Loading...
1987-99 RESOLUTION NO. 87-099 A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD - OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF A DUPLEX RESIDENCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 194 JASPER AVENUE WHEREAS, Peter McBride applied for Design Review of a duplex dwelling located at 194 Jasper Avenue; and HEREAS, public hearings were conducted on application 87- 037DR on September 17, and October 15, 1987 by the Leucadia Community Advisory Board, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and, WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation: 1. The application submitted (Attachment A) by Peter McBride including all plans for development and other written information, which is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and 2. The staff report (Attachment B) dated September 17, 1987, which is incorporated by this reference as though fully setforth herein; and 3. Oral information submitted at the hearing; and 4. Additional written documentation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that: 1. The project design is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -4- Upon certification by the Director of the Community Development Department for occupancy or establishment of use allowed by this site plan, the following conditions shall apply: - All light fixtures shall be designed and adjusted to reflect 6. light downward, away from any road or street, and away from any adjoining premises, and shall otherwise conform to Sections 6322 or 6324 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Solar panels or appurtenances shall be built into the roof plane and not protrude from it. 8. Mechanical equipment on the roof or on the ground shall be screened from public view. The screening materials shall be harmonious with the structure. 9. The landscaping shall be well maintained at all times. 10. A Coastal Permit or finding of exemption must be obtained from the California Coastal Commission prior to building permit issuance. 11. This Design Review expires on September 17, 1989 (two years from date of approval except where construction or use of the property in reliance on such Design Review approval has commenced prior to its expiration.) If construction and use of the property in reliance on a Design Review approval has not commenced within the one year period, said period may be extended by the Director of the Community Development - Department at any time prior to the original expiration date. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -6- _. APPENDIX A RESOLUTION NO. 87-099 - The City of Encinitas has adopted Design Regulations of which the following represents analysis of each of the applicable design criteria. 1.1 Generally, the opportunities and constraints of the site shall determine the project layout and design. The site is gently sloping from west to east with a basic triangular shape. The applicant proposes to only increase impervious surface coverage on the site with two parking spaces. As the site is already developed, the proposed development is generally in compliance with this criteria. 1.2 Natural assets, such as valuable trees, rock outcroppings, creeks and riparian habitats should be preserved and incorporated into the project. These assets should be used as aesthetic and functional elements of the project. As the site is an existing small size developed site, there are no features as described above to be incorporated into site design. 1.3 The project should be designed to avoid excessive grading as well as steepness and exposure of graded slopes. Slopes should be contour graded, both vertically and horizontally to avoid abrupt changes in graded plains. The applicant proposes only minimal grading to facilitate parking area. 1.4 proj ects should be designed to preserve signi ficant views. Three vantage points should be considered in project design: a. Views from the site. The project should take advantage of significant and pleasant views, be it the ocean, a distant mountain range or just a stand of trees next door. The proposed second floor addition has the potential to improve applicant's view to the east and west. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -8- -... .----.-. b. Views to the site. The project should show its best side to the Public, while the least desirable features should be hidden from public view. Neiqbborinq -' properties shall be considered as public in this context. The applicant does not propose to "upgrade" the existing architectural design. Though the design could benefit by architectural changes, the proposal will not detract from the existing neighborhood. c. Views throucrh the site. To the extent possible, proj ects should be designed to preserve some of the siqnificant views enjoyed by residents of nearby properties which could be blocked by the project. Complete preservation of these views is difficult if not impossible. project viability can be severely reduced or destroyed in an attempt to preserve views of adjacent properties. The smaller the site, the more difficult the solution. On larqer sites, however, portions of these views can be preserved by clustering the buildings or creating new public view points. Throuqh the Design Review process, the reckless and unnecessary blockage of views can be avoided to provide for some view preservation. View preservation through the site shall be considered when trees are selected for landscaping the project. Due to the proximity of the coastal bluffs and the ocean, views through the site are of primary concern. However, the properties to the west are developed with two story structures whereby the proposed structures will not impact views which are not already impacted. 1.5 Parkinq areas shall be laid out to accommodate automobile movements and safe pedestrian movements. Parking spaces shall be distributed in the project in proportion to the land uses that are intended to serve. The proposed project complies with this criteria. 