Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-18-2020 Final Minutes (2) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES  CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: February 18, 2020 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Mateo, Nelson, Vieira & Winchester MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner Christy Usher, Consultant Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business – None 2. OWNER Frank J. Adasiewicz TR APPLICANT Frank J. Adasiewicz TR ADDRESS 360/364 Alta Vista Drive PROJECT NUMBER P19-0028: UP19-0016 & DR19-0040 PROJECT NAME New Residential Development (Case Planner: Christy Usher) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” – Preliminary feedback is requested by the applicant in response to project revisions since the October 15, 2019 DRB meeting regarding Use Permit and Design Review applications to construct a Planned Developent of 13 residential units each with an accessory dwelling unit at 360 and 364 Alta Vista Drive in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the revised design concept and thought the imagery was attractive. The revised project included but was not limited to reducing the density by one unit from 14 to 13 dwelling units (and 13 ADUs), and increasing open space areas throughout the development. The introduction of upper floor balconies was also well received by the Board. The Board also liked the proposed double hung windows. 2. The Board stated there were too many different style columns proposed on the dwellings and that they prefer tapered columns on all of the elevations for a more cohesive, homogenous Craftsman design. 3. The elevations of the units on the Alta Vista street frontage should be more welcoming to the existing and proposed neighborhoods and provide more of a sense of arrival for these end units. If possible, provide entries and/or porches along both street elevations (Alta Vista and the proposed driveway), as well as, enhance the elevations and materials proposed. Introduce shingles with the proposed stucco to soften the elevations along Alta Vista. Consider rotating the entry and/or porches for the units on Alta Vista to face the street frontage. 4. The Hardy Board and Shingles should be the same size and add a water table over the brick veneers. 5. Note the proximity of the stairs to the adjacent bedroom. Proper stair detailing and installation at the party wall will be needed to prevent stair noise from interfering with bedroom use. 6. Continue to work with the Fire Department on the fire access requirements for the site. 7. It is important that pedestrian and automotive uses are separated from each other by a grade change. The Board liked the rolling curb solution as proposed and feels even a low +4” grade change would be acceptable by the Fire Department. 8. The Board would like to see a landscaped buffer and separation of at least 18 inches with a 6 inch curb between the eastern property line fence and the driveway to provide a buffer and prevent the residents from backing into and hitting the property line fence. 9. Work with the Building Department to determine the ADA requirements for the site. 10. Consider reducing the amount of brick veneer on the front porch columns (to just a brick base) on Sheet A3.2, as the current design is too top heavy. 11. Eliminate the brick proposed on the columns of the second floor balcony Sheet A3.1 Plan A Figure 1. The Board felt the second story brick elements were very heavy. 12. Consider incorporating windows on the garage doors to add some natural light. 13. Incorporate a play structure in one of the open spaces. 14. On the northwest corner of the parcel, add a nice landscaping feature for the residents to view. 15. The landscape plan should pay close attention to water usage and include a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees as well as flowering accent plants. 16. Design a landscaping plan for the central spine to create a sense of arrival to the units. 17. Check with the South San Francisco Scavenger Company on the requirements for trash location and pickup. 18. The Board requested the applicant provide turning radius movements along the proposed loop roadway. 19. The Board requested the applicant resubmit with additional plan details for further consideration. Resubmittal required. 3. OWNER South City Partners LLC APPLICANT Natubhai Patel ADDRESS 840 El Camino Real PROJECT NUMBER P17-0108: UP17-0021, DR17-0069 & TDM17-0005 PROJECT NAME New Proposed Hotel (Case Planner: Justin Shiu) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Use Permit, Design Review and TDM Plan to construct a new 5-story hotel with 2-levels of underground parking at 840 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the revised design concept. 2. The trees along the street frontage and back of the property need to be planted with 24 inch box sizes with excellent structural soil in 12'x12'x3' tree pits to support healthy trees to scale with the tall buildings. 3. Consider using Platanus acerifolia 'Columbia' - Columbia London Plane Trees along the street frontage, with some tall evergreen trees on the corners. 4. Consider using 24" deep aeration pipes the length of street frontage, to support tree deep rooting for trees planted at the street frontage, to improve air exchange in the soil and allow roots to root at the level of the earation pipe and not below the sidewalk. 5. The Board liked the parapets that are flush with the wall. Note: Check with Staff on whether entitlement requests are required for this feature. 6. Check with the Building Department on the ADA parking stall requirements, as there may an issue with the columns in the parking garage. 7. Submit a storm water treatment plan. 8. Consider the interaction between trees and bioretention areas, such as the trees’ capability to accommodate wet winters in these areas. Consider using Acer rubrum 'Armstrong' - Armstrong Maple. 9. Consider using pavers instead of stamped concrete. Recommend Approval with Comments 4 . OWNER The City of SSF APPLICANT SmithGroup ADDRESS 1010 El Camino Real PROJECT NUMBER P19-0042: DR19-0021 PROJECT NAME Community Civic Center - Phase 2 (Case Planner: Tony Rozzi) DESCRIPTION Design Review request for the Community Civic Campus Park and Recreation Joint Facility design at APNs 011-326-030 and 011-326-080 subject to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is consistent with an adopted Supplemental Environmental Impact Report per CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design concept, including the proposed technology park for the play area. 2. The Board felt the green screen wall at the parking structure, though attractive, is a little incongruous with the rest of the building. More consideration into how the feature integrates with the rest of the building would be warranted. 3. The green wall should not be the focus point to the development. 4. The Board preferred a walkway <5%, to allow removal of the ramp railing from the ramp coming of the El Camino Real door entrance and remove the stairs and add a landscaping feature to the area. 5. Consider removing the railing from the ramp or introducing an intermittent rail coming off the El Camino Real door entrance. 6. The original ramp design without the rail was much more elegant. 7. The Board felt that the moments of rest and pause in the original ramp/entry design were important. Their exclusion from the new design constitutes a loss of an important public amenity, especially on the long inclined walk along that side of El Camino Real. 8. The Board understands they were eliminated due to City feedback, but they feel the loss of these amenities reduces the overall quality of the design. 9. Consider adding an architecture feature to match the same element on the Phase 1 development. 10. The Landscaping plan should include good 18 inch of loamy sand topsoil to help with the growth of the trees 11. The Board wants to see what the proposed signage will look like at this development and compare what was approved for Phase 1 of the Civic Campus for compatibility. Recommend Approval with Conditions.