Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-19-17 Final Minutes (2)DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: September 19, 2017 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Harris, Vieira MEMBERS ABSENT: Nelson & Williams STAFF PRESENT: Adena Friedman, Senior Planner Billy Gross, Senior Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. OWNER Shamaim Inc. APPLICANT Johnson Lyman Architects ADDRESS 180 El Camino Real PROJECT NUMBER P17-0061: DR17-0050 PROJECT NAME 180 El Camino Real - Exterior Modifications (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review for exterior modifications of the Safeway Shopping Center at 180 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ERCMX) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Class 1, Section 15301. The Board had the following comments: 1. Revise the landscape plan to provide the required number of trees and tree locations, per the Zoning Ordinance standards, and to space the Metrosideros excelsa tree species at 30 feet on center. 2. Revise the building elevations so that the three tower elements are more similar in total height. The proposed Safeway corner should be reduced in total height. 3. Reduce the letter height proposed for the Ross sign to be in keeping with the Safeway signage. Please note that no specific signage proposals are included as part of this Design Review application. 4. Review the landscaping plan, as some of the species selected will not survive the SSF elements. 5. Consider adding solar panels to the project. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 2. OWNER HCP Oyster Point III LLC APPLICANT AstraZeneca ADDRESS 121 Oyster Point Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P12-0061: DR17-0056 PROJECT NAME New Liquid Nitrogen Tank (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct two exterior equipment enclosures at 121 Oyster Point Blvd in the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District (BWCSPD) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Item was pulled from the Agenda. 3. OWNER Fard Abbas APPLICANT Dong Wen Liang ADDRESS 320 Grand Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P17-0070: DR17-0054 PROJECT NAME Exterior Modifications (Case Planner: Tony Rozzi) DESCRIPTION Design Review for exterior modifications to a commercial building at 320 Grand Avenue in the Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Class 1, Section 15301. The Board had the following comments: 1. Check with the Building Department as the rear exit door may not meet code. 2. Enhance the front entrance by adding a light panel at the front doorway. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 4. OWNER Otani Properties APPLICANT David Ford ADDRESS 131 West Harris Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P17-0075: Signs17-0025 PROJECT NAME Type "B" Sign Permit (Case Planner: Ryan Wassum) DESCRIPTION Type "B" Sign Permit for a commercial building at 131 West Harris Avenue in the Business Commercial (BC) Zoning District in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Class 11, Section 15311. Approved as submitted. 5. OWNER 1515 Sovanness LLC APPLICANT Daniel Robinson ADDRESS 426 Victory Ave PROJECT NUMBER P17-0074: UP17-0015 & DR17-0055 PROJECT NAME New Industrial Building (Case Planner: Ryan Wassum) DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Design Review to construct a new industrial building at 426 Victory Avenue in the Mixed Industrial (MI) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Class 3, Section 15303. The Board had the following comments: 1. The proposed building resembles a rectangular box and is needing additional articulation and design modifications. a. Per Table 20.110.003(C) of the SSFMC, Incentive-based FAR bonuses may be requested and reviewed by the Planning Commission if the project includes the following: i. high quality, innovative design and product type, and maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use; and, ii. green building measures over and above the applicable green building compliance threshold required pursuant to Title 15 (“Buildings and Construction”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code 1. As proposed, the project does not meet either of the above requirements. Therefore, the project needs to clearly incorporate the above requirements or staff cannot support an increase in FAR to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 2. The proposed project has no sense of arrival to the building and the front entryway is hidden behind the pergola architectural feature. a. The Board recommends adding some type of canopy or awning above the front door, as well as making the door pop with a different color. b. Consider breaking up the trellis on both sides of the front door, leaving an opening near the entry. c. Enhance the trellis by adding an 18”-24” concrete base to the trellis posts. d. The trellis posts should be a minimum of 6”x6” to show more definition and visual interest. 3. The proposed rollup doors are out of scale in size and height to the building; therefore, the rollup doors should be reduced to be more consistent and compatible with the scale of the overall building. 4. On the front elevation, align the height of the windows to be more in scale with the building. 5. Landscape Plan: a. Consider incorporating a patio area for the use of employees. b. Instead of a large open front setback area consisting of ground covers, rethink how the space can be utilized and more visually interesting with plants, trees, and open spaces. c. The proposed trees will not grow vertically to a mature height; therefore, propose larger trees that will grow to the height of the building to help screen the height of the new warehouse. . d. Add a 12” – 14” planting strip in front of the sidewalk. i. Discuss exact requirements with the Engineering Division. 6. The Board is concerned with the lack of parking spaces for the site and that all parking spaces are located within the building. The Board recommends modifying the building so parking is external to the building and can incorporate different uses for the building in the future. Resubmittal required.