Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
RSF Association Office - 8:00 a.m.
August 7, 2007

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 13 pages

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

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

The Minutes of the July 24, 2007 meeting were approved as written.

Staff Reports:

Robert Green reported that the developer has decided to make additional changes to ‘The Lilian” in response to the community’s feedback.

Jim Kelley-Markham reported that he is working on posting the training program and Art Jury handouts on the Association website.

Robert Green informed the Art Jury of the Realtors Workshop to be held on August 14, 2007 at the RSF Garden Club. The Art Jury would like staff to clarify horsekeeping permits/applications with the realtors.

New Business:

The Art Jury and staff discussed that horsekeeping approvals should be linked to its facilities.  Jack Queen moved to include this condition with all horsekeeping approvals. All were in favor.

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

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

Rothbard &  Property I.D. 2129.38 & 136
RSF Association Boundary Adjustment

At their August 7, 2007 meeting, the Art Jury considered the required findings related to the submitted Rothbard/RSFA boundary adjustment map, RSFA/BA-07-01, (date-stamped July 19, 2007), 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.

The Board of Directors will conduct a public hearing and consider the application and the Art Jury’s recommendations at their meeting on Thursday, September 6, 2007 beginning at 9 a.m. at the Association offices. 

Oldfield Property I.D. 35.4.3
Continued Mediation:Art Jury’s decision letter from June 14, 2007           

Mr. Oldfield and Architect Douglas Fess attended the meeting.

Board Member Steve Shillington conducted the mediation. Art Jury Member Mark McClure abstained.

The President of the Art Jury noted that only incremental changes have been made to each submittal in the past, and that the Art Jury had not previously been in favor of providing a time appointment to discuss such incremental changes. He noted that the Art Jury expects the applicant to fully address Art Jury comments with the next application.

The Art Jury had the following comments:

1. The submitted plans were incomplete and could not be regarded as a Preliminary Application.  The proposal was therefore reviewed as a Workshop application. The incomplete Preliminary Application items include but are not limited to:
1. Landscaping plan showing sizes types and quantities of materials (including accurate locations of existing trees to be retained).
2. Grading plan.
3. Building elevations.
4. Story poles.
5. Building size data

Please refer to the application submission checklist to complete future Preliminary Applications.

2. The building appears to have basically the same floor plan that was previously submitted.
3. The Art Jury is not in favor of the bulk of the building. Significantly reduce the bulk of the buildings as follows:

• Eliminate the theatre and recreation room or place these elements in a true basement. Keep this wing of the building away from the north property line and provide landscape buffering.
• Eliminate /rearrange portions of the master bedroom wing to move this wing away from the north property line and provide more landscape buffering.
• Ensure that the overall building is moved significantly away from the north property line. Additionally provide a minimum twenty foot wide landscape buffer along the entire northern boundary immediately adjoining the property line.
• Place one more car in the tuck-under garage (leave a 2 car garage at grade).
• Significantly reduce the size of the guest/exercise building. This building shall be revised to be only a relatively small guest house.

4. Show existing trees accurately on a survey.
5. Provide an accurate conceptual grading plan.
6. The building elevations were not submitted in sufficient time to allow full review. The Art Jury did not comment fully on the architecture or the building height because of this. However, the south elevation was a preferred design direction for the building and you are encouraged to use relatively simple and sedate architecture which is low in height. Multiple turrets should not be used.

The west elevation is not acceptable aesthetically to the Art Jury due to the height and multiplicity of unrelated design elements.

More comments may be forthcoming upon submission of the next complete application.

7. The Art Jury was in favor of the re-designed driveway location with associated reduced grading, and the new location of the pool.
8. The mediation was continued. Please submit any new materials at least a week before meeting.

Farber Property I.D. 2089.108.1
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (8,827 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (725 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (791 sq. ft.), Zaguan (93 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (1,045 sq. ft.), Retaining Walls                                   

