AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11 design at its July 7, 2016 meeting, and considered and offered recommendations on the following four applicant- requested guideline deviations (City of Redwood City AAC Staff Report, 7/7/16). The AAC supported 2 of the 4 deviations, including exceeding the maximum length establishment and inability to use permeable pavers. It did not support exceeding the wing depth for courtyard disposition type and having garage columns closer than 6” to parking spaces. The AAC also forwarded comments relating to the building massing, scale, and design to the Planning Commission (PC). The applicant revised the plans based on AAC’s direction. As demonstrated below, there are no new significant aesthetic impacts or any substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant aesthetic impacts. (1) (Maximum Establishment Length): No individual ground floor establishment should occupy a greater length of frontage than indicated for its Use Group (General Residential = 25’) (DTPP Section 2.2.4.2.a, p. 51). Deviation/Solution: The DTPP states that no frontage of a ground floor establishment should be greater than 25 feet in length for General Residential. The project proposes a lobby/leasing frontage of 56-1/2 feet, retail frontages of 41, 30, and 49 feet, and an activity room frontage of 45 -1/2 feet. This frontage is architecturally and programmatically broken up by the different uses (i.e., short modules containing the leasing office, lobby, activity room, and retail spaces); ground floor transparency allows viewing into and out of the spaces. Use of brick and metal panels combined with storefront windows would provide variation in the façade. Approval of deviation recommended by AAC. (2) (Landscaping): The grading of all paved areas and adjacent non-paved areas, the selection of paving materials, and the design of drainage facilities should consider paving permeability and be configured to allow water run-off to percolate back into native soil to the degree possible (DTPP Section 2.5.4.D.2.a, p. 75). Deviation/Solution: Permeable paving is not used. The project has three levels of underground parking spanning the entire site, and as such, site drainage does not percolate back into native soil. Otherwise the project complies with State and City requirements for storm water management. Approval of deviation recommended by AAC with the comment that the applicant consider some variation and enhanced design in the landscape and streetscape . The applicant responded by incorporating vines along the Diller and Franklin Street fron tages to differentiate and soften the residential elevations from the retail elevation. (3) (General Parking Form): Parking stalls shall be set back no less than 6 inches from round garage columns. Parking stalls shall be set back no less than 6 inches from impact protection on square or rectangular garage columns (DTPP Section 2.6.3.B.2.d, p. 81). Deviation/Solution: Some of the residential parking spaces are closer than 6” from garage columns. All retail parking spaces meet this guideline; however, some of the residential parking spaces do not. Denial of deviation recommended by AAC. The applicant was advised to rework the plans to meet this guideline. As this is internal to the underground parking structure, it will not affect the project aesthetics. (4) (Building Disposition Type): For the Courtyard Disposition Type, no building wing above the courtyard level should have a width of greater than 65 feet from the street to courtyard, or from courtyard to courtyard. Side or rear yards may be counted as courtyards if they meet the same size requirements. No building wing should have a width of greater than 45 feet from a side or rear property line to a courtyard (DTPP section 2.7.4.B.2.f, p. 91). Deviation/Solution: These are the widths of buildings wings from the following streets - 72 feet on Franklin, 77 feet on Diller, 78 feet to 95 feet on El Camino Real, and 79 feet on the alley. Denial of deviation recommended by AAC. The applicant was advised to rework the plans to meet this guideline and suggested that compliance may result in more façade articulation or courtyard space, which would improve the project. The applicant has revised the plans to meet the Rear Yard disposition type and recessed the lobby on Diller Street to provide more articulation on t hat façade. The result is a slightly larger outdoor space for the tenants. (City of Redwood City Architectural Advisory Committee [AAC] Determinations, July 7, 2016) The City Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed the project design related to these guidelines and recommended approval of 2 guideline deviations [and recommended denial of 2 guideline deviations, for which the applicant revised the project plans to conform to those DTPP guidelines]. As a result, no additional aesthetic impacts are anticipated beyond those previously identified and analyzed in the DTPP program EIR. d. The Downtown Precise Plan program EIR (pp. 6-28 and 6-29) concluded that since new development within the DTPP area would be required to meet the lighting power allowances for Lighting Zone 3 for new installed outdoor lighting equipment contained in Title 24, Parts 1 and 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, unnecessary brightness of lighting, debilitating glare, and sky glow would be adequately controlled. The impact of development occurring under the DTPP was considered to be less than significant, and no mitigations were required. The proposed project is in compliance with all applicable DTPP standards regarding light and glare, and as a result, no alternative design details if they are able to show that such details implement the overall Plan objectives with respect to the desired character of the Downtown Redwood City.” 8.A. - Page 143