Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/24/2010.MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2010 STUDY SESSION: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Room CC -8, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Present: Commissioners, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee was excused. Staff Present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. /► REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. PL 2010-163 — Proposed new three story professional office building at the north end of Diamond Hills Plaza located at 2705 Diamond Bar Boulevard — Staff presentation by SP/Lee. VC/Nolan asked if the difference in the setback from Fountain Springs Drive was only 11 inches from 9 ft. 1 inch to 10 feet. SP/Lee said that was the previous two-story project. VC/Nolan asked if the three story office building was 10 feet. The applicant responded that the setback at the center point of the building is actually 14 feet. Chair/Torng said that in other words the original two-story building was 40 feet high and 9.1 feet to 15.1 feet for the setbacks and if that was approved in the past this looks like the same building. C/Nelson said that except for the window and the view into the resident's back yards it appears to be the same. Even though the building is 40 feet high the windows might be lowered to afford the people across Fountain Springs Drive some privacy. If another story is added even though the structure is the same height there would, in his opinion, be an invasion of privacy and would want that analyzed. He said he sensed tonight's meeting was as much about hearing from the public plus what the Commission comes up with tonight. CDD/Gubman concurred. C/Nelson said another of his concerns would be the reciprocal parking agreement and how it would look with the ultimate buildout of the center. Peichin Lee, applicant, explained to the Commission that the building meets the Development Code setbacks. She explained to the audience that the project has not submitted a traffic study but are awaiting the report. The current report indicates the current shopping center has more than 913 parking stalls. With the addition of this building, the entire shopping center would need to provide only about 600 parking stalls AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION so there is adequate parking available on the site and between the building and the shopping center. There will be a reciprocal agreement for shared parking. Ms. Lee said she has lived in Diamond Bar for more than 10 years and was excited that her company has an opportunity to develop a project in the City. Her home office is in the City of Industry. The company was founded 15 years ago and initially built industrial warehouses and other buildings in the City of Industry and then branched out to building medical buildings in Chino and West Covina. Part of the agreement for building this project includes no retail sales. The offices are professional offices only and would most likely bring more traffic to the existing center to help support the retail. This building is proposed to be 36,000 square feet. The windows are proposed to have color glazing which would offer some screening. In addition, many of the existing trees are more than 40 feet high which will offer additional screening and if they are asked to provide more trees to create better screening they would be happy to do so. Chair/Torng asked Ms. Lee to explain why the size of the building was being changed. Ms. Lee reiterated that the building needs to be of sufficient size to generate a certain return on the dollar in order for the lender to loan on the building and cover all of the costs. Projects under a certain size are not attractive to lenders. She felt the proposed project would offer a lot of opportunity to the community. C/Shah asked how much it would cost to building this project and Ms. Lee responded about $8 million. VC/Nolan asked how Ms. Lee conducted her feasibility study. Ms. Lee responded that she has lived in the area for several years. She owns the company and when they built a 72,000 square foot unit she personally marketed and sold all 45 condo units within one year. She has had a chance to meet a lot of local individual business owners in Diamond Bar, Walnut, Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights, and what she learned was that most people want to own their own buildings. Chair/Torng asked about the number of units in an office condo and Ms. Lee said they propose to divide it into 34 condo units. Chair/Torng asked if all 34 condos would be purchases. Ms. Lee said there are a lot of buyers looking for this type of condo setup in this area. So far she has done a minimal amount of marketing because she wants to know if she will be able to obtain an approval from the Commission. Chair/Torng asked if this was proposed to be a medical building and Ms. Lee responded no, it would be a professional office condo. VC/Nolan asked for staff's opinion of the cost effectiveness of this project if it were under a certain square footage. CDD/Gubman said staff does not look at projects in that manner. The challenge is that the applicant is taking a risk and looking at what kind of returns can be expected based on historical evidence. The Planning Division is looking at the aesthetic issues and needs to look at the consequences of what the applicant is proposing. When those issues are identified staff will communicate with the applicant as AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION to what those concerns are and what the applicant would need to do to respond to those concerns. Staff determined that there might be a bit of an impact at this point and decided to have a study session to get the Commissioners' input. VC/Nolan asked what the standards were for view impact with respect to this project. CDD/Gubman there are no development standards regarding views, angles and preserving existing views but there are design criteria about compatibility and privacy. For example, when a second story addition to a residence is proposed, staff looks at privacy issues and clearly issues of view into back yards might be an issue so staff would look to eliminate the window on that side or work on that part of the architecture to offset