Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-16-2020 Final Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: June 16, 2020 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Mateo, Chair Sean Winchester, Vice Chair Michael Nilmeyer David W. Nelson, Frank Vieira MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business • Discussion on staff reviews on 2nd story additions • Staff to show DRB members examples of approved plans 2. OWNER Public Storage Properties APPLICANT The Hanover Company ADDRESS 100-124 Airport Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P18-0074: RZ18-0003, GPA18-0004, EIR18-0005 & DR18-0038 PROJECT NAME New Residential Development (Case Planner: Tony Rozzi) DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan to redevelop an existing office park development consisting of two parcels into 480 mutli-family residential units at 124 Airport Boulevard and 100 Produce Avenue. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board is concerned with the overall massing of the development; consider some material changes to help break up the massing. 2. The development is clear and efficient, but lacks interest or identity in lieu of arbitrary changes in material and color. 3. Though skillfully applied, the design is over-represented along this avenue of newer buildings. 4. Designers are encouraged to develop simple, but strong ideas that exhibit a sophisticated theme. New buildings should harmonize with the existing stock without resembling it. 5. The pedestrian, bike and automobile entrances should be visually enhanced for ease of locating and an aid in identifying the buildings. 6. Demonstrate how delivery services and location will work for the site – FedEx, UPS & rideshare drivers. 7. A traffic study is highly recommended, as the proposed development is located in a high traffic area with a lot of commercial / industrial vehicles coming off of San Mateo Avenue. 8. Applicant should incorporate solar panels into the development. 9. The proposed courtyards are great and something of similar interest at the ground level would be a public amenity. 10. The horizontal roofline of the two buildings is lacking articulation. The vertical elements are not strong enough. 11. The Architectural interest is a bit lacking considering the other projects adjacent to Airport Blvd. 12. The project is transit adjacent, address with narrative and site improvements how this project will tie into transit within this development. 13. The project needs to incorporate a respected pedestrian and bicycle circulation and connection to transit to the Downtown Transit Core zoning district. 14. The Pedestrian and Bike traffic quality must be enhanced at the following connections for pedestrians and bikes: • Train underpass: lighting, design beauty, width of walkways, safety from traffic, safety from crime. • The same comments for the Highway 101 underpass • Connection to the Caltrain station(s) • Connection to SSF Downtown • Connections to the Bart Stations • Connections to a safe area for rideshare pickups • Connections to the bus stops when they currently exist and provisions for new bus stops if the bus line runs by the development. 15. Need to review the street level pedestrian and bike experience surrounding the development: • The current Airport and Produce intersection is very dangerous and inhospitable to the pedestrian and bike traffic. Recommend redesigning this portion of the road or incorporating pedestrian-friendly design features such as wide sidewalks, adding traffic calming devices, one lane in each direction and slower speed limits • The development needs some ground level amenities such as rest/respite areas. Gardens, benches, and extra wide tables should be considered to enhance the street life opportunity for this site, especially considering that future development should bring more of that character to this area. • The pedestrian procession should be enhanced beyond a monotonous walk with little visual interest. • The separation of the sidewalk from the street with landscape zones is encouraged. 16. The applicant should provide a wind study, as the open space will have some impacts to the high winds around the development. 17. Consider adding at-grade useable space; most open space appears to be elevated. 18. Consider adding useable space at the corner where the existing trees are being proposed for preservation. 19. Consider adding streetscape life (seating areas) at the street’s edge to activate these areas. 20. The planting area adjacent to the canal and potential flooding will impact the tree species selection, which need to be salt tolerant, as the proposed species are not. 21. There are three (3) tree species that will not survive the cool windy microclimate of SSF. 22. The trees in SSF are often dwarfed by the cool weather and reach 60%-70% of heights listed in the Western Gardens. 23. The Pyrus, Lagerstroemia and Phoenix in the wind are likely to fail and will not survive. 24. The proposed tree species are short and will not scale the height of the proposed buildings. 25. Olea, Lagerstroemia and Juniperus will not reach the heights to scale the buildings. 26. Consider using Columnar Ginkgo varieties, Drake Evergreen Elm or Southern Live Oak. 27. The landscaping should incorporate large clusters of tall evergreen species (80’-100’ potential) which will lend scale to these large buildings. 28. Consider using Monterey Cypress, Atlas cedar and some Eucalyptus species, and Canary Island Pine. 29. The proposed linear planters are an excellent choice. The planting pits need to be a minimum of 12’x12’x3’deep and filled with engineered planting soil, which will provide the root zone needed for the full size street trees. 30. Review your proposed plant species for the WULCOLS IV low water use requirements. 