Design panel presses La Ronda townhome applicant to add roofline variation, unit identity
Loading...
Summary
Design reviewers urged the La Ronda townhome applicant to break up massing, vary rooflines and reinforce individual unit entries after staff described a 31-unit proposal at 111 Miranda. Commissioners also discussed the height allowances tied to lot consolidation and state density-bonus incentives and advised the applicant on options to request concessions.
Design reviewers on March 25 examined conceptual plans for the La Ronda townhome project at a placeholder address of 111 Miranda and focused their feedback on architectural massing, roofline variation and landscaping.
Steve Stapakis, the applicant, described a revised site layout that responds to earlier pre-application feedback: he said the proposal moved buildings to create a 38-foot turnaround, shifted the driveway to avoid a 5-foot sewer easement, and proposed 27 units plus four accessory dwelling units for a total of 31 units under the city's lot-consolidation program and state density-bonus law.
Commission guidance emphasized the city’s design policies. One commissioner summarized key design priorities: "Each unit have its own separate well defined entry" and the project should use roofline variation, alternate elevations and layered landscaping to break up what staff characterized as a continuous ‘box-like’ massing. Staff recommended that applicants consider beach-cottage or Spanish-village architectural cues consistent with San Clemente’s historic character.
The applicant described practical constraints on height and layout: the sloped, conical lot and the desire to maximize interior livability require balancing height allowances, lot consolidation incentives and parking/parking-waiver requirements. Staff and commissioners discussed how density bonuses and lot consolidation can raise the allowable height from a 25-foot base to 33 feet in exchange for additional units, and noted that some height changes under the state density-bonus law are administrative concessions rather than variances.
Commissioners asked the applicant to return with refined renderings that show more varied elevations, clearer unit identity (porches, balconies, recessed entries), and landscaping that frames the architecture. They also described procedural options — design-review comments now and, if necessary, a request for specific concessions or an administrative waiver under the state density-bonus rules.
"We heard you want to keep interior space but consider how the facade reads from the street," the design reviewer said, urging a balance of buyer amenity (views) and neighborhood aesthetics. Staff and the applicant agreed on next steps: the applicant will coordinate civil revisions (engineer submittals to address utility setbacks and the sewer easement) and return with updated drawings for further DRC comment and planning commission review.
Next steps: Applicant to submit civil drawings to engineering and produce revised architectural elevations reflecting DRC direction; staff will compile DRC feedback into the packet that will accompany future planning commission review.
