The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in the City of San Mateo Council Chambers and was called to order by Chair Massey, who led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Transcription

1 CITY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 2010 The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in the City of San Mateo Council Chambers and was called to order by Chair Massey, who led the Pledge of Allegiance. Those present were Chair Massey, Vice-Chair Su, Commissioners Freschet, Moran and Whitaker. A motion was made by Commissioner Freschet, seconded by Commissioner Su to approve the minutes of the Regular meeting of May 11, 2010 were approved as revised. Vote Passed 5-0 *** PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Massey opened the public comment period. (No persons wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public comment period.) ITEM 1 * PUBLIC HEARING PA CHESS DRIVE COMMERCIAL BUILDING, appeal of a zoning administrator approval to construct a 6,000 square foot one-story commercial building located at 2001 Chess Drive (APN ). Required Approvals: A. Categorical Exemption (CEQA Section New Construction) B. Site Plan & Architectural Review C. Tentative Parcel Map The project site is approximately 30,000 square feet. The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Chess Drive and Bridgepointe Parkway (in the Home Depot parking lot). The site is zoned Regional Community Commercial (C-2).

2 Page 2 PROJECT PLANNER: Christy Usher, AICP, Associate Planner 330 W 20 th Avenue San Mateo CA (650) cusher@cityofsanmateo.org PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT: Jerry Engen United Growth, LLC 201 Spear Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA (415) jerry@unitedgrowth.com Christy Usher gave the staff presentation, which included a power point presentation. The Planning Commission had the following questions for staff: How will this project affect code compliance of the Home Depot site? Staff: The City s code requirements are met for both the project site and the adjacent Home Depot site. One of the issues we will be discussing tonight is the broader implications for future development of the Bridgepointe Shopping Center in which case could staff comment on the Bridgepointe Master Plan? Staff: The Bridgepointe Master Plan was developed as a replacement for the former Fashion Island Shopping Center. The Master Plan included residential, retail and office uses. Separate Site Plan and Architectural Review applications were approved for each phase of the development. Given the small size of the presently proposed project, no revision of the Master Plan was required. What is the total amount of retail space at Bridgepointe? Staff: There is approximately 600,000 square-feet of retail space at Bridgepointe Shopping Center. Jerry Engen gave the applicant presentation. The Planning Commission had the following questions for the applicant: The original plan did not have patios on either side of the building. Applicant: Correct, the original application included a patio on the east side only but the sidewalk on the west side was widened to accommodate outdoor seating. Will there be entrances to the restaurants from the patios? Applicant: Yes, there are entrances to the restaurants from both the side and interior elevations. Please clarify the proposed windows along Chess Drive side? Applicant: The windows are spandrel glass along Chess Drive. Spandrel windows are non-vision windows. They

3 Page 3 are an architectural glass only because the tenant spaces require some areas which are not appropriate for public view such as, freezers and storage rooms. Is the door on the South elevation side of the building made of metal? Applicant: Yes and it would be painted to match adjacent surfaces. Commissioner: Is it a stucco and brick building. Applicant: Yes. Commissioner: How far is the distance between the white metal door with the stucco around it and the brown area around it? Applicant: 6 to 24 inches. In the future, is there anything in this design that would preclude a tenant that is occupying the two middle spaces to remodel and provide access to the street? Applicant: No. We see that you compiled trip data for the sit down restaurants? Do you have any internal trip capture for the proposed restaurant uses? Applicant: Based on the studies I have done in the past the internal trip capture will be a significant amount. Commissioner: You would expect people to drive to the center and walk or drive to the site. Applicant: Yes. The revised elevation shows three single doors? Are they service doors? Applicant: Yes. Is there a paved walkway outside of those doors? Applicant: Yes. Do you know the distance between face of building and face of curb? Applicant: Approximately25 feet. Please clarify the revision to the Chess Drive elevation for Panda Express? Applicant: One of the street side service doors was eliminated. Is the delivery door the same door used by patrons? Applicant: Yes, but typically deliveries will be made before the stores and restaurants open. What percentage of Bridgepointe clientele comes from outside the immediate area as a regional source as opposed to a local source? Applicant: I would estimate a large percentage because the only way these big box malls can survive is by drawing from a large trade area. Why aren t the artificial entry-ways followed throughout like the spandrel windows? Applicant: It s a balance of design, cost and function. Is there going to be an additional pedestrian crossing? Staff: At this point in time we would not support a new crossing between the two driveways. However, the city is preparing a city-wide pedestrian master plan with a focus on the Bridgepointe Shopping Center to review all aspects of pedestrian accessibility. Ideally, when this study is underway the tenant spaces will be occupied and we can look at the patterns of pedestrian crossing. What are your plans of starting construction? Applicant: We are in the building plancheck process. Chair Massey opened the public comment period for this item. (No persons wishing to speak, he closed the public comment period.)

