
4. A landscape plan will be required with your next submittal.
Kendall Property I.D. 2129.114
Reconsideration of required staggered pattern to re-roof with Protex
The Art Jury reviewed your request to not have a staggered pattern. After careful consideration the Art Jury determined that they would not approve the request.
The Art Jury’s role in reviewing the appropriateness of roofing materials is described in Section 29, Paragraph 160 of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant: “Roofs shall be of tile, shingles or shakes of a color and type approved by the Art Jury.”
The Art Jury noted that the successful appearance of artificial roof material relies on using the approved stagger pattern, because of the uniformity of the artificial materials. Original wood materials are more irregular in appearance than artificial even if the ends of the materials are lined up. The staggered pattern of the artificial roof material compensates for uniform appearance of the artificial material and creates a more authentic appearance.
Additionally, the Art Jury noted that approval of this material without a stagger could set an undesirable precedent for the approval of other artificial roof materials without a stagger. Cumulatively this would not be aesthetically pleasing.
PO Box A, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Email: info@rsfassociation.org