Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC- 4 Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan and ProjectAGENDA IT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JENNI SUVARI, PROJECT MANAGER VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2003 SUBJECT: MONROVIA NURSERY SPECIFIC PLAN AND PROJECT RECOMMENDATION Based on compliance with the provisions of the Azusa Municipal Code and conformance with the General Plan and CEQAguidelines, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Monrovia Nursery project as follows: A resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program; A resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2002-03; 3. An ordinance adopting Zone Change No. Z-2002-03; 4. An ordinance adopting the Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan as amended; 5. A resolution approving Vesting Tentative Map 54057 subject to the conditions of approval listed in the attached Exhibit A; 6. A resolution approving the pre -zoning of the 433 -acre portion of the project site within the County of Los Angeles; and Approval of the resolution to initiate proceedings with the Local Agency Formation Commission for reorganization (annexation). CURRENT STATUS A last Tuesday night's Council meeting, the City Council deliberated and directed various changes to the conditions of approval be made. In addition, clarification of the changes to the Miti ion L and Monitoring Program was also desired. Both are attached for Council's use in final deliberations. In addition, information regarding the number of proposed units is presented below. SPECIFIC PLAN PROVISIONS The Specific Plan, being a regulatory document, has provided for a certain amount of Flexibility in its implementation, in order to be able to respond to market demand as it may change over a longer implementation period. This flexibility also has built-in protection for the City in two control measures: one is a cap of 1575 units for the total project area, and the other is maximum established densities for the various areas of the project area. These maximum densities are not all achievable, nor is the ultimate 1575 unit count. It had always been anticipated that the ultimate number of units built under these provisions would be around 1475. Over the course of the recent study sessions and public hearing proceedings, these Specific Plan provisions have changed, as proposed by the Applicant. The most current changes are presented below. Please keep in mind that these provisions, because they are part of a regulatory document, do still contain ranges, and provided for flexibility. Area Acres Maximum Density Maximum Units Detached Attached Park Neighborhoods 4,000 sf blocks 42.12 8 343 5,000 sf blocks 27.78 7 189 7,200 sf blocks 15.19 5 76 Village Core 10.68 12 15 67 76 Promenade District Transit Neighborhood 16.78 25 420* Great Park Neighborhood 10.94 21 230* Garden Court Neighborhood 1 11.35 12 136 Total 1 1 1537* SPECIFIC PLAN PROVISIONS *Note: These units may be attached or detached depending on market conditions. These numbers represent maximums permitted: however, each neighborhood cannot be built to the maximum because the total number of units would exceed the maximum permitted (1350 units) in the Specific Plan as a whole. PROJECTED DWELLING UNIT YIELD - TENTATIVE MAP In addition to the Specific Plan, the Applicant is also requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative Map. This is a subdivision map containing a more precise layout of the actual residential lots, based on preliminary grading studies, and must be consistent with the Specific Plan. However, in the Village Core, and in the Promenade, precise lot layout has not yet been accomplished, because the actual housing product type has not yet been determined, and a portion of those pad areas could be developed either as detached single family, or attached housing. Subsequent subdivision maps will be filed for these areas at a later time. g SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2003 SUBJECT: MONROVIA NURSERY SPECIFIC PLAN - RESOLUTION OF GLENDORA'S CONCERNS Per Council's direct at our last meeting on January 28, the Applicant and the City of Glendora met to discuss traffic issues. Three primary traffic issues were identified and discuessed: (1) Citrus/Foothill Intersection - Glendora expressed concern about the intersection of Citrus and Foothill East. The Applicant showed Glendora's traffic engineer Condition No. 92 and provided him with the number of existing and projected trips in that area. He indicated these two pieces of information satisfy his concern. (2) Barranca/Bennett and Barranca/Leadora Intersections - Glendora expressed concern about the intersections of Barranca/Bennett and Barran ca/Lead ora. While the Applicant disagrees with Glendora's position, they have agreed to a new condition of approval, as follows: "Prior to the issuance of a subdivision map (except for a map(s) for financing and/or conveyance purposes only), the landowner and/or master developer shall analyze, consistent with the documentation and methodology presented in the Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan Draft EIR, the existing and projected future (2010) performance of the following two intersections: Barranca Avenue/Bennett Avenue and Barranca Avenue/Leadora Avenue. For purposes of this analysis only, the Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan project would be deemed to cause a potential impact if in the future (20 10) condition (as projected) the project would generate a greater than two percent increase in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) of either intersection for Level of Service (LOS) D or worse. If under this criteria and analysis, the Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan project is deemed to cause a potential impact, the landowner and/or master developer shall pay its fair -share contribution to the City of Glendora toward the cost of signalizing the particular affected intersection." (3) Grand Avenue - Glendora expressed concern about the trip distribution patterns and its impact on Grand Avenue. In their meeting, they looked at a worse case intersection and calculated the project's contribution at well below the 2% threshold. The Applicant's traffic engineers subsequently provided data regarding other intersections along Grand Avenue to Glendora proving the project will not have a significant adverse impact.