Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
RSF Association Office - 8:00 a.m.
August 8, 2006

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 15 pages

Present: President Mark McClure, Secretary Jack Queen and Member Gail Frazar

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

Absent: Vice President Diane Larsen and Member Ken Markstein

The Minutes of the July 25, 2006 meeting were approved as written.

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

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

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

Architect Jack Smyer and Attorney Matt Peterson attended the meeting.

Board Member Ken King conducted the mediation. Attorney Alan Zuckerman attended on behalf of the Association.

The mediation was successful, subject to the following:

1. The wall shall be constructed according to the dimensions illustrated on the photo-simulation submitted at the mediation meeting and on file at the RSF Association office.
2. The proposed stone cap is acceptable and shall match the stone wall caps already installed on the property’s other walls.
3. The front yard area shall be landscaped per the plans prepared by landscape architect Patti Ferner, submitted at the April 11, 2006 Art Jury meeting.
4. If the property owners do not accept any portion of the result of this most recent mediation meeting the mediation shall be considered a failed mediation and the owners would have to notify association staff to set the matter for an Appeal hearing with the Association Board of Directors.   

RSF Property I.D. 14.9.3
Development Appeal: Residence (8,890 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (3,314 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garage (1,186 sq. ft.), Cabana (660 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (977 sq. ft.), Grading, Landscape, Colors & Materials           

Mr. and Mrs. Cobrda attended the meeting.

Board Member Ken King conducted the mediation. The mediation was continued for the applicant to explore a revised building design.

The Art Jury requested that the building be completely redesigned. The Art Jury re-itterated their prior comments which are included below.

Two alternate designs were presented to the Art Jury during the mediation. The alternate plans showed largely the same design slightly relocated on the site. The Art Jury commented that the alternate plans proposed shifting the same building slightly on the site, but the revisions did not address the Art Jury’s primary issues of concern. The Art Jury reiterated that they are requesting that the building’s form be changed to address the aesthetic concerns which they had raised in previous letters (see below).

The Art Jury noted that tucking some building elements under the main building is good in principal; however the proposed design for the tuck-under elements on this building was not aesthetically pleasing.

The Art Jury provided additional comments on the roof, in addition to requesting revisions to the building’s form. The Art Jury noted that the proposed roof design is not aesthetically pleasing because of its multiplicity of unrelated shapes. Additionally, the different roof forms have only minor differentiation in the elevations. The Art Jury is however requesting additional changes to the building than just revising the roof.

The following are the Art Jury’s comments from the meetings of July 25, 2006  and July 11, 2006 which the Art Jury consider are particularly relevant to the latest version of your proposal. Letters from the Art Jury’s review of June 22, 2006, May 25, 2006 and April 27, 2006 are also included for your reference.

July 11, 2006 Art Jury comments:

Please redesign the building.

The project must be significantly revised in accordance with the Art Jury’s prior comments.

The current submittal has not been revised in accordance with the Art Jury’s prior comments. Minor changes have been made to the project but they do not respond to the prior Art Jury’s requests for revision.

The Art Jury noted that they had reviewed and commented on the project previously and met with the applicant to provide direction but that the applicant not responded to their prior comments.

The Art Jury requests that you fully address their prior comments (rather than making incremental revisions to the project which do not address the Art Jury’s concerns as has previously occurred).

1. The Art Jury requested that further revisions be made to the residence. It is the continuing concern of the Art Jury that the proposed linear building shape does not fit the developable portion of the site in an aesthetically pleasing manner and the design emphasizes the bulk of the building. The bulk of the house should be broken up visually. The pool should be moved to the rear of the residence and the house moved to the south. The building should be revised to provide more articulation in the façade and a new design with a less linear in layout should be used.
2. The driveway location/ grading is also a continuing concern to the Art Jury. The revised site plan still maintains the driveway in a location which could impact the root zone of large pine trees on west property line. Please redesign to move development out of the root zone of these trees. (Tree[s] still appear to be effected)

Additionally the Art Jury noted the following:

1. The proposed building fills the available building envelope. The resulting largely “rectangular” shape with flatter, plain building elevations is not aesthetically pleasing.
2. The rear elevation is long and has little significant variation in building planes. The proposed architectural treatment of this elevation (flat elevation with segments of differing elevations) is not aesthetically pleasing to the Art Jury.
3. Less shallow roof pitches should be proposed.
4. The massing of the building should be broken up significantly.Changes may include rotating and or pushing back elements. Other options for changing the massing may be explored.
5. Plot existing trees. Retain large mature pines. Do not remove existing mature landscaping.

