Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-19 Final Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES  CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: December 17, 2019 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Mateo, Nelson, Vieira & Winchester MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner Christy Usher, Consultant Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business – None 2. OWNER Thomas Murphy APPLICANT Colum Regan ADDRESS 499 Forbes Blvd (previously 493 Forbes Blvd) PROJECT NUMBER P19-0001: UP19-0001, DR19-0032, TDM19-0005 PROJECT NAME New Office R&D Building, Parking Garage, ROW & Trail Improvements (Case Planner: Christy Usher) DESCRIPTION Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Map and Transportation Demand Management Plan to construct a new 5-Story Office R&D building, 5- level parking garage, public right-of-way and trail improvements at 499 Forbes Blvd in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board overall liked the project but offered specific feedback and requests for revisions from the applicant described below. 2. Though the proposal is a vast improvement over the existing buildings near the site, the Board encourages the applicant to review other recent permit applicants and approved designs to understand the level of design sophistication we will be seeing in the next generation of buildings on Oyster Point. 3. The Board was concerned that the proposed white metal material may mold over time and recommended that the applicant select a metal finish that is mold resistant. 4. The color architectural renderings and imagery on the plans appealed more to the Board than the stark colors that were presented on the materials board. 5. The Board requested to see a revised and accurate rendering perspective of the “West Trail View” on Sheet A9. As presented, this rendering does not reflect the plans. In particular, it implies more open space than will actually exist on the plans in that location. 6. The Board expressed concern that the building is too massive for the site. 7. The Board noted that the parking structure is being constructed right on (and possibly over) the property line, and depending on the construction technique applied, may not be feasible without encroaching on the adjacent property. 8. The Board suggested the applicant conduct a wind study to ensure proper site planning of the open space areas, landscaping and amenities. 9. The Board commented that the site is lacking a sense of arrival to the campus from Forbes Boulevard with the entrance to the building proposed on the side of the building. The Board suggested various methods that could enhance the street presence of the project from Forbes Boulevard and direct users to the front entrance including, but not limited to landscaping, planter boxes, graphics, signage, addressing and other material choices and design revisions. 10. The Board requested that the applicant incorporate a pedestrian pathway for the public to access the Rail and Trails walkway area. 11. The Board stated that the overall landscaping plan will work for the site; however the Board did make the following observations regarding the plan and made several requests for revisions to the landscape plan noted below. 12. The Board commented that the proposed trees on the front of the building are tiny relative to the bulk and mass of the building. The Board note that the trees are deciduous which will leave the building exposed for most of the year. The Board suggested the applicant consider a mixture of broad canopy trees and other tree species that are evergreen. 13. The Junipers proposed in the front of building should instead be a canopy tree so that they will be more in scale with the height of the building. 14. The proposed Cupaniopsis anacardioides tree will likely not survive, as this tree does not like the cold weather and Arbutus unedo 'Marina' proposed in the parking stalls drops fruit. The Board suggested the applicant reconsider these species in the planting plan. 15. The Board recommended the proposed trees along the Rails to Trails should be planted on the other side, north of the trail, due to large Western Cottonwoods being planted on the south parking lot side. 16. The Board stated they did not have any issues with the shrubs and groundcover plants proposed on the landscape plan. 17. The Board informed the applicant that the proposed Sycamore trees will not be successful in the SSF elements. One similar tree is the Columbia London Plane tree which is the more mildew resistant variety for consideration. 18. The Board advised the applicant that proposed Cottonwood trees,along the other side of the property line at rails to trails, will get too large and interfere with the trail and the proposed Sycamore trees will grow substandard. 19. The Board asked the applicant to consider adding a row of hedges to help block the wind elements around the Bocce Court. 20. The proposed trees in the parking lot islands are different in scale of height. The trees should all be of the same height and should be canopy trees. The Board advised that the Juniper proposed in this location will not do well. 21. The Board advised the applicant that the proposed tree pits are too small and shallow and need proper volume and depth for proper growth. The soil in this area is heavy clayey and has poor drainage. 