Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/2014 MinutesJULY 22, 2014 Chairman Frank Farago called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Jimmy Lin, Ruth Low, Peter Pirritano, and Chairman Frank Farago Absent: Vice Chairman Jack Shah was excused Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; and Josue Espino, Assistant Planner. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS- None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the June 24, 2014, Regular Meeting C/Lin moved, Chair/Farago seconded, to approve the June 24, 2014, Regular Meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Pirritano, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None - ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Low ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Shaw 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-139 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,183 square foot, second - story addition to an existing 1,708 square foot, one-story, single family residence on a 10,310 gross square foot (0.24 gross acres) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second -story addition to an existing non -conforming structure. The subject property is zoned Low - Medium Density Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 1809 Cliffbranch Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Huifei Shang 2641 Shady Ridge Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jason Bin 9330 Bistro Place Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2014-139 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AP/Espino responded to written questions from neighboring residents: 1) Will the property be owner -occupied or rented? The applicant has indicated that the property will be owner -occupied; 2) Concerns about design and construction of the house. As indicated in the presentation, the design will have Mediterranean influences and meet the current standards, and concerns about ornamental features being placed at the front of the home in the front yard area — there are none; 3) how long will the project take and if not finished in a timely manner, what are the remedies? In consultation with Building and Safety staff, there are periodic inspections for this and all types of developments and the project will take about 8 to 10 months from start of construction to final permit signoff. In addition, if the project is not finished in a timely fashion in accordance with timely inspections, fines and further legal remedies can be imposed, if necessary; 4) Will parking on the street be impacted? In consultation with the JULY 22, 2014 PAGE •. •. applicants, they have not yet selected a contractor; however, it is estimated that there will be about 10 crew members working on this project with 2-4 vehicles visiting the site on a daily basis to transport workers. Construction activities are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.. With respect to safety, staff has conditioned the project to wit that all equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site and that the project site and staging area including material stockpiling and equipment storage area will be enclosed by a six foot high chain link fence and all access points in the fence shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised and the sidewalk will remain unobstructed. 5) Does the existing structure have asbestos? The designer indicated that the existing house does not have asbestos and in addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) notification is required 10 days prior to any demolition and the contractor must certify that there is no threat of asbestos contamination. Proof of notification is required at permit issuance. C/Low asked about the letter from a neighbor that addressed a slope that slid and asked if those issues were implicated by this project to which AP/Espino responded that based on the proposed project, the extension of . five feet to the building pad will be approximately 66 feet away from the rear property line and staff does not anticipate any issues with the extension and the project will be reviewed by the Building and Safety and Public Works staff to make sure it complies with the Code standards. CDD/Gubman further stated that this issue is also addressed in the Conditions of Approval on Pages 12 and 13 of the Draft Resolution. Condition 9 on Page 13 includes the requirement for a soils report to be prepared by a licensed Soils Engineer. If there are any soil stability issues or recommended remediation provided in the soils report, the City's consultant engineer would review the report for adequacy and ensure that those recommendations are incorporated into the development. In short, there are Code requirement to ensure that this site will be brought into a factor of safety in terms of ground - stability before building permits would be issued to build the structure. C/Low asked if there were retaining walls in place or contemplated and AP/Espino responded that there is aproposed retaining wall to extend the pad by five feet. C/Lin asked if the City could impose indemnification from one property to another property and AP/Espino said he was not sure that indemnity was the correct term. The Planning Commission is not able to create an enforceable obligation by a third property against the property owner. If one property owner takes action that causes physical damage to another property there are civil legal remedies available and the owner would be JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 4 1 PLANNING COMMISSION liable if the damage was negligently caused. Adding such a clause in the project Conditions of Approval would have no affect on the third party's ability to recover or not. However, the applicant could be put on notice that there were potential issues. Chair/Farago asked if property upgrades would proceed through the usual engineering channels to make sure there are no future problems to which AP/Espino responded that Chair/Farago's assumption was correct. C/Low asked for confirmation that the answers to the questions were simply for informational purposes to the individuals`who presented the letters and provide no warranties of any sort to which AP/Espino responded that C/Low was correct. C/Low asked if the City had the ability to regulate the status of the occupancy (Question 1) and AP/Espino said that his answer was provided for information purposes only. COD/Gubman further stated that C/Low was correct and that the issue was addressed in staff's report where it says that the owner states that the property will be owner -occupied. At this point the City cannot forbid them from renting it out in the future. The City has restrictions on converting a single family residence into a boarding house where there are multiple rental agreements but renting out the house as a single family residence is not something the City can forbid the property owner from doing. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing Marilyn Peters, 1769 Cliff branch Drive, said she was opposed to this project and doubted that the owner would occupy the residence. Within the 1,000 foot radius there are 10 or 11 houses, four of which are rentals including the project site which is not currently owner -occupied. Three others are rentals, two of which are fraternity rentals. At any given time there are 8, 10 or 20 extra cars between those two houses, depending on the type of gathering which brings noise, traffic, etc., to the neighborhood. Across from her house is a boarding house. Simon Cao, speaking on behalf of his wife who owns the house said that his son lives in the house and Mr. Cao and his wife want to update the home for their son for his future. There is no plan to rent the house. Jennifer Kottke, 21409 Running River Court, said she was very concerned about the project because she has had many issues with homes in the area. On any given night she counts 17-20 cars and people coming and going to and from the fraternity houses throughout the night. She understands there is an attempt to add square footage to the home but believes the intent of JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 5 PLANNING1 • the addition is something other than what has been stated. Her neighborhood is doing everything possible to advocate for families and their children. She recounted several incidents and said she was baffled about why one individual needs a 2800 square foot house. Her home consists of 2300 square feet and serves five family members. She asked for a definition of "Low -Medium Density." Marjorie EI Solo, 1801 Cliffbranch Drive, said she lives next door to the project site and there is only 10 feet between the two houses. She is concerned about people renting their houses out to fraternities and students in her area which brings a lot of traffic to her neighborhood. She wondered why a single person would want to add 1100 square feet to their house. She was also concerned about the loss of view from her daughter's room. Jason Bin, applicant/designer, explained that the client bought this property last year for the view. His client lives in "The Country Estates" and bought this property for their son as a gift. His client will spend $200,000 to $300,000 for this project and would not want to risk that kind of money on a rental. Sam Barns, 1730 Leading Pine Drive, said he was concerned about people violating the City's ordinances when they rent places to multiple unrelated occupants. He asked if Diamond Bar had an ordinance that states single family homes can only be rented to single families and whether the City could impose a condition that this property could not be rented out to multiple unrelated individuals. Chair/Farago asked staff to readdress the ordinance for the project area. CDD/Gubman responded that the City's Development Code in the single family residential zones in which the project site is located, prohibits boarding houses and the definition of a boarding house is a dwelling unit that is rented out under more than one rental agreement and there could be several unrelated persons renting under a single family rental agreement which would be permitted. However, the distinction is that the makeup of the household has to be dictated by the renter, not by the landlord. In other words, the landlord cannot enter into multiple rental agreements. There is a burden of proof that would have to be met to obtain evidence that there are multiple rental agreements in effect for a particular property. If there are several people renting under one rental agreement, related or not, is something that is permitted. Chair/Farago asked if there was a limit to the number of unrelated occupants in a single property and CDD/Gubman JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION responded no. If it is a regular household and not a daycare or boarding house facility, the City is not allowed to look at it differently than a large family. CA/Eggart stated that to clarify, boarding houses are illegal and the renting of separate rooms to separate individuals under separate rental agreements would constitute a boarding house and would not be allowed; however, what the speaker was describing would not be permitted and would be illegal. What the City cannot do is regulate the occupancy under state law and court cases can only enforce occupancy limits based on building code which would technically allow many more people than would ever live in a house. It is not a real enforcement tool and cities have tried but have been struck down by the courts when attempting to enforce occupancy limits. C/Low asked staff to comment on the speaker's request for the definition ,of "Low Density Residential" and CDD/Gubman responded that it refers to how many dwelling units are permitted per acre and has no correlation to the number of persons per household. C/Low asked if the City allowed boarding houses and CDD/Gubman responded that boarding houses are allowed only in multi -family zones and this land use requires Conditional Use Permits and business licenses. AP/Espino responded to Mr. Barns' inquiry about monitoring uses that the City's Code Enforcement department responds to homeowner complaints to the best of their ability and tends to investigate alleged violations of the City's Municipal Code. CDD/Gubman cited examples of alleged fraternity houses on Cliffbranch Drive and to find such evidence he contacted CalPoly officials — specifically the University Police and the Office of Greek Life with information he had on names of tenants who lived at the houses and ran license plates of the cars parked on the street to see if there was any correlation or affiliation with those individuals with any Greek organizations. If he was able to find evidence that they were affiliated with a fraternity and they were operating an unsanctioned fraternity house, the City would then have probable cause to enforce the boarding house restriction. Staff found no connection between the individuals renting those units and any college fraternity or organization that would.suggest that this is a group home. For lack of evidence, staff could not say that this was simply a house being rented out to several students and the other indication that the household chores are being shared among all members of the household. Other than the problems with the number of vehicles and complaints of partying (one call to the Sheriff's Department) there