Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2015 MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING : FEBRUARY Chairman Frank Farago called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Low led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ruth Low, Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Bob Nishimura, Peter Pirritano, and Chairman Frank Farago Also present: Greg, Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Josue Espino, Assistant Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: Edward Dahl, 1938 Chestnut Creek Road, said he was concerned about the drainage diverters along the streets and was told that the City would remove them. His has been removed because he had work done to his driveway and wanted to know if the other diverters would be removed in the future. He was also concerned about the heavy coyote population in the City and the loss of his dog and other cats and dogs as well as, the possible loss of small children. CDDIGubman asked the speaker to provide his contact information and staff will reach him by phone to discuss his concerns. With respect to relocation of drainage diverters or any other infrastructure improvements, those items are handled by the City's Public Works Department and he will refer this inquiry to that department for outreach to Mr. Dahl. Regarding the coyote issue, staff is well aware of that issue which is a matter under the jurisdiction and regulations of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and it may be unlawful for individuals to take any action in this regard. There is staff in the City Manager's office that can provide information about what measures would be proposed to address this concern and he will ask the Deputy City Manager or one of the Management Analysts in that office to reach out to Mr. Dahl. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented FEBRUARY 24, 2015 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4.1 Minutes of the JanuarV 27 2015 Regular Meetin . C/Pirritano moved, Chair/Farago seconded, to approve the January 27, 2015, regular meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): None None Low, Mahlke, Pirritano, Chair/Farago None Nishimura None 7.1 Development Review No. PL2014-618 •- Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owners requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,232 square foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,823 square foot, two-story single family residence with an attached two -car garage on a 0.30 gross acre (13,180 gross square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNERS APPLICANT: 1928 Chestnut Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Hongjie Wu and Yanfang Yao 1928 Chestnut Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Jason Jiang Jao Design, Inc. 5877 Pine Avenue Chino Hills, CA 91709 FEBRUARY 24,2015 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISS101 APIEspino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2014-618, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. CILow asked if the second floor room designated as an office with an attached bathroom presented different challenges to the approval or plan check process than if the room was designated as a bedroom. APIEspino responded that per the building code, the room would need to have a closet to be considered a bedroom and in this particular case, no closet is proposed. CILow asked if the amount of space made a difference and APIEspino responded "no." C/Nishimura stated that staff's report and diagram indicates there is a 22 foot setback from the front property line to the building and asked if that was correct to which APIEspino responded "yes." C/Nishimura said he noticed that the lot was irregularly shaped and on the drawing the 22 feet is shown from the north side of the garage. Looking at the south side corner it will be less than 22 feet and he wanted to know if it is at 20 feet or more or less than 20 feet or if it makes a difference. APIEspino responded that the distance at that location was about 21 to 22 feet because of the site tapering in a bit but it would not mal<e-a difference in compliance with the Development Code and still meets the front setback requirement. C/Nishimura asked why staff used 22 feet in the report- and APIEspino responded that for consistency of the drawings and staff measured the site and found that the setback meets the minimum requirement. C/Nishimura said if the measurement is something less than 22 feet, and staff is submitting a report, and the measurement is something less than what is stated he would like to see that information reflected in staff's report. C/Nishimura said he visited the site and found that it was less than 22 feet and he wanted to know how much less than 22 feet it measures or if it is over 20 feet because a Minor CUP might be required. APIEspino thanked C/Nishimura for bringing this to his attention and staff will correct the information; however, staff's site visit concluded that the project complies as stated in staff's report and a condition of approval can be included in the Resolution that the project will comply with the 20 foot front setback requirement. CILow said it appeared the measurement was 31 feet on the diagram. There is a notation of 22 feet at the bottom of the slide and then it goes up FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION to 31 feet. APIEspino responded that in reference to the 22 feet versus the 20 foot question was because the measurement was taken from its respective location as opposed to the location indicated by C/Nishimura. 