those concerns. It is in that same general principle that staff would look at privacy issues, etc. C/Shah asked about the percentage of window area compared to the wall area. The architect responded he was not sure of the percentage but windows in the back would be used to break up the massing of the building. He explained that although there is more wall area the percentage of window area would be about the same as the previous project. Current code allows building up to 35 feet and the site was previously approved for up to 40 feet. This proposal height is 32 '/2 feet at the street side. However, if the building is measured from the parking lot facing H -Mart it is another six feet higher and the reason this project comes to the Commission for approval is because this project exceeds the 35 feet height. The highest tower in the shopping center at its peak is 49 feet. All four setbacks meet the Code. CDD/Gubman responded to VC/Nolan that the building at Cold Spring end is being renovated with a new roof. There is no height change. VC/Nolan asked if the balcony was used for foot traffic and SP/Lee responded that it was. Ms. Lee said their original proposal was for 12,000 square feet three-story with each floor having the same footprint and that is the proposal she prefers. However, she wants to hear from the Commissioners and the neighbors about any concerns to see if there is a way that she can work with everyone to better define her position or reach a compromise. C/Shah asked staff to comment on reducing the first floor area. CDD/Gubman suggested staff talk about the alternatives staff considered to deal with the mass issue or take a break from that and listen to what the neighbors had to say. A speaker asked if the condos were being sold, would the City have a say in what type of business would be located in the building in order to control the health, safety and environment. CDD/Gubman responded that every business must be licensed and conform to the zoning requirements. So there are some uses that are allowed and other uses that would require a public hearing before they are established. If this is an office AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION building, office uses are just allowed with a business license. There will be a requirement under the conditions of approval for this project as a condominium office building to have CC&R's so that there needs to be centralized management of this building and individual owners of the air spaces within the building would have to abide by the property maintenance standards and criteria in addition to the additional City requirements to control the aesthetics e.g., where signs go, what kind of window coverings are allowed, etc. A speaker asked what would happen in the case of sub -leasing. Ms. Lee said it would be no different because the one who owns the whole building is subject to leasing requirements and so to would be individuals who own individual condos who rent to others. Businesses must acquire a business license from the City or from the county or state. CDD/Gubman said that if an unlawful business use was detected by the City it would become a code enforcement issue. A speaker said he was a potential buyer of one of the condo units because it is very difficult for business owners to find small offices spaces in Diamond Bar. A speaker said he did not see a problem with the height because the uses are compatible with the neighborhood. He responded to VC/Nolan that he is a resident, shops there every week and often wondered what could happen at that vacant space. He saw no problem with the proposal. C/Shah asked what the timeline would be if the applicant received approval and whether construction would begin immediately or whether the applicant intended to wait until she had tenants. Ms. Lee said that if all goes as planned they are scheduled to break ground in three months. Construction will take no more than eight months to complete and they are looking to deliver the building to owners and/or tenants within a year from this time. Ms. Lee said she is a developer and general contractor. In addition to having a strong and professional construction team they handle all of the marketing and leasing in house as well by a very strong management team. A speaker asked if construction hours could be limited to the allowed times because workers arrive at 6:45 ready to work. CDD/Gubman responded that the ordinance prohibits construction prior to 7:00 a.m. Ms. Lee said she would make sure her team followed all regulations. VC/Nolan asked residents how they felt about the design as it affects people living on Fountain Springs. A speaker said he lives on Castle Rock but it seemed like it shouldn't be an issue. If he lived on Fountain Springs he would not want people looking into his back yard. The only problem would be the additional traffic coming into the area. CDD/Gubman responded that this project, taking into account the overall reduction in intensity for the shopping center without the three-story medical office building and theater building, in the AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION aggregate, the total square footage of the center would be less than what was originally approved in 2005. He does not have specific answers with respect to traffic calming devices on Fountain Springs but it is an existing condition in that neighborhood. This being an office building with office clients it may actually distribute more of the traffic to the Fountain Springs side so the traffic study would call out the trip distribution and whether there would be a need to install red curbs or signage or some other type of mitigation, if recommended. CDD/Gubman explained that the north end of the shopping center has been struggling. The end toward HMart is fairly well populated. The north end is pretty bleak and prior to the renovation the north end struggled more than the south end_ Staff was initially uncomfortable with the 10,000 square foot music school recently approved at the north end of the center because it would not generate sales tax revenue. However, the reality is there may be indirect benefits with a busy music school with classes that rotate on an hourly basis because there may be more clients attracted to that end of the center that would patronize the