31. Review your proposed design for a child play area and child circulation to the surrounding sidewalks. Resubmittal required. 3. OWNER Gupta Naresh APPLICANT Gupta Naresh ADDRESS 849 Second Lane PROJECT NUMBER P19-0068: DR19-0037 PROJECT NAME New Dwelling Unit (Case Planner: Tony Rozzi) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review to construct a new two-story dwelling unit that fronts on Second Lane behind an existing single family dwelling located at 840 Commercial Avenue in the Downtown Residential Low (DRL) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the revised plan submittal. 2. The changes to the roofline and the building articulation is an attractive improvement to the design. 3. Add a street tree to scale the height of the dwelling. 4. Consider adding another window on the 2nd story addition to help balance the front elevation. 5. The 17 ft. separation between the dwellings will serve the residents very nicely. 6. The proposed columns on the front porch should be 4x4 or 6x6 and carry a brick element down to the ground. 7. On the East and West elevation, carry the brown trim band façade to tie the two elements together. Recommend Approval with Conditions 4. OWNER Kellee Hom APPLICANT Kellee Hom ADDRESS 478 Baden Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P19-0072: DR19-0041 & HR20-0001 PROJECT NAME Addition to SFD Historic Structure (Case Planner: Stephanie Skangos) DESCRIPTION Design Review and Certificate of Alteration for a two-story addition to an existing single-family residence at 478 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Residential Core (DRC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design concept; it’s a very nice architectural addition to this historic home. 2. The gable roof on the new addition looks out of place; consider a hip roof to match the existing dwelling and to match similar historic buildings. 3. If a gable roof is implemented, it seems to work slightly with the existing hip roof and, considering the Historic Consultant agreed, this response seems appropriate to the design. However, consider including a gambrel effect on the new roof to better match the existing hip roof. 4. The applicant should look closely at the cedar shingle siding currently on the existing home, as the shingles were poorly installed. The shingles should be replaced with a standard installation with tight joints and laps not to exceed 5 inches. This will give the opportunity to install a proper vapor barrier, which was not installed when the shingles were installed. The existing shingles are failing badly and will be a constant source of maintenance. 5. Restore windows on the existing home to double-hung vinyl-paned windows with appropriate trim. This should be carried along the new Spruce Street façade as well. 6. Unify the approach to the roof overhang at the addition at both sides. 7. The "TUDOR" treatment of the gable ends of the new addition is out of context with the historic nature of the cottage and should be eliminated. 8. Stucco and vertical purlins are not compatible with the historic nature of the house. They should be replaced with a design alternative wrapping the siding around the whole addition. 9. The siding at the new addition should be a wood grain treatment to blend in with the shingles. 10. To soften the gable roof on the new addition, the ends should be "clipped" to mimic a gambrel roof to the same slope of the existing cottage. 11. The Japanese Maple will not grow well in the SSF elements and is a medium water use species. Consider a lower water use species and use a 24-inch box size, as this will help with the wind concerns. 12. The California Buckeye at the rear of the property is too close to the property line and may grow to an 18” trunk diameter with a 30’ canopy. Consider relocating the species to another location. 13. The proposed front yard is calling out for mulch and it may be overbearing. Mulch over time will disintegrate and it will expose the soil and weeds over time. Consider a weed barrier fabric and gravel mulch to eliminate this issue. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 5. OWNER Camino Royale Investment Corp APPLICANT Camino Royale Investment Corp. ADDRESS 71 Camaritas Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P18-0078: UP19-0006. DR19-0023 & TDM19-0003 PROJECT NAME New Proposed Hotel (Case Planner: Gaspare Annibale) DESCRIPTION Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan for a new hotel at 71 Camaritas Avenue in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use High Density (ECR/C-MXH) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the revised design concept. 2. The Board appreciated how the applicant considered their suggestions. 3. The proposed warmer color palette fits nicely with the neighborhood. 4. The Designer responded to the prior comments by: • Including additional palms trees along the street frontage. • The redesign of the entry plaza to create a sense of arrival to the hotel.. • The increased height at the corner element is a significant improvement. • Upgraded the site material. • Redesigned the pick-up and drop-off area. 5. Raising the rounded corner element up to the newly created roof deck greatly improves the main focal view of the site. 6. On the north end of the development the roofline is broken and higher, which draws attention to the building entrance. 7. The extended and taller palm trees nicely sets off the building. 8. The entry plaza and porte cochere creates an excellent usable space and draws attention to the main entry of the building. 9. Consider the design for proper egress of the level 6 balcony spaces, as two exits may be required for the proper egress. Check with the Building Division on exiting requirements. Recommend Approval with Conditions Miscellaneous: • Type “C” Sign Permit – The Board had no issues with the sign permit; the signs are in scale with the building and acceptable.