11 is a correct statement that this should be taken into account and, based on staff's review and site visit that is from where the setback distance was measured. The 31 feet is recessed area from a portion of the property line. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Edward Huang, Project Manager, Hao Design, Inc. introduced his colleagues Jason Jiang, Project Architect and Lew Jiang, Project Coordinator, thanked staff for their help and support through a very pleasant working relationship during the design and development phase of this home addition project. His company respectfully submits this project for the Commission's consideration. This project is designed to house a four person family. Mr. Wu is a very successful businessman in China and he is in the process of pursuing his American dream and identified and purchased this property as part of that dream and wished to become a new member of this community. Mr. Wu was very happy to hear that Diamond Bar staff was very pleasant to work with., and that Diamond Bar is a "business -friendly" community. His twin boy and girl are 11 and are looking forward to attending school and making new friends in the community. The proposed improvement to the property meets every requirement of the City's General Plan, Zoning, Development Standards and Design Guidelines. Again, this is the owner's pursuit of the American dream. The kids are growing and the owner wants a nice house forthemselves and their kids. Mr. Huang said his company was very glad to be able to serve as a help in bringing the Wu family to Diamond Bar. The house, as proposed with an addition is compatible -to the neighborhood and the style of the architecture is compatible to the neighborhood as well. Mr. Huang provided two maps and a photo to the Commission. Mr. Huang distributed to the Commission and staff copies of two maps diagramming all other existing two-story homes within an area generally along Chestnut Creek Road/Bella Pine and Wellspring Drive, between Terra Loma Drive on the south and Leaning Pine Dive on the north, and houses with compatible architectural styles. He also distributed to the Commission and staff copies of an aerial photo and street view photo with the roof plan and front elevation of the proposed project overlaid on them and showing the proposed slope and ridgeline of the roof. Mr. Huang said his firm's intent from the very beginning was to provide an integrated and compatible design and his client EBRUARY 24, 2015 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSIW4 and staff are pleased with the result. all conditions of approval as stated implement those conditions. Mr. Huang said that he would accept and continue to work with staff to Lew Jiang thanked the City's Planning staff and in particular APIEspino and AP/Espinoza for their help through this process. Jeff Deutsch, 1922 Chestnut Creek Road (property to the north of the project) said that based on his limited knowledge of the project he did not have any specific problems with the project with the possible exception of the fact that he added solar panels to their south facing roof and was concerned that the increase in the height of the project roof may impinge on the design of his solar panels which might require a change in the design plan and costs related to moving the panels. Chair/Farago asked if the ridgeline was being changed on the project house and APIEspino responded that the ridgelines, as shown on the roof plan, are such that it is maintaining the same height as the existing home. The cross ridgeline will intersect with the top of the existing ridgeline and the overall height will not change. There will be a mass for the second story addition but the height will not increase. Chair/Farago asked that the front view rendering of the project addition be put on the overhead and asked to have the speaker's concerns explained. Chair/Farago said that if the current height does not interfere with the exposure and shading of his property, in staff's opinion, how would the project affect the neighboring property? CDD/Gubman referred Chair/Farago to sheets A-4 and A-6 of the plans and explained that the existing residence and the roof facing the neighboring property at 1922 Chestnut Creek currently has a gabled roof. The proposed addition will change that to a hipped roof in such a manner that the new roof eave line is going to be at the same height as the existing ridge and will increase in height to the height of the front facing gable. CDDIGubman approached the dais in order to show Chair/Farago the roof plans to demonstrate how that would occur. CDDIGubman addressed Chair/Farago and Commissioner Nishimura, reiterated what he had previously stated on the record and pointed to the diagram; however, the microphone was off and the audience could not hear the conversation. Michael Bharosa, 1981 Evergreen Springs, said he was totally against this project because he has seen in other cities such as Temple City, Alhambra, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Monterey Park where they build these mini -mansions and the houses around depreciate in value. He stated that that was his opinion, of course. He wanted to know the reason these individuals are building this big monstrosity of a house which is almost