July 25, 2006 Art Jury comments:

The proposed 200 feet +/- building has a predominantly linear form. The residence is proposed at the edge of an existing pad which is situated next to a slope. Portions of the building are excavated into the slope to provide two story tuck-under elements. The proposed driveway runs to the west of the building close to the root zone of existing mature trees.

The Art Jury does not consider that the building is aesthetically pleasing for the following reasons:

1. The building appears to be bulky. The proposed linear building shape with little articulation in the building’s form emphasizes the bulk of the building.
2. The linear form is results in a visually monotonous roof line of a relatively uniform height. The proposed shallow roof pitches contribute to the uniform monotonous roof appearance.
3. The location of the building at the edge of slope and the linear building elevation all serve to emphasize the building’s bulk and prominence. The proposed rear elevation is relatively uniform with little variation in building planes. The building proposes various elevational treatments in an attempt to provide visual variety, with the exception of providing significant breaks in the building form. The Art Jury considers that this approach however is not aesthetically pleasing and considers that the building should be broken up (e.g. with angled wings) to provide significant variations in building planes and reduce the apparent bulk.
4. The proposed excavated driveway is too close to the root zone of mature trees. Additionally the grading for the driveway creates an apparent “pedestal” for one portion of the building which increases the building’s prominence.

The Preamble to 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; …”

Additionally the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant contains the following statement:

 “Par. 46. Section 1.  Approval of Streets, Subdivisions. No part of the said property and/or of any property at any time within the jurisdiction of the Art Jury or of the Association shall be subdivided, laid out or improved by buildings, or structures, or its physical contours altered or changes, except in preparing land for orchard or farm use, except with the approval of the Association with the written advice of the Art Jury so as to insure a uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness, in exterior and physical appearance of said property and improvements.”

In the opinion of the Art Jury the proposed linear building is bulky, prominent, and contains elements which are visually monotonous. The proposal therefore does not maintain the “character of community” nor uphold “the quality of all future architecture and improvements”

For the above reasons the Art Jury cannot make the finding that the project insures “a uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness, in exterior and physical appearance of said property and improvements.”

Pursuant to Paragraphs 64-68 of the Protective Covenant, appeal rights are available to you. 

Barry/Oldfield Property I.D. 35.4.3
(Lindsey Trust) Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (11,730 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (525 sq. ft.), Tuck-under Garage (2,225 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (515 sq. ft.), Exercise Pavilion (650 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Pool/Spa, Propane Tank           

Architect Doug Fess, Ms. Barry and Mr. Oldfield attended the meeting.

A revised design was presented during the meeting which showed largely the same building design relocated on the site. The Art Jury made the following comments on the redesign:

1. The new design appears to preserve the mature trees on the site. Preservation of the trees is welcomed by the Art Jury.
2. Although moving the building appears to have alleviated some concerns of the placement of the building in relation to the edge of slope the Art Jury is still concerned with the visibility of the structure and that the house should fit comfortably on the site with out the use of retaining walls. The southwest wing of the building in particular still appears to crowd and spill over the edge of the slope. Any building on this site should be set back from the edge of slope. A different building footprint may be necessary to reduce the prominence of the structure, for example an “S” shaped building with courtyards.
3. The Art Jury is not sufficiently comfortable with the design to recommend that you proceed to a Preliminary Application.
4. A hammerhead should be used in lieu of an oval or circular turnaround at the entry.
5. Additional staff review of the plans is necessary prior to further Art Jury comment.

You are again referred to the Art Jury’s comments from the meeting of July 25, 2006:

1. “Completely redesign the building layout and siting. The proposed structure (especially the south and east elevations) are proposed to be pushed out over the edge of slope in a very prominent location. Revise the floor plan and site layout completely to move building elements into less prominent locations on the site (e.g. the area to the west of the current pad.)
2. All existing mature trees shall be preserved. Please do not remove trees during the review of this proposal.
3. Please avoid excessive grading in the new proposal. Accurately depict proposed grading on proposed plans (submitted plans are unclear).
4. Window design and proportion should be consistent throughout the building. Over scale windows such as the proposed shower window will not be acceptable to the Art Jury.
5. Any resubmitted building elevations must accurately show the proposed building elevations in relation to existing/proposed grades. Current elevations are not accurately drawn (e.g. east elevation).
6. Any resubmitted building should appear less bulky. Overall plate and building heights should be reduced.
7. Please avoid highly visible entry features such as the turnaround, bridge and ornamental water feature at the entrance. Entry features should be informal in design and blend with surrounding landscape features.”