1.6 When consistent with qood neiqhborhood planninq, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle movements shall be separated. Safe, convenient and continuous walkways shall be provided to buildinq from the street as well as between buildings and activity areas within the project. Hajor pedestrian crossinqs shall be clearly marked with siqns and special surface material. Not applicable to this project. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -9- '- 1.7 The main entrances of buildings should be visible from most of the parking areas. Safe and continuous pedestrian ways shall be provided between parking areas and building entrances. - The front entrance of the proj ect faces Jasper Avenue. The proposed parking areas are to either end of the structure. 1.8 Larger parking areas shall be partly screened ~rom public and neighbor's view by landscaping, berms, walls or fences. Shade trees and landscape islands shall be distributed throughout the parking area to so~ten the expanse of pavement and cars. 1.9 On steeper parcels, roads and driveways should rise and fall generally parallel to the contours, not against them. 1.10 In commercial and industrial projects, plazas should be provided for employees and customers which are open and easily seen but which give a sense of protection and well defined space. 1.8-1.10 Not applicable to this project. 1.11 All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to avoid glare as seen from the public street, any neighboring property or from any residential unit in the project. Applicant proposes residential style porch entry lights. 2.1 Buildings shall be designed with the site potentials and constraints in mind. Pre-designed buildings or stock plans usually do violence to the site and fail to take advantage of the potentials. As described previously, this site is already developed and proposal is to place second unit above existing unit; thereby dealing with the constraint of limited site availability. 2.2 Standard plans and designs of corporate chains for such buildings as supermarkets, convenience stores, fast food restaurants or service stations shall be avoided i~ they do not meet the Design Review Guidelines. Instead, plans and elevations shall be custom designed to meet the Guidelines and the circumstances of the particular site. Not applicable to this project. 2.3 No particular architectural style is required or prohibited. However, if a traditional style is used, there should be elements of consistency with that style throughout the project. Abrupt stylistic breaks shall be avoided. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -10- - The proposed plans exhibit no abrupt changes. -- 2.4 Variety in exterior materials and colors should be used with constraint. Generally, two or three main materials are adequate to express any architectural style. Additional materials may be applied to small areas to emphasize certain features, such as window trim, railings, entrances, etc. The proposal complies with this criteria as represented by the material sample board. 2.5 The design and appearance of buildings should ref'lect its intended use and purpose. Residential buildings should have a residential scale and proportion. The proposal maintains residential style and scale. 2.6 The roof is the most visible portion of a building and should be designed to provide architectural unity to a building. In cases where the walls and fenestration of a building are very lively, the rooflines should be continuous and unbroken to provide visual balance. In cases of larger, plainer buildings with minimum visual relief, roof lines should be varied either vertically or horizontally or both to provide greater visual relief. The proposal is of a plain building. The design would benefit by use of an "upgraded" roof material from asphalt to tile or wood shake. 2.7 The architectural design and materials of the roof shall be compatible with the architectural design and materials of the building. Except as stated above the proposal complies with this. 2.8 Solar panels should be built into the roof plane and not protrude from it. They should also maintain the angle of the roof to which they are attached. Solar panels are not proposed as part of this project. 2.9 Mechanical equipment on the roof or on the ground shall be screened from public view. The screening shall be harmonious with the design and materials of the buildings. Screening design shall be part of the Design Review application. jk/dc/cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -11- ~ ._~. The proposals show no mechanical equipment. (Should mechanical equipment be proposed at some future time it shall comply with this criteria). 2.10 Buildings on sloping sites should be sensitive to the angle of the slope. They should not unnecessarily break out of the natural plain of the slope. Graded slopes can be partly hidden by placing buildings over the slope. Not applicable to this project. 2.11 When roof areas are visible from adjoining properties or from the public street, they shall be aesthetically designed and documented in the Design Review application. Refer to 2.6 above. As stated, "upgrading" of roof materials would substantially improve the aesthetics of the proposed project. 2.12 An effort shall be made on non-residential projects to harmonize the project with some elements of adjacent buildings, if the design quality of the adjacent buildings justify such effort. Not applicable to this project. 3.1 A project shall be landscaped to portray cohesive appearance and sense of continuity throughout the development. The number of materials is not as important as the relationship of a few key elements throughout the project. 3.2 Landscaping should have predominant materials, color and texture to give a project unity. 3.3 Drought tolerant plants should be used wherever possible to reduce the required water usage, unless reclaimed water is used for irrigation. 3.4 Landscaped areas shall be well planned to give the project an appearance of maturity and permanence within three years after planting. Individual (solitary) shrubs should usually be a minimum of 5 gallons. Individual (solitary) trees should usually be a minimum of 15 gallons. 