HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - December 15, 1998 - CC1
1
1
CITY OF AZUSA
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15,1998 -6:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Azusa met in regular adjourned session at the above date and
time in the Civic Auditorium.
Mayor Madrid called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, BEEBE,
MADRID
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ALSO PRESENT:
City Manager Cole, City Attorney Martinez, Community Development Director Bruckner,
Rosedale Project Manager Brownfield, Deputy City Clerk Toscano
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - on General Plan Amendment GPA 96-1, Zone
Change Z-96-1, Rosedale Specific Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map TTM 52263,
Environmental Impact Report, and Development Agreement, for property located at 18331
East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California.
City Manager Cole presented handouts, based on staff estimates, about housing types, lot
sizes and densities and how they may look under the possibilities allowed for in the Specific
Plan. He stated that each area has its set of rules and there is an overall set of rules for the
entire proposed project. He detailed areas of the proposed Rosedale Project, separated into
numbered Planning Areas, listing Planning Area acreage, developable acreage, number of
proposed dwelling units with minimum lot size and average lot size, dwelling unit by LU
(Land Use) type with minimum lot size and average lot size and developable density.
Lengthy discussion was held between Councilmembers and staff regarding density of
Planning Areas, housing types and mathematical application of rules that apply to them.
Discussion was held regarding slopes and density.
Councilmember Beebe presented aRosedale Density Decision Matrix and requested Council
to prioritize the housing types and factors contributing to density. Mayor Madrid suggested
adding the following factors contributing to density: portion of lot coverage, planning size
of the unit and the number of acres, size of the development, cumulative impacts, and
number of people that will come into the City. After discussion, Councilmembers ranked
housing types as follows: 1) Detached Single Family housing, 2) Cottage/Bungalow (alley
loaded), and 3) Clusters. It was consensus of Councilmembers that there be no
condominiums in the project. Councilmember prioritized factors contributing to density
asfollows: 1) Minimum Lot Size, 2) Compatibility with existing neighborhoods, and 3)
house square footage. Discussion was held regarding driveways.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Also Present
Cont. Pub Hrg
Rosedale
Project
City Mgr
comments
Discussion
Housing types,
density
No Condos in
the project
City Manager Cole noted that the EIR identifies the compatibility issue only as a mitigation City Mgr
measures compatibility along the Glendora border and that it was staff recommendation, Compatibility
accepted by the Planning Commission that it be extended beyond the Glendora side and that
they not have a rigid formula of square footage. Council asked that it be called
compatibility/buffering or matching areas.
-d
City Manager Cole stated that he and Mayor Madrid visited a local firm, named Advanced City Mgr
Digital Mapping. He detailed how they can create a representation of the project in 3-D, 3-D project
either rough or true to life, the difference is in the cost and that it could be done in about
three weeks at a cost of $5,000. He stated that there was a need to discuss the issue with the
developer. Discussion was held.
It was consensus of Councilmember to recess at 8:30 p.m. The City Council reconvened Recess
at 8:45 p.m. Reconvened
' Mr. Tom McEntire addressed Council stating that he lives on Sierra Madre Avenue on a one T. McEntire
half acre lot, and that there are four other families that are his neighbors whose lots are as comments
follows: quarter acre lot, full acre lot, one and one half acre lot, and the last, on two and
one half acre lot.
Lengthy discussion was held between Councilmembers and staff regarding all Planning Discussion
Areas, permitted land uses, lot sizes, etc. Each Councilmember provided input on what
they would like to see in the various areas. Additional discussion was held regarding
goals, compatibility, price range, housing structures, value, minimum lot sizes, clusters,
cottages, and impacts.
It was consensus of Councilmembers to adjourn.
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:35 P.M.
IZ&'!� "j6cl--d
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
NEXT RESOLUTION NO.98-005
NEXT ORDINANCE NO. 98-017.
12/15/98 PAGE TWO
Adjourn