The Art Jury noted that you had addressed issues 4 and 5 from the above letter in your submittal dated July 28, 2006.

Read Property I.D. 24.3.3
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (10,235 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (950 sq. ft.), Pool House (720 sq. ft.), Detached Tuck-under Garage (1,060 sq. ft.), Grading, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Pool/Spa, Tennis Court, Propane Tank

Architect Doug Fess, Mr. and Mrs. Read attended the meeting.

The Art Jury made the following comments:

1. OVERALL COMMENT: Please completely redesign the project. Revise the concept to create a design which takes full advantage of the unique opportunities and constraints of this particular property.
1. Having the garages accessed from the far end of the driveway requires the currently proposed location of the driveway which in turn forces the house out onto the slope.
2. The current site plan with its placement of the driveway, garages and main residence creates too much grading, which is contrary to the main landscape feature of the site – the slope.
3. Please incorporate significant changes to the overall design to reflect the Art Jury’s comments. Minor modifications to the existing plan will be insufficient to gain Art Jury support.
2. Please reduce the amount of proposed grading.
1. Please eliminate the concept of a circular driveway. Circular turnarounds are not appropriate for sloped sites:

1. Due to the amount of grading required, and
2. Because their width forces the home further out onto the downhill slope thus expanding the amount of fill proposed for the home as well.

2. In lieu of using a driveway on the west side of the house, (as currently proposed) to provide Fire Department access, consider having a stub from the lower driveway split off to provide the necessary access and “hose pull”.  
3. Please reduce the amount of fill on the pad; both beneath the house and beneath the patio areas. There is substantial fill under portions of the pad; for example, part of the swimming pool is over seven feet above existing grade.

1. Further lower the height of the main pad.
2. Increase the amount of stepping within the main residence.

4. Please reconsider the tennis court.

1. The Art Jury is unconvinced that a tennis court can be successfully integrated into the sloping lot for the following reasons:
1. The sloped topography of the property is not suitable for the large, flat pad that is necessary for a tennis court.
2. There is ten feet of cross-slope beneath the proposed tennis court.
3. There may be 25% slopes on the proposed location. No construction is allowed on 25% slopes.
2. If you wish to pursue the tennis court concept, please prominently stake the corners of the proposed court on the property.

5. Please clarify the grading proposed for a berm. The intent and proposal were unclear. 
6. Please submit the following additional materials:

1. A revised site plan -  “Sheet 1” – which illustrates the existing topography beneath the proposed house pad.
2. A site plan which shows both the location of the proposed house as well as the location of the existing house.
3. A slope analysis map prepared by a Civil engineer, based on a contour interval of two feet.

3. Please create a more cohesive design that is in keeping with your submitted “Design Concept Statement” which describes the inspiration for the home as one of “unpretentious simplicity”.
1. Please simplify the roof forms.

1. Currently the design has a large assortment of unrelated roof forms – gable roofs, hip roofs, round roofs, shed roofs and flat roofs. 
2. A review of the roof plan shows that there is a multiplicity of ridges and valleys that is contrary to the simple roof forms of the Design Concept’s stated European antecedents.

2. Please simplify the form of the massing of the structures.

1. Please use fewer, but larger, masses to create the overall form of the main structure.  The large assortment of rooflines mentioned above is the result of the large number of small “pop-outs” from the otherwise linear form of the main residence.
   1. The numerous “pop-outs” create a disjointed appearance with a “busy” façade, but they do not create true differentiation in the building’s mass.
2. Please create a building form that is unique to this specific site and responds to the limitations and opportunities of this particular property.  The sloping nature of the site requires a design that responds to the slope.
   1. Consider increasing the amount of stepping, both within the main residence and on the site in general.
   2. A wing of the house could step down from the main residence.

3. Please have all of the elements of the design, both large and small, contribute to the design concept as a whole.

1. Create a design that is consistent with the “Design Concept Statement”. The current design does not have the French provincial character described in the concept statement – although a French Provincial design is not required.
2. Use a different design for the front doorway entrance. The front doorway assembly is not attributable to any specific design type. That same doorway has been used for many different projects of differing design types within the Covenant area. 