Mr. and Mrs. Farber and Architect Max Wuthrich attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. The changes made to the project are insufficient to satisfy the Art Jury’s previous comments. Those changes that were made do not improve the design aesthetically in the opinion of the Art Jury.
2. Substantially reduce the mass and bulk of the main residence by approximately one third. The property is not large, and has a very irregular shape that renders sizeable parts of it unbuildable. Therefore, the currently proposed size of the development would visually overwhelm the lot by severely reducing the areas available for screen landscaping and thus increase visual prominence.
1. Reduce the overall length of the main residence to reduce the visual bulk and to ensure that there is opportunity for substantial amounts of landscape on both ends of the house.
2. Move the second floor further back from the north side of the building to reduce its visual prominence.
3. Reduce the length of the second floor balcony.
4. Ensure that the design creates simple roof forms. If the roof forms become too complex it can be a result of the dimensions of a part of the structure being too wide or deep, thus creating a bulky looking structure as well as an awkward and unaesthetic appearing roof form.
5. Do not focus on comparisons between the proposed and the existing structure. The new project must be approved on its own merits relative to the Protective Covenant.
3. Substantially reduce the amount of glazing on the north façade. The solid expanses of glazing are incompatible with the chosen architectural type as well as the submitted design images.
4. Please create a design which has a greater sense of unique character that differentiates it from other recent projects and more closely resembles the imagery in the submitted image booklet. The proposed architectural type is unclear and is vague in its origins. Although the design statement refers to southern France, the current proposal contains elements of both Spanish and Tuscan motifs without having a strong architectural direction. Although examples of such design mixtures may be seen on the Ranch, the Art Jury is not in favor of approving further projects with an undefined architectural antecedent.
5. A completely different architectural approach is required for this project. Minor changes to the current design will not be productive. A southern French design is completely acceptable to the Art Jury as long as the overall design is consistent.  Whatever design type is proposed, ensure that the design is a good example of the chosen architectural type and is consistent throughout, from the form of the building down to the details.
1. Please annotate your images booklet to clarify which items or details are being highlighted in a particular photograph.
6. You are encouraged to confer with staff regarding the above.
7. Please submit another Workshop Application.

Putnam Property I.D. 7.9.6
Final Application: Barn (1,394 sq. ft.), Request to keep 3 horses on 4.49 acres, Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/ Pilasters, Lighting, Landscape, Colors & Materials           

Mr. and Mrs. Putnam, Architect John Jenson, Realtor Laura Barry, Builder Greg Agee attended the meeting. Neighbors Laurie Peters, Mrs. Gupta and her son also attended.

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

1. Remove the upper pasture. Submit a revised plan for staff review and approval.
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.

Regulatory Code Chapter 61
Update                                   

Covenant Administrator Ivan Holler, Associate Planner Liz Avalon and Assistant Planner Nikki Flynn attended.

Ivan Holler presented the changes to Regulatory Code Chapter 61.

The Art Jury recommended approval be forwarded to the Board.

Short Property I.D. 14.4.4
(Ryco Trust) Street Setback Variance Application

Architect John Dodge attended the meeting.

The Art Jury APPROVED the variance with the following finding:

The variance is not injurious or undesirable to the neighborhood in which it occurs. The Art Jury made the following findings:

1. Street status change.
   This application is for consideration of a front yard setback variance for a proposed residence on a site off Paseo Delicias. The required front yard setback per Par. 202 (a) 11 of the Protective Covenant for this section of Paseo Delicias is 82 feet from the centerline between El Tordo and 60 feet from the centerline of Paseo Delicias to the face of building is proposed. The Covenant requires an 82 foot setback from the centerline of the street for “major traffic streets” and 60 feet for all other streets.

This section of Paseo Delicias is the former alignment of the main road to Escondido. Historically it appears that the main road was realigned leaving this particular old alignment of Paseo Delicias as a cul de sac, but the paragraph requiring the setback for a major street in Covenant was never changed. Because of the above circumstances and the fact that this portion of Paseo Delicias is not now a “major traffic street” the lesser 60 ft. front yard setback should apply.

2. Open space constraints.
   A large open space easement has been placed over a large area of the southern part of the site which is currently an intermittent stream containing natural vegetation. The buildable area of the site is therefore severely constrained by this feature and the lesser setback (60 ft.) should be applied.

The Art Jury’s decision will be forwarded to the Board at the September 6, 2007 meeting.

CONSTRUCTION SITE SIGNS: Board Meeting of September 6, 2007

Alsadek Property I.D. 36.3.3
Temporary Construction Sign
Southwind Custom Builders

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of the Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board of Directors at the September 6, 2007 meeting.

Wheeler Property I.D. 33.6.19
Temporary Construction Sign
Marcal Construction

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of the Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board of Directors at the September 6, 2007 meeting.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Buss (Doan) Property I.D. 12.2.3
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (10,880 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,457 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (1,144 sq. ft.), Barn (3,740 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Lighting, Landscape, Pool/Spa, Propane Tank           

The Art Jury received the Appointment Request form signed by Richard Doan. Unfortunately, there was no room on the Art Jury’s agenda for the requested meeting. The Art Jury noted that the next Art Jury meeting is not until September 11, 2007; therefore, to expedite the progress of the application the Art Jury decided to review the project and provide written comments to allow the applicant time to work on the project’s design in the intervening weeks before the next Art Jury meeting.     