22. The Board suggested the applicant incorporate provisions for solar in the upper level of the parking garage and on the rooftop of the proposed building. 23. The Board suggested the applicant develop their sign program at this time. 24. The Board noted that the aesthetics of a proposed raised planter wall will enhance the street frontage; however, the Board requested additional details be added to the plans regarding what the raised planter will look like along the street frontage. 25. The Board suggested the applicant consider the slope on site when siting the bocce ball court. Specifically the Board suggested the applicant consider relocating the bocce ball court (to the south) to a more level area on site which will make it more usable and more enjoyable for the users of the amenity. Also related to the bocce ball court, the Board noted that the sidewalk leading to the bocce ball court will take the place of landscaping for parking spaces. And the Board advised the applicant to not locate and pour the proposed sidewalk to the bocce ball court on the property line. 26. The Board noted that the landscaping shown on the renderings should match the plantings proposed on the landscape plans. 27. The Board requested the parking stall dimensions all be clearly labeled so that it can be confirmed they comply with City codes. 28. The Board requested to see the project again to review the revisions requested above. The Board advised the applicant to continue to work with staff on the recommended revisions to the project and resubmit project revisions to the Design Review Board at a later date to be determined. 3. OWNER El Grand SSF Investment LLC APPLICANT Victor Caicero ADDRESS 437 Grand Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P19-0074: UP19-0019, DR19-0042 & SD19-0001 PROJECT NAME New Outdoor Dining Area (Case Planner: Gaspare Annibale) DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Design Review to construct a new outdoor dining area at 437 Grand Avenue in the Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. 1. The Board liked the design concept of the proposed rear deck. 2. Check with the Building and Fire Department if the proposed deck will require a secondary exit, additional ADA access. Will the occupancy load require more plumbing fixture counts? 3. Confirm with Building Department if the proposed ramp will require handrails. 4. Consider adding a skirt around the base of the deck to prevent debris collecting and forming underneath. 5. Applicant will return on a later date with set of detail plans outlining the proposed parklet to include a landscaping plan, drainage plan, type of furniture and layout, samples of light fixtures. How many parking stalls will be removed to accommodate the new parklet and how will the loss of parking stalls effect the area. Continue to work with staff on the recommended changes 4. OWNER Amy Lai APPLICANT Mike Yang ADDRESS 38 Capay Circle PROJECT NUMBER P17-0040: DR17-0030 PROJECT NAME New Single Family Dwelling (Case Planner: Tony Rozzi) DESCRIPTION “Revisions to a set of Approved Plans” - Design Review to construct a new single family dwelling at 38 Capay Circle in Low Density Residential (RL-8) 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 proposed changes to the deck railings and material finish. 2. The Board prefers the cable railings and a solid wood sliding, consider a cement board material. 3. Include the detail information on the proposed guardrails. 4. Consider pushing out the porch columns and add some corner boards to enhance the front entrance. 5. The trim should match on all the windows and use energy efficient windows. 6. The Board wants to confirm that the proposed grass will remain and be planted after construction. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 5. OWNER Patricia Delucchi APPLICANT Andrea Costanzo ADDRESS 303 Fairway Drive PROJECT NUMBER P19-0078: DR17-0043 PROJECT NAME New Single Family Dwelling (Case Planner: Stephanie Skangos) DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a new single family dwelling at 303 Fairway Drive in the Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically except from CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design concept of the proposed dwelling, including the overall balance, articulation, and color combination. 2. Select another tree species that will scale the height of the tree. Consider Arbutus ‘Marina’ or Swan Hill Olive tree. The proposed tree will not survive the SSF elements. 3. Add a header around the 2nd floor bathroom window. 4. Use energy efficient and vinyl windows with a three inch trim. 5. On the front elevation, add an eyebrow header around the vent. 6. Use corner boards around the front porch columns to enhance the front entrance. 7. Select pervious pavers that will complement the overall color scheme of the dwelling. 8. Revise the plans, as the front elevation and renderings don’t match. Recommend approval with conditions.