Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-01 Special~PEGIAL ~~INT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION QESIGN REVIEW ~OARQ MINUTES august 1, 2006 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 p.m. TAPE 1 2. ROLL CALL: Planning Commissioners Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Present: Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Honan and Chairperson Zemke Planning Commissioners Commissioner Romero Absent: Design Review Boardmember Harris, Boardmember Nelson, Boardmember Nilmeyer, Boardmembers Present: Boardmember Ruiz and Boardmember Williams Design Review None Boardmembers Absent: Staff Present: Acting Chief Planner Kalkin, Consultant Planner Knapp, Admin. Asst. II Aguilar, Planning Liaison -Sergeant Normandy and City Engineer Razavi 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 4. Study Session - Terrabay Phase III Mandalay Terrace project Jack Myers, Michael Duncan and Cliff Lowe presented the new proposal to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. Boardmember Nilmeyer felt that the building belonged in the East of 101 Area because all the office towers are located in this area. He noted that he could not justify the locations of the buildings at this point. He suggested that a smaller scale development that terraces into the hillside could work better on the site. Boardmember Ruiz noted that the applicant had responded to many of the Boards comments. He concurred with Boardmember Nilmeyer in that the project would best fit in the East of 101 Area. He also noted that the Peninsula Mandalay tower would be more visible if this current proposal weren't built. He was concerned with the phasing of the project because the smaller building is scheduled to be built first without a guarantee of when the taller tower will be built. Mr. Myers noted that he has the opportunity to phase the development and projects that once the first building is 70% leased they will commence the second building. Boardmember Williams pointed out that the first iteration of the project was not to the Design Review Board's liking but some changes have been made in terms of people space, circulation and other issues. He noted that the buildings will be very prominent and that the 21 story building is a signature building. He suggested that the signature building needs more detail and should be more of a landmark to the City, Planning Commission Meeting of August 1, 2006 like the Transamerica Building in San Francisco. He noted that the architecture should be making a statement and drawing positive comments to the development. Boardmember Harris also pointed out that the project improved from the first time the Design Review Board reviewed it. He recommended that the building needs to be integrated with the landscaping and that there needs to be a legal obligation to ensure that the planting is maintained. He noted that it is a difficult site for the landscaping to survive on and that there needs to be a maintenance program to mitigate any environmental impacts for the project as well as a monitoring program to ensure the survival of these plants. Boardmember Nelson noted that the applicant redesigned the project in response to the Board's comments. He felt that Airport Boulevard serves as a buffer for the building to not look so massive on the mountain and out that there are medians on the center of the street and rows of trees should be added to soften the area as well as keep the landscaping continuous with what is further south on Airport Boulevard. He suggested that the developer should go back and look at the landscaping of the Peninsula Mandalay tower and revise it because most of the plants are not being successful as first projected. Commissioner Teglia noted that trying to tie the project with the residential tower is not a good idea. He noted that some of the examples of Skidmore's buildings were much cleaner. He added that the developer needs to move away from the green building skin and move towards a blue that articulates the architecture better. He explained how the original entitlements for the project had the buildings tucked back into the mountain. Commissioner Teglia added that the parking is good in its location and added that it could be hidden more by widening one of the two towers, decreasing the height of the parking structure and adding curves to the architecture of the other buildings to hide the garage. He pointed out that two office towers would not be able to keep retail alive and they need a critical draw to keep the retail alive such as a movie theater. Mr. Myers noted that they will bring forward the curtain wall system at the next meeting and pointed out that the theatres and top of the market retail is not a feasible for them. He added that they are looking at uses that will be supported by office, such as are Starbuck's and Jamba Juice type uses. Commissioner Prouty noted that the Peninsula Mandalay tower stands out and was uncomfortable with the current proposal because it will also stand out. He stated that the taller building should be set into the mountain and blend in with it more. He further noted that this building needs more to become a signature building of the City. Commissioner Giusti pointed outh that the tall building will look very large as people approach it. She added that the performing arts theatre should seat more than 150 people. Mr. Myers pointed out that Vice Chairperson Honan had also asked for more seating at the theater and is looking into the feasibility of this. Commissioner Sim questioned if they had evaluated other ideas with regards to the core. Mr. Myers stated that depending on the use of the building a side core is inefficient. Mr. Duncan added that they wanted to have a vertical expression on the tall building. Commissioner Sim noted that although this is an office building, a unique and creative design could be given to it which makes it an entryway into the City as well as gives a lasting image to the City. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the Lowe's proposal changed from a big box retail look to an office look by adding certain details. He stated that the illumination of the facade is a good start. He added that the first building should be reflected or inflected based on the topography and relate more to the landscaping. Mr. Myers noted that the appearance of the building is a result of the comments by the Design Review Board and they are going to refine the appearance more based on the comments of the Commission. Commissioner Sim asked if there was another retaining wall. Mr. Duncan noted that they needed to move the retaining wall further in order to accommodate the fire department requests for turnarounds at the cul- de-sac. He added that the wall is from 15 to 20 feet high. Commissioner Sim was concerned with the height of the retaining wall and asked that the fire department explain their need for it. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the Fire Department looked at the plans and has approved them as shown to the S:VvliwutPS\~%wal%zEd M%wutES\2006\D8-02-06Jo%wt PGARS.doc PG19C 2 o f 3 Planning Commission Meeting of August 1, 2006 Commission. She pointed out that the cul-de-sac was created as a response to the Fire Department's issues. Mr. Myers added that the landscaping and the stone that will be installed will buffer the impact. Commissioner Sim noted that he can see the parking between the buildings and suggested that the architect include a mechanism to be able to see it through the building. Commissioner Teglia asked if there was roof parking in the parking structure. Mr. Myers replied affirmatively and added that they have developed a pattern on top so that the individuals looking down on the parking structure can see something other than a pad of concrete. Commissioner Teglia asked if there would be landscaping on the parking structure. Mr. Myers noted that it is difficult to install landscaping. Commissioner Teglia added that the parking structure will be prominent and will be visible from those traveling on the hookramp. He suggested that the applicant look into softening the visual impact it has from various points. Mr. Myers pointed out that they moved the building in response to the comments of the Design Review Board and also widened the building's size. Mr. Duncan added that one of the reasons they dropped the building was to obscure more of the parking garage. Commissioner Teglia suggested tiering the buildings. Mr. Myers noted that they will take the Commission's comments and return with a revised set of plans. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Commission is looking for something that has less mass and that will be a signature building for the City. Chairperson Zemke stated his appreciation for the Design Review Board's comments on the proposal and noted that the landscaping is key to the development. With no further comments the meeting was adjourned. 5. Adjournment Joint Design Review Board and Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. F R Susy Kalkin Acting S etary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~i'l%~~ William Zemke, Chairp on Planning Commission City of South San Fr ncisco SK/bla s:\M%wutes\~Cwaltzed M%wutes~2oo6\o8-oi-o6~o%wt pc-pr2g.doc page s of s