doubling the size of the house. He had a yard sale two weeks ago down the street and neighbors from the neighborhood close to the project site, and it's just hearsay, said that they are going to open up a business there. Like he said, he has no proof, just hearsay, but they volunteered the information and if that is so, in his opinion, they should not be running a business if that is what is going to happen. He likes his neighborhood like it is and does not think his neighborhood needs mini -mansions. Edward Dahl, 1938 Chestnut Creek, next door to the property, said he moved into his house in 1977 (38 years ago) and there have been six families in the house (subject property) since he has lived in Diamond Bar. There used to be a plastic pool in the back yard and the third or fourth owner filled it in and planted a tree. If you go in the back yard and look from the house next to it across the subject property yard into his yard, about 10 feet from the back hill is a crack which has been there for over 30 years which he believes is not an earthquake fault but something cracked the cement apart. He added on to his house a few years ago and had to go deeper into his foundation to put the addition on. His addition did not require a hearing because it is in the back and not visible. Building a structure that high makes it a mansion. His house has more square footage because it is flat and not built up. This proposed "mansion" will stick out like a sore thumb and it does not match the rest of the neighborhood and seems like it would be out of place. The prior owner acquired the house at a discount through a sale and put $100,000 into the house. The roof is three years old. There is all new flooring inside and all new everything inside. Mr. Wu paid a premium for this house and does not see why he would want to dump another $100,000 to $200,000 into it because the neighborhood does not support that type of thing. If the gentleman wanted a bigger house he could have gone up the street four or five houses where all the houses are new and larger. The project house was built in 1963 and up the street the houses were built a lot later. They are a lot bigger. One of his concerns based on hearsay, up the street in the cul-de-sac there is a baby house, which he believes are illegal, and asked why would a person want to double the footage and overbuild for the neighborhood. He thinks the ground in the back needs to be inspected to see if it will support that type of weight. Mr. Dahl said he put up a brick wall between the houses many years ago and had the first three feet of it poured solid for the retaining wall and wondered if all of the weight of the new addition would affect his retaining wall. If it is IF EBRUARY 24, 2015 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION a multiple family he is concerned about parking. He parks a car on the street and has a jeep next to his motor home and will be putting all of his vehicles off of the street. When the street sweeper comes along he has to park on the lawn and has permission from the City to do so every Friday. He has talked with his neighbors who believe the addition will bring property values down. He understands that it is close to Diamond Bar High School which is a premium high school. He believes the roofline will infringe on Mr. Deutsch's solar system to where he will have to have it moved. Mr. Huang said that this is a single family home and not a baby house and it will not be a multi -family unit so there should be no concerns about those issues. He reiterated staff's report with respect to concerns about the new roofline interfering with the neighbor's solar panels that the new design will maintain the eave line. The roof line will be sloped up. The purpose of this design is not to create a mansion which is why the current roofline format will be retained. Shelley Wicks, 1950 Chestnut Creek Road, three houses down from the project site, said she was sure the people who purchased the home, intend to change the home and move into it are very nice. She understands why they want to live in Diamond Bar because it is a wonderful community. When she first came to California she lived in West L.A. for a number of years and one of the things that got her out of L.A. was the overbuilding that was happening. Nice middle class neighborhoods are taken over by people who want to update their homes which she understands and would love to do to her home as well. But what happened in West L.A. and all over Los Angeles is "McMansion" which is overbuilding. The subject property looks like it will be a lovely home but she cannot think of another house on her block that looks anything at all like the proposed project. It will be beautiful but it looks to be completely inappropriate to the rest of the neighborhood. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. CILow said she noticed during the public hearing that CDDIGubman presented a diagram of the roof (to the Commission) and asked if the comments by the applicant comports with his understanding of the project and the diagram he presented, in short, does this clarify the concerns regarding the roofline? CDDIGubman stated that in his opinion, after reviewing the plans, the distance separation between the two residences and the additional factor of the hipped roof being introduced would seem to suggest that it is being mindful of the solar access for the panels. Ultimately, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION it could be a civil issue if that turns out not to be the case. The proposed addition is in compliance with the Development Standards and there is not an obligation for the Planning Commission to remedy a potential civil issue that may take place. However, he believes it would be prudent for the two neighbors, should this project be approved, to discuss this matter and have a consultant provide line -of -sight analysis to determine whether or not there is a solar access issue and if that would need to be remedied either by relocating the panels, raising their height, or whatever needs to be done to modify the panels; or, alternatively, modify the design of the proposed house and come back to the Planning Commission for a revision. At the end of the day, this is a potential civil matter and he believed it was an important issue for the two potential future neighbors to resolve. C/Low asked for verification that this was not something that would bar the Planning Commission's approval of this project and CDD/Gubman responded that CILow was correct and that is why he mentioned that when this type of situation comes up it is a civil matter that would have to be resolved between the private parties involved. CILow said that for the record, the diagram that CDDIGubman earlier presented to the Commission is available for the neighbor's review and that the neighbor can contact staff with further questions. It is her understanding that as with any development, there is no "right" to sight or view that people cherish in their neighborhoods insofar as it impacts the Commission's decision. CDDIGubman said that CILow was correct with respect to the Commission's decision making for this matter. There may be laws that grant solar access rights and if those rights are impinged upon there may be civil remedies for that. C/Low is correct that there are no guarantees and no requirements for protection of views and other preservations of an existing context. CILow asked for verification that the Planning Commission's decision is based upon whether or not this particular project meets the City's Development Standard when it decides whether or not to approve a project. CDDIGubman responded that there are two components to consider. The first is whether or not a project meets the Development Standards. As the Planning Commission's technical staff, we would not bring a project to the Planning Commission unless it met all of the development standards or if the application included a Variance request to deviate from those standards. The second component and why the Commission is needed, is to determine if the Commission can make the findings in order to grant approval which goes beyond the quantitative FEBRUARY compliance and technical compliance standards to a more qualitative judgment of whether this use is compatible and appropriate as a design in conformance with the Design Guidelines for the structure itself, as well as, its appropriateness in that location where this land use is proposed. CILow asked if it would be appropriate to consider the development of the neighborhood by looking at Diamond Bar as a whole or is the Commission limited to looking at development or compatibility by focusing solely on that street. The reason she asks this question is because the concerns that have been voiced here by speakers is that some people might feel, in their opinion, that this is a very large residence while other people who may not have spoken today feel that it is not. The reality is that this development being proposed is not "double" the existing area, it is a little bit over one- third, which is not double or triple the existing home. However, if one looks around the area, as mentioned by a speaker, there was a similar home that was even larger in square footage than the proposed home. In addition, there is information from the applicant that there are similar homes in close proximity to this neighborhood. She asked if homes directly adjacent to the proposed development are smaller in size does the Commission consider that or can it consider the neighborhood to be larger than that because in fact, the Diamond Bar community has a number of homes that are the size of this proposed development. CDDIGubman stated that some of the decisions the Commission needs to make go beyond the "black and white" realm of code standards: the Commission should look at neighborhood context. How the Commission determines the radius or what defines the neighborhood in which this fits is the criteria by which it should judge this project. Looking at Diamond Bar citywide is not really a criterion that one would use because obviously, in The Country this project would barely be the size of maids quarters. There are very large homes within The Country. In fact, The Country might take a dim view and perhaps disapprove a project this size because it could affect the comparable values in that neighborhood. There are other multi -family designations where the mass and the bulk in scale of the homes are different. And so, each neighborhood is going to have its character -defining features and for this particular residence, the most critical compatibility factor or criteria to look at is this tract of homes in which it is located. The Commission can expand upon that evaluation by taking into account other subdivision/production type neighborhoods of similar lot sizes where because of the desirability of the community, the