OVERALL COMMENT:

The revisions made to the design are insufficient to address the Art Jury’s previous comments. Therefore, much of the following reiterates and reinforces the Art Jury’s comments from the June 12, 2007 meeting.

1. Reduce the bulk of the structure.
1. The new residence is proposed to sit on a pad which is supported by a continuous retaining wall that is between 2 ½ and 4 ½ feet tall thereby placing the structure on a pedestal, increasing its visual prominence. (See further comments below regarding grading and fill.)
2. It is suggested that some of the proposed uses be placed below grade in the basement. Uses that do not require windows such as theaters and wine cellars are well adapted to basement locations.
2. Propose a completely different architectural design type for the project. 
   1. The proposed architectural type is unclear and is vague in its origins. The current proposal contains elements of both Spanish and Tuscan motifs without having a strong architectural direction. Although examples of such design mixtures may be seen on the Ranch, the Art Jury is not in favor of approving further projects with undefined architectural antecedent. A completely different architectural approach is required for this project; minor changes to the current design will not be productive. Whatever design type is proposed, ensure that the design is a good example of the chosen architectural type and is consistent throughout, from the form of the building down to the details.
   2. Ensure that the floor plan of the building is consistent with the chosen architectural type. The floor plan and outward appearance of the structure must be developed in unison, with each component complimenting the other.
   3. The roof plan must be simplified and made more cohesive. As with all other individual elements of the design, ensure that the roof forms are consistent with the proposed architecture. The current roof plan has a multiplicity of roof planes, directions and forms that create a discontinuous roof design. Flat roofs can be acceptable with some of the traditional, historic design types but must be used in a way that is consistent with the overall design and not used as a crutch to ameliorate the conditions created by an overly wide building.
      1. The low sloped roofs on both sides of the great room are particularly incongruent with any historic design type
3. Reduce the amount of proposed grading.
1. The proposed, large, flat pad area does not work with the natural topography of the site. The proposed level pad area from the rear retaining wall to the front retaining wall spans up to 9 ½ feet of topographic fall.
2. The previous revisions to the project have not substantially reduced the proposed amount of grading; the main residence must be reduced in size to create a design that does not require as much grading. As stated in the Art Jury letter of June 14, 2007: ”If a single-level design (without steps to  respond to the sloped topography) is desired, the floor plan must be reduced in size or significantly revised to keep the residence off of the sloped areas.”
3. As previously stated in the prior Art Jury letter: “Eliminate the circular driveway to create additional space for structure in the more level area.”   
4. If you choose to revise the project, please submit for another Workshop Application. Alternately, if you do not wish to revise this project and wish to discuss the proposal with the Art Jury, your project will be scheduled for a meeting on September 11, 2007. The Art Jury recommends that you revise the project.

Chandler Property I.D. 32.12.4
Family Trust Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (7,420 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,375 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (2,000 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garage (4,300 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (725 sq. ft.), Detached Service Quarters (900 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls

The Art Jury visited the site, evaluated the story poles and made the following comments:

1. The Art Jury is not in favor of the design of the hobby garage. This element will be unduly prominent due to its size, design and close proximity to the edge of slope. Please redesign this element to substantially reduce its prominence (i.e. different access design/ move the structure back from the edge of slope/ screen the building).
2. Please avoid placing structures in the root zone of large mature trees (eucalyptus tree adjoining the subterranean garage).
3. Submit another Workshop Application.

First American Property I.D. 17.5.7
Trust Appeal: Art Jury’s denial from June 26, 2007 (Tennis Court, Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing)

This appeal was withdrawn from the August 7, 2007 Art Jury meeting.

Greg Agee Property I.D. 10.4.14
Construction Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (10,352 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,209 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (910 sq. ft.), Barn (2,167 sq. ft.), Request to keep 4 horses on 6.4 acres, Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Pool/Spa

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. Eliminate the circular turret, the turret is inconsistent with the rest of the design.         -     OR   -    Reduce the amount of glazing in the circular turret to achieve a traditional appearance consistent with the design intent.
2. Reduce the scale of the glazing on the south façade and increase the amount of visual interest and character associated with the glazing.
1. The large expanses of rectangular glass sheets do not add architectural character to the home.
2. The width of the stucco mass between the arched doors is too narrow. Reducing the scale of the glazing would allow the arches to have greater visual mass
3. With your next application, please include elevations of the proposed detached garage.
4. Please construct the story poles for an Art Jury bulk check (the Art Jury wishes to check the bulk of your building with story poles before you submit a Preliminary Application).

Jennings Property I.D. 10.3.10
Preliminary Application: Living Area Addition (1,375 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,190 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (3,688 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (1,207 sq. ft.), Detached Atrium (228 sq. ft.), Detached Storage (510 sq ft.) Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Landscape

cont. on Page 2