The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutK- 7 Monrovia Nursery project : Settlement agreement with the City of Glendora (2) AZUSA CONSENT CALENDAR TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 17, 2003 SUBJECT: MONROVIA NURSERY PROJECT: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GLENDORA RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the settlement agreement with the City of Glendora concerning potential project impacts. BACKGROUND The Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan went through a comprehensive and exhaustive approval process, which included many community meetings and the preparation and review of volumes of technical studies, and documents. During the hearing process,the City of Glendora expressed concern over a few remaining items that Staff believed were covered in the conditions of approval, but which the City of Glendora felt required more definition and clarity. The Azusa City Council approved the Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan and project with the recognition that the Landowner and the staffs of both cities would be committed to resolving these final matters. The attached agreement is the product of that effort. The items desiring clarification include hydrology and drainage impacts, traffic impacts, noise impacts and railroad crossing impacts. Agreement has been reached as described in the attached documents, and summarized as follows: 1. Condition No. 36 is amended to read as follows: BARRANCA AVE/BENNETT AVE AND BARRANCA AVE/LEADORA AVE. 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 (2010) condition (as projected)the project would - - - - . - . , - . - - . - : : - - '- - '- - - atigial/ / 1 ,//,/3 '�� averse:cause either intersection to operate at a Level of Service(LOS)for such intersection that is worse than the minimum acceptable standard for the City of Glendora that is in effect when such analysis is conducted. Currently, the established minimum acceptable LOS for the City of Glendora is LOS "C" 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' •' - . - = - •- - •= = - - = - = - = • - - - - - - - :. ' . . - - : •- - - •- -. to the City of Glendora the reasonable cost of signalization or other measure implemented to cause the affected intersection(s) to operate at the minimum acceptable City of Glendora LOS. 2. Condition No. 42 is amended to read as follows: "GRADE SEPARATIONS AT CITRUS AND PALM Prior to issuance of a grading permit or recordation of the first subdivision map (except for a map(s) for financing and/or conveyance purposes only), subdivider shall submit and obtain approval from the Community Development Director for a "Substantial Conformance Vesting Tentative Tract Map" depicting grade separations at Citrus Avenue and Palm Drive. The City's preferred configuration of grade-separation is the railroad tracks raised five to seven feet and lowering of Palm Drive and Citrus Avenue beneath the tracks. Approval of said map satisfies mitigation measure N8 (a) (b) (c) of the project EIR. Grade separated crossings shall be designed with alternative roadway and clearance design standards, subject to approval by the City Engineer, and, as to the Citrus crossing only, the Glendora City Engineer, to minimize impacts of the crossings on surrounding properties and resources. The railroad grade crossing at Barranca shall not be elevated or changed, without prior approval of the City of Glendora." 3. Condition No. 34 is amended to read as follows: "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CITY OF GLENDORA. 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 enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Glendora governing the design and installation of the following detention basins: (1) a temporary basin not exceeding a capacity of 15 acre feet installed concurrent with the first phase of grading in a location northeast of the existing terminus of North Calera, -gig designed to reduce the existing peak flow water runoff rate in a 50 year storm event to 25%of the existing peak flow. This detention basin may be removed and/or replaced subject to further review and approval of an alternative drainage solution by the Glendora City Engineer. (2)A detention basin in Area D with a maximum peak flow release in a 50-year storm event not exceeding 40 cfs. Both detention basins shall be designed so as not to increase the existing peak runoff or to cause new impacts associated with any existing high groundwater conditions. 4. Condition No. 59 is amended to read as follows: "SUBDRAINS Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, subdivider shall perform additional geotechnical investigations to conclusively determine the presence and necessary improvements to remove perched groundwater in the vicinity of Lots 334 through 346. Said investigations shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Glendora prior to acceptance by the City Engineer. This condition satisfies Mitigation Measure WRI of the project EIR." 2 FISCAL IMPACT The Landowner and/or Master Developer or Subdivider is responsible for the cost of improvements required by these conditions of approval. Therefore, no fiscal impact would be created for the City of Azusa. 3 FISCAL IMPACT Last year approximately 28 garage and yard sales were conducted. If a similar rlumber of sales occur this year the city would forego approximately $420.00 in few revenue. r_v,x414.40.40 AZUSA INFORMATION ATTACHMENT "A" TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 20, 2002 SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING EL PATIO RESTAURANT, A NONCONFORMING USE BACKGROUND The current business owners, Mary Ulmer, Elena Hernandez, and Joe Jara, represented by their Realtor Jerry Baker, have requested to address the City Council regarding the land use status of their long-time business El Patio Restaurant, at 347 N. San Gabriel Ave. Staff has met with Mr. Baker two weeks ago,to explain the background and options. However, the owners are still interested in addressing the City Council. The City Clerk has scheduled them on the Agenda under "Public Participation". This memorandum is intended to give the Council some background information on this matter. As was the case recently with Azusa Pawnshop, El Patio Restaurant is also a nonconforming use. It is nonconforming in that it is a commercial use in a residential zone (now R3-O). Unlike the Azusa Pawnshop, however, the property owner was aware of the nonconforming use status back in 1982. The owners would like to sell their restaurant, and in researching the files, the following was found as to the history of the restaurant: March 5, 1956 - Building was permit issued for demolition of a residence, and construction of a new restaurant. The permit showed zoning to be C-1, and final inspection signed-off on November 21, 1956. August 4, 1982 - Conditional Use Permit C-277 was granted for a beer and wine license, and waiver of Section 19.040.050, for expansion of a nonconforming use. This section provides for nonconforming uses under certain conditions,to continue for a period of 20 years after 1956, and requires a C.U.P. for expansion of nonconforming uses. While we have been unable to determine exactly when the restaurant became nonconforming,by virtue 1 of the filing of the C.U.P. in 1982 for expansion of a nonconforming use, it can be concluded that it was nonconforming at that time, and the 20-year amortization period has lapsed. The options are few at this point in time, which have been discussed with Mr. Baker. They include: 1. Applying for the maximum possible time extension, and/or 2. Wait to see what comes out of the New General Plan and Development Code. Current thinking is that the new regulations would allow a limited amount of compatible mixed uses, particularly if they are neighborhood-serving. While a decision regarding this matter cannot be made at this point, it may well be that the restaurant could become a permitted use with the adoption of the future proposed new regulations. 2