3.1-3.4 The applicant proposes to maintain existing landscaping. 3.5 Whenever possible, existing significant trees, boulders, rock outcroppings or similar assets should be retained and incorporated into the project design. Project designers should view such features as opportunities to the development design and not as constraints. These existing features shall be shown on the Design Review application. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -12- - Not applicable to this project as there are no existing significant assets on the site. _.. 3.6 structure, texture, color and ultimate size should be the basis of selecting plant materials. Care should be taken not to place large species in a small area where the plant would eventually outgrow the available space. 3.7 Trees, shrubs and groundcover should be used in a landscape plan for diversity and interest. Example uses are: Trees: a. Provide a common theme throughout the project; b. Unify the streetscape; c. Consider providing for summer shading and winter sun; d. Soften the less attractive architectural features; e. Consider providing seasonal variation of tree foliage and color. Shrubs: a. Screen visually less desirable project features such as trash enclosures or outdoor storage areas; b. Accent major focal points of a project; c. Define pedestrian pathways; d. Screen for privacy; e. Provide an understory to the overhead canopy. Groundcover: '- a. Slope bank planting to stabilize manufactured slopes and to soften their appearance; b. Reduce landscape maintenance by use of drought tolerant species; c. Define minor spaces such as courtyards or recreational areas. 3.8 Hounding, walls and fences should be used to provide visual buffers throughout the project. Of special concern is the buffering of parking areas from the public right-of-way and neighboring properties. 3.9 Drought tolerant plants should be used wherever possible to reduce the required water usage to maintain them. 3.6-3.9 Applicant should consider these guidelines when improvements to existing landscaping are proposed. 3.10 Walls and fences used within the project shall be architecturally compatible with the buildings of the project. 3.11 Perimeter fencing around a development visible to the public and the neighbors shall avoid monotony by the use of recesses, planting materials and architectural features to visually 'break uP' its lineal appearance. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -13- - 3.10-3.11 No new fences or walls are proposed. 3.12 Certain natural features, topography and native landscape areas may be appropriately left in their natural condition and should be preserved and, where necessary, rehabilitated to emphasize native conditions. Not applicable to this project. 4.1 Signs shall be of a size and shape to be in scale with the building to which it is attached. Signs which ignore building scale tend to stand out and appear awkward and offensive. 4.2 Individual identification signs should only display business identification and not peripheral or extraneous messages such as brand names of products sold at the premises. 4.3 A sign shall state its message in a clear and concise way with a minimum of words and confusing clutter. 4.4 Whenever possible, freestanding pole signs should be avoided. Where freestanding signs are necessary, they should be of a monument style composed of materials that are architecturally related to the buildings on the site. 4.5 Roof signs shall be prohibited. Signs shall be incorporated into the face of the building and appears as an incorporated into the face of the building and appears as an integral part of that building. 4.6 Signs shall be composed of high quality and durable materials that will continue to look good after several years. The use of carved wood signs made of long lasting, high quality wood is encouraged. Signs shall be weather resistant and durable. 4.7 Sign colors shall be subtle and avoid excessive contract. The actual colors used should relate and not contrast with the colors of the building. 4.8 Directional signs within a parking lot should be low lying only high enough to be seen by drivers. These signs should be made easily visible with easy to understand directions. 4.1-4.8 Not applicable to this project as no signs are proposed. 5.1 Natural barriers, such as dense vegetation or topography should be used to reduce visual and auditory intrusion. There is no practical possibility that this can be incorporated into the proposal. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -14- - 5.2 Windows, private balconies and patios should be o~~set from those of adj acent buildings in the proj ect and from buildinqs located adjacent to the project. This is particularly important for bedroom and bathroom windows. As the site is already developed this criteria is difficult to comply with. 5.3 Windows, private balconies and patios should be setback as far as possible from maj or noise sources, such as busy streets, swimming pools, schools or loading and unloadinq areas. 5.4 Garaqes, carports, walls and landscapinq should be used to the extent possible to provide pri vacy for residents on the project site and on neiqhborinq properties. 5.5 Projects should be desiqned to allow visual surveillance of common areas, entrances, qaraqes and parkinq lots. Potential hidinq areas for intruders shall be avoided. 5.6 Project desiqn should make a distinction between public, semi-public and private spaces. If these spaces are well defined, casual or accidental intruders are discouraged, and Occupants will feel more secure. 5.7 Landscapinq shall not provide convenient hidinq places. Where low qrowinq veqetation is desired for screeninq, thorny and very dense plant material will help to discourage intruders. 5.8 outdoor lightinq shall be used to illuminate potential hidinq places without causing glare to the occupants of the project or adjacent properties. 5.1-5.8 The proposed project has incorporated these criteria. 5.9 Dead end public corridors or walkways shall be avoided unless they can be easily seen from other parts of the project or from public streets. Not applicable to this project. 