4 Page 4 The following people spoke: Marshall Loring, Celeste Drive, San Mateo Their comments included the following: Developer did nice job as far as appearance and the attractiveness from the Chess Drive. There are some concerns about pedestrian and bicycle circulation in the whole area which I think is the city s responsibility and not the developers. Urge the Planning Commission to keep on top of the city to make sure those responsibilities are met. What will the bicycle storage and racks look like? What would it look like with the tables in place? I like to walk and what I see here looks very encouraging. Looks very attractive. Doesn t want Planning to look with a rear-view mirror instead of looking forward. Have questions regarding accessibility including dimensions and wheelchair accommodations. Consider your responsibilities to the city and what we want to grow to for future generations. (No other persons wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public comment period.) The Planning Commission requested clarification on the following issues: Could staff speak to accessibility? Staff: The proposed building is required to be accessible. In addition, there will be handicapped parking. The building will meet all Federal and State and Local requirements for accessibility for the disabled. The Planning Commission made the following comments: Regret delays incurred by the applicant; however, there are design and pedestrian issues worth examining related to this project and Bridgepointe Shopping Center as a whole. Glad to see these services going to Bridgepointe. The proposed project is 6000-square foot in a 600,000 square-foot Center. Concerned with pedestrian safety. Have seen people run across the street instead of getting in their car and driving. Glad that Public Works will be examining pedestrian movement in the City. The applicant made a good faith effort to accommodate pedestrian circulation to and around the proposed building. The proposed building is well designed and fits with the rest of the center. It is an attractive building. Again, the applicant has made a good faith effort to enhance the Chess Drive Elevation. Appreciate the applicant s cooperation with staff and the process.

5 Page 5 Concerns about Chess Drive orientation of building and elevation, entries would look better with glass instead of stucco. Don t like the light color of the stucco panels around the service doors on the interior tenant spaces. If Bridgepointe were built today we would be having a different discussion tonight. It s my understanding these elevations were done before the actual tenants were confirmed. Applicant: The building design was done prior to the tenants. We were in discussion with the tenants early on and coordinated and worked with them. Now that you know the tenants that are going into the building is it going to change the color on the exterior of the building? Applicant: No, the intent of the design is to create as much flexibility for future tenants as possible. These are not long term leases. They are 3-5 year leases. For this building at this location I don t see a compelling need to have this building face the street. Applicant has demonstrated there is very good pedestrian access by sidewalk from all directions to the building. Agree with public comment that these issues regarding accessibility is something the city should address. Is there a sense by the commission to change orientation of the building? No, I don t have a compelling reason to ask the applicant to change the orientation of the building. Site is tremendously over-parked. Trying to encourage more walking and biking. Pleased future tenants could re-do the proposed spandrel windows and install vision glass windows along Chess Drive with relatively little effort. This area is distinct with store front facing the parking lot instead of the street. Suggest changes to make street elevation look less like the back elevation like the door material and the stucco. There is a need at Bridgepointe for the proposed uses. Great functional use of property. 600,000 square feet of retail space at Bridgepointe was designed the way it is today. Do not feel compelled to require the proposed 6,000 square foot building to change the existing conditions at Bridgepointe. Hearing a unanimous view of the white spaces on the south elevation. Do the Commissioners want to see spandrel glass? Applicant: To make the entire rear of the building in glass would be too costly. My preference would be to work with staff and pick a color besides white that would not stand out. Understands the applicants concern. Don t want the costs so high that you would lose tenants. Comfortable leaving this issue for staff. Leave the detail with the Zoning Administrator to require stucco color for storefront along Chess Drive. Pedestrian crossing on Chess Drive. Very interested in the Master Plan possibility for pedestrian crossing. Staff: We plan on starting the Master Plan process this summer and will do a focus pedestrian study of the Bridgepointe area. Does not want to be creating a safety hazard. To make the safety finding here we need to make sure we can evaluate and implement whatever measures are put into place.

6 Page 6 Staff: Once building is in place then we can study the activity out there and provide a safe crossing. The commission would approve the project with the understanding that Public Works would study pedestrian crossings in the area as part of city-wide Pedestrian Master Plan. On the findings in Exhibit A of the Administrative Report recommend striking II. Site Plan and Architectural Review, 1. Paragraph 3. Want to insure staff considers pedestrian and bicycle accessibility when reviewing plans and giving direction to applicants. Motion made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Freschet to approve the project by making the following motions: A. Approve the Categorical Exemption from environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, section 15303, New Construction, based upon the Findings for Approval in Exhibit A with a modification to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Findings for Approval (including the deletion of paragraph 3 under number 1); and B. Approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a 6,000 square foot commercial building; and Tentative Parcel Map for the subdivision of a 32,231 square foot parcel, based upon the Findings and Conditions in Exhibit A with a modification to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Findings for Approval (including the deletion of paragraph 3 under number 1) and Exhibit B. In addition, the Planning Commission: a) required that subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator, the stucco color for the Chess Drive elevation shall be revised specifically in the location of the service doors and the immediately surrounding building surfaces so that these areas blend with the rest of the building and minimize the appearance of back of house and enhance the storefront appearance; b) directed the Public Works Department to examine the Bridgepointe Shopping Center as part of the City-wide Pedestrian Master Plan; and c) emphasized the importance of bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and circulation in the early phases of project review. Vote: Passed 5-0

7 Page 7 COMMUNICATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Communications from Staff a. June 7 City Council will be discussing the Redevelopment of the San Mateo Times Building, will be discussing increasing Building fees increases. b. Packets will go out this week for (a week early to allow addition time for your review) the June 8 Planning Commission Meeting for the Hines project and the Election of officers. Notices were sent out a week in advance last Friday. c. The study session with the City Council on July 12. What is the Status of the General Plan? AB32 the air quality regulations by the State of California have taken affect.. Staff is working to integrate these requirements. Moving forward with public hearings around August or September. 2. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items before the Planning Commission, Chair Massey adjourned at 9:37 p.m. on