school district being an important draw, and families FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION growing, a lot of projects that come before the Commission are proposed additions so that the families can grow in place and stay in the community. Adding onto homes that were built when lifestyles and expectations for the amount of personal living space was different, and the need to adapt to contemporary lifestyles is something to look at. So, getting back to compatibility for this proposal, is it just different? Sometimes looking at tract developments the complaint is the monotony, the repetitiveness. So, this is clearly different from the other home designs in the neighborhood which is either good or bad in that it is difficult for CDDIGubman to provide guidance onto which side this proposal falls. It is clearly an unprecedented design in this neighborhood. The square footage is about 3,000 square feet. By today's standards that is not unreasonably large for a parcel of this size and it is certainly not in the same context as Arcadia where one might have a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot lot and build an 8,000 or 10,000 square foot home. Those homes are clearly overbuilt. The amount of lot coverage permitted in some communities would be unacceptable in Diamond Bar and that is why Diamond Bar has lot coverage limits. CILow thanked CDDIGubman for his comments and said she felt they were very, very helpful for the Commission in terms of making its decision. She noted that as CDDIGubman said, people have changing standards about personal living spaces and she recalled that the Commission recently approved a remodel where the family situation changed with Grandma returning home to live with the family which prompted a need to upgrade and increase the size of the home which is another type of lifestyle change that is seen in this community and across America. She also noted that if a family wanted to make their house better it is their money and they are entitled to use it as they see fit. C/Nishimura said he sympathizes with those who commented about "McMansions." He just did the math and this house is going from just over 1,800 square feet to 3,055. This is not a kitchen pantry addition, this is not a bedroom addition, this is 67.5 percent increase from the current size so he thinks it is something the Commission needs to keep in mind. He has worked in different cities where he has seen some of the West L.A. "McMansion" homes and he knows that the Commission is bound by the City's current standards, but again, this is a house and they are asking for our permission but he thinks the Commissioners have to realize when they look at the numbers and the neighborhood, this is almost a 70 percent increase in the size of the house for this neighborhood. FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PAGE i O Someone from the audience asked how long the building (construction) would last because she has allergies. CDDIGubman said that as a general response, the City recently revised its Building Code so that a project needs to pass an inspection within certain deadlines. There used to be an allowance where one nail was driven which was considered "work being done" and that could extend the life of a permit for another six months. Currently, there are specific requirements for a project to pass an inspection within a certain deadline. A project of this size could take about four months. C/Nishimura asked if there were constrictions on the days and hours of construction and CDDIGubman responded that the restrictions are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. C/Nishimura said he saw two different things in both agenda items where one section said 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. and another said 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. CDDIGubman reiterated that the Code allows 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. CILow said she thinks this is a nice project and she is mindful of the comments and the speakers that have spoken on this and the Commission has listened to their concerns. Based on the Commission's discussion and the Development Standards before it together with other intrinsic factors, she said she would move to approve the project. CILow moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2014-618, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Low, Mahlke, Pirritano, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nishimura ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Nishimura said he voted "no" because the motion for approval did not include the 20 foot setback amendment that was discussed earlier. CDDIGubman stated for the benefit of the audience that there is a 10 -day appeal period so that within 10 calendar days of this decision and with submittal of an appeal fee to the City Clerk's office, anybody has the right to appeal this decision for a de novo hearing before the City Council. FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.2 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-574 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner requested, Development Review approval to remodel and construct a two-story addition consisting of 1,017 square feet of floor area to an existing 2,529 square foot, two-story single family residence with an attached 573 square foot garage on a 0.38 gross acre (16,700 gross square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a 15 foot front setback (where 20 feet is required). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 1280 S. Lemon Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765' Girish Shah 1280 S. Lemon Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765. APPLICANT: Gabriel Isaia 11171 Oakwood Drive, Unit G312 Loma Linda, CA 92354 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-574, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Gabriel Isaia, project designer, stated that the owner contracted with him to do this project because there is currently no bedroom downstairs. There are four bedrooms upstairs; however, the owner is getting to the point in his life of needing a master bedroom for his use downstairs. The living area over the garage will accommodate one child's playroom. As a designer, he proposes to match the existing roof ridgeline. These are not extravagant plans, merely simple plans to accommodate the family members' current and future daily living needs. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. C/Low told the applicant she believed his design was very sensible and practical. People have changing lifestyles and need to make their homes COMMISSION ,�EBRIJARY 24, 2015 PAGE 13 PLANNING compatible with their needs which the applicant has done for this family in good fashion. C/Nishimura said he visited the site and believes the architecture and plan the applicant submitted will fit is fine with the neighborhood. C/Low moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-574, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Low, Mahlke, Nishimura, Pirritano, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None �. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTSIINFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Farago welcomed C/Nishimura to the Planning Commission. C/Mahlke also welcomed C/Nishimura. C/Pirritano welcomed C/Nishimura and said it was good to have him on the Commission. CILow welcomed C/Nishimura and hoped he would enjoy serving on the Commission. She thanked staff for a great job as always, for their patience, detailed information and articulation of the difficulties she inherits in some of these hearings. C/Pirritano announced that the annual Golfing for Kids Day to raise money for children of the community will be held on Monday, May 11. He serves as President of the Diamond Bar Community Foundation and last year the Foundation raised about $30,000 after expenses. The Foundation hopes to exceed that amount this year. There will be a celebrity golfer playing and he invited everyone to join in the event and at least come for lunch if they do not wish to golf. CILow announced that The Friends of the Library will host the 22"1 Wine Soiree on April 26 and everyone is invited. She has tickets for the event and The Friends would love to have everyone join in the event to celebrate the Wines and Foods of FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION Italy this year together with Wines and Foods of native California. C/Pirritano will serve as a pourer and be sure to visit his table. C/Nishimura stated that this weekend was opening day for Diamond Bar Girls' Softball, the oldest youth sports league in the community which was started in 1969. He has been an active supporter and participant and served as past president and currently serves as treasurer. The first game was tonight and games will run for about the next 10 weeks and Commissioners are encouraged to attend the games which are held on Tuesday and Thursday nights at Pantera Park from 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and all day Saturday starting at about 8:00 a.m. The event is for girls from T -Ball as young as 4 years of age through high school. C/Pirritano announced that the Diamond Bar Community Foundation is raising money for "Fields for Kids." 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDDIGubman welcomed C/Nishimura to the Commission on behalf of the Community Development Department staff and said staff looked forward to working with him. CDDIGubman stated that the next Planning Commission is scheduled for March 10. On that agenda will be the Planning Commission reorganization which is the time for the Commission to select a Chair and Vice Chair to serve for the forthcoming year. Currently, the Commission does not have a Vice Chair and that deficiency will be remedied during the reorganization process. CDDIGubman stated that also on the March 10 agenda, there will be a proposed residential addition at 2745 Wagon Train Lane and a proposed cell site at Maple Hill Park which proposes an artificial tree (monopine). Staff's report recommendation will be forthcoming and the Commission will need to prepare for what will likely be a controversial item since the proposed cell tower is surrounded by residential properties. CDDIGubman reminded Commissioners that next Wednesday through Friday the Planning Commissioners Academy will be held and he, C/Nishimura and C/Pirritano will attend. CDDIGubman said he would report any pertinent information back to the Commissioners that they missed out on by not attending. PAG FEBRUARY ... .. 5 PLANNING As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Farago adjourned the regular meeting at 8:23 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 10th day of March, 2015_ Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director i Rutfi Low, Chairperson