5.10 The project shall be designed to prevent as far as possible the spread of fire within the project and to neighborinq properties. The proposed project is to be built in compliance with building and fire codes. 5.11 The project shall be designed to allow adherence to fire requlations in the final project plans. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -15- - 5.12 ~ adjacett ri~t-of~y, shall be P~ed as re~i~d by Leucadia Community Advisory Board. ' The building plans will be checked for compliance. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS to be made are as follows: A. To ~pprove the project the board need only state that the ~roJect as submitted, with all evidence and additional ~nformation a~d materia~, is f~und to be substantially in conformance w1th the Des1gn Rev1ew Guidelines. B. To de~ ~e p~ject ~e ~arn -st fiM tMt one or =~ of the following conclusions applies: 23.08.072 Reaulator~ Conclusions = Generall~. A. The project design is inconsistent with the General Plan, a Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code. B. The project design is sUbstantially inconsistent with the Design Review Guidelines. C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the community. D. The project would tend to cause the surroUnding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. 23.08.074 Reaulator~ Conclusions = Desian and Site Layout. A. The project design fails to take into account the constraints and opportunities of the site. B. The project design does not minimize the disturbance of the existing topography and/or vegetation. C. The project design fails to preserve, as far as practical, existing natural assets, such as rock outcroppings, valuable trees or riparian habitats. D. The project design fails to prevent excessively high graded slopes and retaining structure, to the detriment of future project residents and neighboring properties. E. The project design fails to blend the proposed grading with the contours of adjacent property. F. The project design does not preserve significant pUblic views to the extent Possible, nor does it offer mitigation for the lost views. G. The project circulation system fails to minimize conflicts between vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. H. The project ingress, egress or internal circulation would have an adverse affect on traffic conditions on adjacent streets. I. The project design fails to reflect the topography of the site by adjusting the design of buildings, parking areas and circulation systems to the constraints of the site. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -16- 23.08.07f Reaulatory Conclusions = Building Design. A. The project design does not coordinate the elements of exterior building design, such as color, materials, :form, texture and detailing to create harmony and continuity among all elements. B. The project design does not limit the selection of exterior materials resulting in disharmony and discontinuity of the exterior elevations. C. The project design does not minimize roo:f penetrations by grouping vent ducts and mechanical equipment together and/or does not adequately conceal these features from the public and private view. D. The various bUildings and building elements are not in proportion with one another. E. The project is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the adj acent property in one or more of the following aspects: 1. Color scheme; 2. Location of structures on the site; 3. Architectural features or ornaments; 4. Type and quality of exterior materials; 5. Location and use of open spaces. F. The project would adversely affect the quality of lighting and noise environment on adjacent properties. G. The project design is substantially out of scale with the predominant scale of structures in the adjacent neighborhood. 23.08.077 Reaulatory Conclusions = Landscape Design. A. The landscape design fails to screen, to the extent practical, trash and storage areas, service yards, loading docks and ramps, and utility equipment from view of the neighboring properties and from the public streets. B. The landscape design fails to screen, to the extent practical, parking areas from view of neighboring properties and from the public streets. C. The landscape design fails to provide that all landscape materials will obtain a mature appearance within three years after planting. D. The landscape design fails to preserve and incorporate into the design valuable natural features to the greatest extent possible. 23.08.078 Reaulatory Conclusions = Sians. A. The project design fails to assure t~at. the size and shape of all signs are in scale with the bu1ld1ngs to which they are attached. B. The building design does not provide for adequate space and locations on the building, in harmony with the architectural design, for the display of signs. C. The project signing fails to relate well to the jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -17- -- ---'---. ~i14i~a of the project Ud to the neig~Oñood in general in terms of size, shape, color, texture, materials and lighting intensity, creating a visUally incompatible - appearance. D. The project signing does not show subtlety, is obtrusive or does not convey the message legibly and clearly. E. The proposed signing is not weather resistant or durable. 23.08.019 Re~latOQ ~DclusioDS = ~incy and security. A. The project will cause an unreaSonable intrusion on Privacy or aei~oriag P~erUes caused ~ the P~ject. B. The P~jeat desi~ rails to minimhe the noise içeat on neighboring properties caused by the project. c. n. P~j.ot desi~ ~i18 to miDiüze the ~ise içsot rrom exterior sources on the project. D. The project design rails to avoid the creation of ~8af. au.. nich lack the 8ecurl~ of P~1ic 8U~il1Qc.. E. The P~ject desi~ pucludes ~se~nce or rire Ssrety re~lations, ~e to the la~ut or the Bite or the buildings, or due to the selection of the building materials. P. The P~osed project and landsCçing ~uld potentially contribute to the spreading of fire to adjacent properties. jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -18-