businesses. Similarly, with a 30 plus unit office building there is a population that is constant throughout the business day. So this may be a better use given the difficulty in keeping retail established and having a workforce that should add synergy to the center. So as a use staff believes it is probably a good change in strategy as far as ranging land uses. VC/Nolan asked if all units were the same square footage and Ms. Lee said they would range from 1000 to 1500 square feet. She wondered if there were larger units on the top floor if it would require fewer windows. She said she was not comfortable with a third floor balcony facing Fountain Springs. She felt the balcony on the front side would be an attractive feature. Ms. Lee explained that the original proposal did not include the balcony design. It is a rectangular building with a hallway and the only window offices would have would be on the outside of the building. Chair/Torng referred to C/Nelson's earlier comments and asked about the impact of third story windows in relationship to the closest buildings. CDD/Gubman said staff could do some line of sight analysis. He would like to see windows because C/Nelson said it may be that the windows do not need to be reduced but the Commission would need to see an analysis between the impacts of a two and three story building and what, if any, intrusion on the people across the street. A two -scale cross section should work. Ms. Lee said she wanted it to look like a professional office building. No one will live there and most businesses are open 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. C/Nelson said that was the other element — the light from the windows because during the winter it gets dark at 5 p.m. He did not believe that anyone across the street on Fountain Springs would like to have light coming into their backyards. It is a comparative analysis. The Commissioners just need to see it and understand it. He has no doubt that this could be compatible or even better than what was previously proposed but the Commission has approved one project and AUGUST 24, 2610 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION now the Commission is being asked to approve another project and the basis for approval is a comparison to what was approved before. And if there are significant effects on neighbors that would be what he would have to base his decision on. Ms. Lee reminded the Commissioners that there was landscaping to mitigate the window issue and that she had volunteered to add landscaping if that were a condition of approval. CDD/Gubman said there are tali trees at the back of the building site and staff would have to study the matter further before relying too much on the mitigating -effect of those trees and that will be part of what staff brings back to the Commission. CDD/Gubman said that staff's concern was that a three story building is a tall building. The architect has worked on taking the three story building and attempted to minimize the height and use other massing techniques to reduce the visual impact. He asked the Commissioners to imagine a three-story building at the corporate center in an area that is really one or two story building in scale. In looking at the project at Nogales and Valley one gets a better sense of the scale of a three-story building. Staff is not saying the applicant should not build a three-story building in this location but based on its proximity to Fountain Springs, it may be appropriate to do whatever possible to use design techniques to reduce the perceived scale of that building. And certainly, the trees that already encroach above the skyline where the top of the parapet would reach are adjacent to a two-story building on a higher pad so this building next to it will not be any higher than that building. In fact, it will be lower than a portion of the adjacent building. VC/Nolan asked if the existing building that fronts on Diamond Bar Boulevard have any windows that face Fountain Springs and SP/Lee said she did not believe so. The architect explained that from the windows about the only thing that would be visible would be the rooftops of the houses. C/Nelson said he understood but wanted a comparison and doubted that anyone living in the area would have envisioned a three- story building, maybe a two-story building, but not a three-story building. He reiterated that he is not saying this is not compatible and cannot be made compatible but the Commissioners have to base their decision on what is best for the community. If the applicant can show the Commissioners that there is really no significant difference between the two-story and the three-story building in terms of line of sight into the yard and/or light intrusion into the yard, that is the evidence the Commission needs on which to base its decision. VC/Nolan reminded the applicant and staff she wanted consideration of the view from the balcony as well. AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION A speaker said he agreed with the Commissioners that the residents' privacy needed to be respected but wanted the Commissioners to look at the big picture because he does not believe there would be an infringement issue. VC/Nolan reiterated her concern about the rear balcony because people would tend to stand out on the balcony and visit and smoke. She said she liked the idea of the setback but not having people on a balcony so accessible to view. Ms. Lee reiterated that the balcony is part of the square footage of the building. It would be unusual not to have a balcony. VC/Nolan said that people standing outside on balconies smoking is very common. C/Nelson asked the applicant to obtain a traffic study comparison of the proposed project with the approved project and comment on how the traffic would change. He asked staff to take a look at the potential need to red stripe the curb on Fountain Springs so that people would not be parking there and up the driveway into the building. CDD/Gubman reiterated staff's concerns and the Commissioner's concerns ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the Study Session at 8:36 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 28th day of September, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubn n Community Development Director Torng, Chai,ma­n'