was no basis for the City to allege JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION that they were operating as a boarding house rather than as a single household. Simon Cao said he understood everyone's concerns but said it would not make sense to go through an extensive and costly remodel just to rent out the property and have a bunch of kids damage the house. He believes that by having a better house in the neighborhood it would increase the value of the surrounding homes. He reiterated that he and his wife wanted to give their son a better house and would like to have the home available for retirement and enjoy his home and his neighbors. Again, there is no such plan to rent out this house. Jennifer Kottke commented that it is not uncommon for houses to be flipped and sold. She encouraged the City to think about the quality of living. Her street is very busy and has speed bumps. Her children cannot play in the front yard with their bikes because it is too dangerous. There are numerous sub -renters in her neighborhood and she would like for the City to consider a renter code restrictions. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. Chair/Farago asked if staff could make any recommendations to residents that might help them solve neighborhood issues unrelated to this particular project site. CDD/Gubman said that with respect to traffic, if cars are parked legally on a public street there is not much that can help that situation. The City requires garages to provide space for two vehicles and there is citywide non-compliance with that requirement. Staff could enforce this issue if there was probable cause to inspect garages. Beyond that, there is no solution to offer. If tenants or residents are creating a nuisance or are menacing, residents/neighbors are encouraged .to immediately call the Sheriff's Department and they will respond to calls if there is suspicious activity. If there are loud parties and breaking glass, the Sheriff's Department should be called at the very least to build a record for pursuing other enforcement tools. During the past three years there were three calls to the Sheriff's Department, only one of which was for nuisance reasons. If a particular house becomes a drain on public resources that provides more ammunition to deal with the landlords on how they are managing their properties. C/Low said that it was clear that these property owners and residents care very much about their neighborhoods and want them to be safe and pleasant which is why people move to Diamond Bar and remain in the City. She has not heard any evidence about this particular residence and its owner. All of the complaints were about other residences in the JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION neighborhood. Frankly, she does not see how the Commission can tie other properties tenants' bad behavior to this property owner/tenant. In fact, she has heard no complaints about this property owner and the resident and it would be unfair to consider placing restrictions when nothing untoward has occurred. The property owner is spending a significant amount of money to improve his property which does nothing except to increase the value of that residence. Moreover, no comparison of this project to fraternity houses has been offered. Rather, it appears to be the opposite. Unfortunately, there is no inherent right to a view so no conditions can be applied to that issue. Despite the problems in the neighborhood, those problems are not connected to this property. C/Lin spoke about the responsibilities of the Planning Commission, view issues, and confirmed with CDD/Gubman and AP/Espino the monitoring of the soils conditions. AP/Espino reiterated that there will be a four foot retaining wall built to support the pad and that there is an existing retaining wall at the rear of the pad which will be demolished and replaced by a retaining wall five feet out toward the rear (Section as on the bottom right of Page A1) C/Lin moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-139, 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: Lin, Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Shah 7.2 Development Review No. 2014-269 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant/property owner requested approval to construct a 924 square foot, two-story addition to an existing one-story, single family residence on a 8100 gross square foot (0.19 gross acres) lot. The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 419 Bregante Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ernestina Fleig 419 Bregante Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended .Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2014-269, based on. the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Farago opened the Public Hearing. Ernestina Fleig, property owner and applicant, said that she is moving her mother and possibly her in-laws in the future into the house and to accommodate that move she is requesting this approval of the addition. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. C/Low said she felt this was a nice addition and was within the scale of the neighborhood. C/Lin said he was happy about what the applicant was doing for her mother C/Low moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2014-269, 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 NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Lin, Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago None VC/Shah 7.3 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-137 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,197 square foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,597 square foot, two-story, single family residence, on a 7,693 gross square foot (0.18 gross acres) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second -story addition to an existing non -conforming structure. The subject property is zoned Low -Medium Density Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). PROJECT ADDRESS: 504 Jon Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 10 ' PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: David D. Siu 9500 Brockway Street EI Monte, CA 91733 APPLICANT: Myung Chung 9040 Telsar Avenue, Suite 105 EI Monte, CA 91731 AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-137, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked if there were any special regulations with respect to size, etc., of the shed and AP/Espino responded that the maximum size for a detached shed is 30 percent of the rear yard area. In this case, the shed area of 120 square feet complies with the code. The maximum height is 15 feet and the shed is proposed to be 12 feet. The setbacks are five feet from the rear and side so the shed complies with all of the development standards. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Myung Chung, project architect; said he appreciated staff's report. At the beginning of the project he consulted with SP/Lee and confirmed that there were no major issues. The issues are mainly on the side and rear, and the project will maintain the same number of bedrooms while creating more space to make them more comfortable. In addition, the living and dining area will be extended to make those areas more comfortable. The swimming pool was removed to make the rear yard useable and added the shed for storage. He asked for the Commission's approval to move forward with the project. C/Lin asked if the property owner currently resides in the house and Mr. Chung responded that they were waiting for the renovation to be completed prior to moving in and that they were living off-site in the meantime. Bob Runzell, 510 Jon Court, said he was concerned about the south facing part of the new project. The back of his house is the front of their house and he is concerned about upper level windows overlooking his pool and backyard and interrupting his privacy and if the applicant is allowed to install windows, can the applicant plant mature trees to block the view. In addition, when the applicant starts grading the property it will push the land toward JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION', his pool because it is within four feet of the wall. He hoped the shared hedge would not be destroyed. He felt that otherwise, it was a very nice upgrade for the neighborhood. Mr. Chung responded to the speaker that they purposely put the closet and bathroom on that side so that no one would be looking down onto the neighbor's property and he will talk with his client about planting screening trees in strategic locations between the properties. As far as the foundation of the project addition, it is 10 feet from the property line and there will be a two -foot foundation and the 45 degree angle will be way below the level of the neighbors swimming pool surcharge line so there should be no problem with the grading. He said he believed the applicant would work with the neighbor to maintain a beneficial relationship and property. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. C/Low thanked the applicant and speaker for working together and said she believed that if each neighbor planted a tree it would benefit the properties and the community. C/Pirritano moved, C/Low seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-137, 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: Lin, Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Shah 7.4 Development Review and minor uona'uonae use No. rLcu1a-o1+u — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval for a two-story addition consisting of 1,022 square feet of floor area and 108 square feet of patio/balcony area to an existing two-story 2000.5 square -foot single family residence with an attached 696.5 square foot garage and 340 square feet of patio/balcony area on a 7,301 gross square -foot (0.17 gross acres) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested for the continuance of a nonconforming front setback of 15 feet (20 feet is required). The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 12 PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: PLANNING COMMISSION 2930 Ohan Court Diamond Bar, CA.91765 Asif Musavvir 2930 Ohan Court Diamond bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Fred Herzog 4351 E. Alderdale Avenue Anaheim, CA 92807 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-540, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Applicant Fred Herzog said he designed the project and has reworked the project to maintain the design and fulfill the obligations for the neighborhood. He did the best he could to work with the odd shape of the property to fulfill the client's requirements to increase the value of the area. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. C/Lin said he felt it was a very nice project and liked the improvements. C/Lin moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-540, 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: Lin, Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Shah 7.5 . Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2010-90 Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owners requested development Review approval to construct a two-story addition consisting of 5,324 square feet of living area, a 1,098 square foot garage, and 1,427 square feet or patio/balcony area to an existing 2,838 square foot, single family residence on a 51,836 gross square foot (1A9 gross acres) lot. A Minor Conditional JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSIqJ Use Permitwasrequested for the continuance of a nonconforming front setback of 20' 2" (30 feet is required). The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 2366 Clear Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Lawrence and Henrietta Ogbechie 2366 Clear Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Pete Volbeda 180 N. Benson Avenue, Suite D Upland, CA 91786 AP/Espinoza presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2010-90, based on the findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked for clarification of the removal of the balconies in the front because they encroach into the front setback and why the balcony on the other side of the door was not slated for removal. AP/Espinoza explained that the balcony on the left side of the door is further set back than the balconies near the garage. C/Low asked about the effect on the design and AP/Espinoza explained that the remaining balcony was included in the new design because it does not encroach into the setback. She spoke with the architect regarding the condition to which he agreed. C/Lin said he counted nine revisions to the upgrades for the home and asked if those were all from the same owner to which AP/Espinoza responded that they were and further stated that part of the reason this project has taken so long to work through is that there was some delay in submitting the retaining walls and the property owners changed their minds about the design of the project and proceeded with several redesigns since 2010. C/Lin said that actually, this project has been in the works since 2006. AP/Espinoza said she acquired this project in 2010 and speaks only for that period of time. C/Lin asked if the retaining wall was built and AP/Espinoza said that when the inspector visited the site, he notice unpermitted grading on the side which prompted staff to require the applicant to build retaining walls so that there would not be any issues with the unpermitted grading. The retaining walls have been constructed. JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION a J Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Architect Pete Volbeda said that he is glad to be getting this design to the next stage of plan check. Initially, he worked on a one-story house and the property owner decided they wanted a two-story house and he redesigned the project for a two-story home. The kitchen and family room portions have been improved under a separate permit. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. Chair/Farago and C/Pirritano complimented Mr. Volbeda on the design. C/Pirritano move, C/Low seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2010-90, 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago None VC/Shah PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Lin asked if the fitness center the Commission approved is still under construction and CDD/Gubman responded that it was. There is a trailer in the parking lot taking membership and staff is attempting to keep the signage under control. C/Low thanked staff for helping the Commission work through a difficult agenda. Chair/Farago, C/Lin and C/Pirritano concurred with C/Low. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that the Commission's next meeting is scheduled for August 12 for which there are two items currently on the agenda including a new single family home at 2626 Wagon Train in "The Country Estates" and an addition to an existing residence at 846 Adamsgrove Avenue. JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 15 PLANNINGO CDD/Gubman further stated that in anticipation of the turnout for the Cliffbranch project he asked Lt. Tony Tachias to come to tonight's meeting and observed that after that item concluded (7.1) he hosted a neighborhood meeting in the lobby to hopefully impart to the residents the importance of reporting their observations. The more the. Sheriff's Department is called to the area the more teeth it gives them and staff for increased enforcement activity to keep some of the negative behavior quelled. CDD/Gubman reported that the Willow Heights project is moving forward. The mass grading of the site is nearing conclusion which is expected to conclude about the first of August. Crib walls have been installed and have been designed to accommodate plantings and will disappear over time as the landscaping matures and as homes are developed in the foreground. The City Council approved the final design for the park last month as well as, the name for the park which will be "Diamond Canyon" so the park improvement plans will now move forward. There is a committee that includes Commissioner Low and members of staff who will work together with the landscape architect to come up with the landmark entry monument design that is part of the subdivision requirement. CDD/Gubman said that the Grand Avenue Beautification Project design components were green lighted by the City Council and construction documents have been submitted to CalTrans. Staff is looking at a construction start date immediately following the holidays in the new year for the intersections of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard, and Grand Avenue and Longview Drive moving forward with flat work, landscaping, street furnishings and other aesthetic upgrades including replacing the signal masts with decorative fixtures. In addition, the new streetscape design elements will be introduced at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road as part of the Willow Heights project as well as, inclusion of some of the features incorporated into the frontage of the Willow Heights project. As a follow up to the project, staff is working with its consultants to develop a streetscape design manual so that all future developments and key intersections will include these key designs as money and projects become available. Finally, this process may lead to a streetscape master plan as part of the City's General Plan so that the City eventually comes up with a streetscape framework to give Diamond Bar an identity. CDD/Gubman updated the Commission on the status of the Shell Station project which is moving forward with some bureaucratic impediment. The current owner has signed 7 -Eleven and 7 -Eleven has certain criteria for JULY 22, 2014 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION parking spaces at the front door of the station which was not previously anticipated and requires reconfiguration of the design. The City and Health Department approved all of the plans for the Walmart Neighborhood Market. Demolition permits were issued for the foundation and the work has begun. When building permits are pulled for tenant improvements, the plans are signed and stamped and ready to go and opening is scheduled for March/April 2015. CDD/Gubman said that in addition to the above projects, staff is close to signing an agreement with the center to have the City take control of the windmill through an easement agreement in order to produce the monument in perpetuity, upgrade the interpretive plaque and information as well as, other furnishings around the windmill. It is staff's hope that this will provide an introduction to the modernization and refreshing of the City's streetscapes. C/Low asked if the East 180 property had been released. CDD/Gubman responded that staff issued a business license yesterday for a Japanese Fusion restaurant which should be opening soon. C/Pirritano said that Diamond Bar needs a good Italian restaurant and C/Low agreed. Chair/Farago said it appeared that the new tire store was struggling with their grading. CDD/Gubman responded that unfortunately, they found contamination from the gas station that previously occupied the site and the remediation was not sufficient to close the site for further development and they are working through the process to get the site free of contaminates to a sufficient degree for sign off for the reuse of the property. C/Pirritano asked if there was movement on the Honda site and CDD/Gubman explained that the City has contracted with Kosmont & Associates, an economic development consultant to help market the site and work with the property owner and the City has purchased ad space in trade publications that will be published in August to promote the site for hotel development. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. :, PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISS10ij ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Farago adjourned the regular meeting at 8:56 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 12th day of August, 2014. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director