Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-20-23 Final MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: June 20, 2023 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Nilmeyer – Chairperson Chris Mateo – Vice Chairperson Sean Winchester & Frank Vieira MEMBERS ABSENT: David W. Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Adena Friedman, Principal Planner Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business - None 2. OWNER US Terminal Court Owner LLC APPLICANT SteelWave ADDRESS 101 Terminal Court PROJECT NUMBER P22-0124: UP22-0012, DR22-0037 & TDM22-0008 PROJECT NAME New R&D Campus (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Transportation Demand Program for a new R&D campus at 101 Terminal Court in the Business Technology Park - High (BTP-H) in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the proposed revised plans with the new stepped down garage with the curved element that will match the proposed building. 2. The Board was inspired with the active moving art on the parking structure. 3. The Board would like to see the proposed “public art” design on the parking structure as the project and the design progresses. 4. The Board recommends using native plants for the site and recommends Redwood trees be kepat agaisnt the building or in other places to keep them protected, as they can become beat up by the wind. Recommend Approval with Conditions and can proceed to a future Planning Commission meeting. 3. OWNER The City of South San Francisco APPLICANT The City of South San Francisco ADDRESS Orange Memorial Park PROJECT NUMBER P23-0029: DR23-0007 PROJECT NAME OMP – Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center (Case Planner: Adena Friedman) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review and CEQA determination to construct a new Aquatic Center at Orange Memorial Park in the Parks and Recreation (PR) 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 proposed design concept with the warm color pallette. 2. Consisder using the same material finishes on all the elevations, including the proposed wind screen wall. 3. The proposed landscaping plan will work for the site, and recommends not overusing Native Sycamore trees for this site as they can easily become disfigured. Recommend Approval with Conditions and can proceed to a future Planning Commission meeting. 4. OWNER Prologis APPLICANT Prologis ADDRESS 175 Sylvester Rd PROJECT NUMBER P22-0137: DR23-0001, DA23-0001 & TDM23-0001 PROJECT NAME New R&D Campus (Case Planner: Adena Friedman) DESCRIPTION Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Development Agreement, and CEQA Consistency Review to construct a new R&D campus (1) 10-Story & (1) 8-Story Lab Office Buildings with a 9-Level Garage) at 175 Sylvester Rd in the East Transit Core (ETC) 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 proposed design concept. 2. The Board would like to see more of the precast pilasters on the entry plaza to help break up the façade/massing on the upper floors. Consider extending them upward into the upper-level facades. 3. Minimize light pollution from the use of uplighting on the site. 4. The Board liked how the site plan maintains open space at the end of Sylvester Road. Recommend Approval with Conditions and can proceed to a future Planning Commission meeting. 5. OWNER 573 Forbes Blvd LLC APPLICANT Vigilant Real Estate Holdings LLC - David Fowler ADDRESS 573 Forbes Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P23-0050: DR23-0013, TDM23-0005 & ND23-0002 PROJECT NAME New 8-Story R&D/Office Building and 7-Level Garage (Case Planner: Stephanie Skangos) DESCRIPTION Design Review and Transportation Demand Management Plan for a new 8-story R&D/office building with detached parking garage at 573 Forbes Boulevard in the Business Technology Park - High (BTP-H) 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 overall design concept. The design is well thought out and accommodates the site configuration. 2. The elevations and articulation create a nice project. Consider incorporating the nice articulation found at the street façade along the other elevations of the project. 3. The applicant confirmed that the site would have solar panels on the roof of the parking structure. 4. The applicant addressed the Board questions on proper waste disposal, uplighting, and EV charging stations for the site. 5. The Board understands the placement of the parking structure due to site constraints but found the design towards the rear to be somewhat bland and would like to see more articulation at the back side of the garage. 6. The Board would prefer to see more landscaping around the entry plaza but understands that the Fire Marshall has requirements for accessing the rear of the structures through the plaza area. The specialty pavement helps soften the look of the area. Update the plans to match the renderings that show an expanded area for the specialty pavement. Recommend Approval with Conditions and can proceed to a future Planning Commission meeting. 6. OWNER The City of SSF APPLICANT AT&T / Eric Lentz ADDRESS 329 Miller Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P22-0144: DR22-0043 & WM23-0001 PROJECT NAME New AT&T Rooftop Facility (Case Planner: Stephanie Skangos) DESCRIPTION Design Review and a Waivers and Modifications request for a new rooftop Wireless Communications Facility at 329 Miller 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 proposed design concept for the new wireless facility and associated equipment. 2. The Board recommends adding a thin cornice/cap element to the top of the new FRP screens to match with the existing building, as well as creating a more finished and refined architectural feature. Recommend Approval with Conditions 7. Miscellaneous - none