4. Reduce the overall length of the development - the main residence and guest house span 220 feet along the side of the hill. The development’s long length would make the project prominent in its raised position on the hill.
1. Please take advantage of the sloping nature of the site to locate the garages, and possibly other uses, below grade.
   1. The driveway approaches from below the level of the house, so a branch of the driveway could cut into the slope below the house to have true subterranean parking for some, or all, of the vehicles.
   2. Consider placing other uses below grade which do not require windows such as the theater, wine room, storage and utility areas.  
5. Please ensure that the façade of the house facing the downhill slope is far enough from the top of the slope to meet the Fire Department’s requirements for the separation of structures from top-of-slope. The Art Jury is not in favor of retaining walls or fill-slopes to achieve compliance with the Fire Department’s requirements. 
6. Please eliminate the ‘bulb” at the bottom of the driveway near Los Morros. The bulb increases the amount of paving and makes the driveway more visually prominent.
7. Please submit another Workshop Application.

CONSTRUCTION SITE SIGNS: Board Meeting of September 7, 2006

Wulff Property I.D. 14.9.7
Temporary Construction Sign
B & W Architects

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of your Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board at the September 7, 2006 meeting.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Glancy Property I.D. 34.9.6
Preliminary Application: Residence/Garage (11,735 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (2,413 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Pool/Spa, Propane Tank

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

1. The mass and siting of the building are acceptable.
2. The architecture should be revised in the following respects:
1. Roof plan. The proposed octagonal tower roof and adjacent living room roof do not appear to be consistent with the roof design of the remainder of the building. Please simplify the roof design and make it consistent with the roof design of the remainder of the building and the building type.
2. Fenestration. The fenestration should be evaluated and revised to be             consistent with the overall design theme of the building (for example the design of the proposed bay windows appears to be stylistically foreign to the overall design of the building). The windows should have a consistent design theme throughout which matches the building type.
3. Elevations. The architectural quality of the elevations is not consistent throughout the building (e.g. the west side verandah elevation is of a higher architectural quality than other elevations. Some of the more prominent building elevations are plain in the opinion of the Art Jury (for instance the north elevation of the “Bedroom 2, Cindy’s closet and the master bath”). Please enhance these elevations.

For the above reasons the Art Jury considers that the building does not “insure a       reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior physical appearance…. “ required by paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant. The Art jury recognizes that various building elevations may be primary and others secondary, but the current large discrepancy in design quality between the elevations in the proposed design is not acceptable to the Art Jury. Your design professionals are encouraged to contact staff to review proposed revisions and obtain further guidance on these issues.

3. Please submit stone samples.
4. Please submit a revised plant legend with species and quantities that correspond with the Preliminary Planting Plan sheet L-5.
5. The plan indicates several trees proposed for planting inside the existing horse-trail. Adjust these trees to a location outside of the trail easement on the southside. 
6. 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.

Glass Property I.D. 2089.111
Final Application: Entry Gate

The Driveway Entry Gate is DENIED. 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” would not be achieved with installation of obtrusive structures and features, which are visually prominent, including the Driveway Entry Gate. The Gate is approximately 16’ feet wide (+/-) and the height of the gate is not indicated on the plan. The construction is of wrought iron with a “black” finish applied. The design is not clear with only vague details shown on the plan.

The gate is located within 27 feet of the edge of the street and located near eye level from the street. The driveway grade at this location is several feet above the street elevation and a feature such as driveway entry gate will be very prominent from the street.

Residences on this street are placed close to the street and driveways do not have the depth to allow such features without creating a dominant man-made feature in the area. It was noted by the Art Jury that only one other residence on the street has a driveway gate. The existing driveway gate is located on a property set back substantially from the street. The driveway allows the gate to be further from the street and it is substantially less prominent than the proposed gate the Art Jury reviewed.    

The Art Jury noted that the Protective Covenant objective of “maintaining this character of community and rare landscape features.” Was in part achieved by maintaining predominantly a rural streetscape comprising primarily of landscaping as opposed to architectural features. For the above reasons the Art Jury could not make the finding required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant that the Driveway Entry Gate structure would maintain a  “… reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance….”“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. Should you choose to appeal; mediation will be scheduled in accordance with Paragraphs 64-68 of the Protective Covenant. If you choose to have an attorney present at the mediation, please notify the Association not less than five working days before the mediation is held.”

cont. on Page 2