_Minutes_May 26, 2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

whether the agreement was irrelevant based on what was negotiated between the applicant and Simon properties. Mr. Luchini responded that the original agreement was set to expire in 2028 but the applicant and Simon properties were able to agree to accelerate the end of the agreement and reduce the amount of parking as opposed to waiting until its original expiration. Commissioner Nibert referenced discussion from the November 18, 2020, Planning Commission Workshop around potential phasing of amenities and mitigation regarding floor area ratio (FAR). Mr. Luchini stated the amenity would include a $1 million donation to the City for improvements to the fire station; the project would also provide other benefits including sales tax back to the City, expansion of business capacity and sales tax amount. He stated the Council would determine if$1 million was acceptable. Community Development Director Ellen Clark noted the $1 million amenity payment was due when the campus expanded to exceed the 35-percent threshold, not with Phase 1 because the project would remain below the 35-percent FAR. Commissioner Nibert referenced the DA and inquired about the comparison between the vested right and project amendments in relation to one another. Assistant City Attorney Larissa Seto explained that the vested rights for both the original proposal, as well as future amendments would be covered in the same manner; the amendment sections of the DA would grant those amendments to the project. Commissioner Nibert referenced the traffic analysis and mitigation to construct a traffic signal at the project driveway and Springdale Avenue. He asked whether the traffic signal would be installed at the same time the parking garage was constructed. City Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano stated that the signal was not needed in Phase 1 and questionable as to whether it would be needed in Phase 2. He stated the signal would be bonded for and installed after Phase 2 if necessary. Mr. Luchini confirmed that Condition of Approval 114A covered the language regarding construction of the signal or bonding. Commissioner Nibert expressed concern with traffic queuing to enter the parking garage and traffic backing up on neighboring streets. He asked about Exhibits A through D. Ms. Clark stated the Agenda Report exhibits were available online. [Note: Exhibits A through D of the Development Agreement were not included in the Planning Commission draft DA]. Commissioner Nibert discussed the applicant's mention at the workshop regarding maintaining spaciousness of the design and setbacks. Mr. Luchini confirmed the proposed setback line of 32 feet, as shown on the plans, and included in the conditions of approval (COAs), as well as COAs to subsequently review Buildings 2 and 3 that would come back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gaidos commended the thoroughness of both the agenda report and materials provided and further stated he did not have questions for staff at this time. ARRIVAL Commissioner Pace was noted present. Commissioner Pace also commended the agenda report and materials. He inquired about the traffic mitigation plan and whether the previous work proposed by Simon properties was part of the work and traffic analysis. Mr. Tassano responded the traffic model included expansion of the mall and additional residential. He explained that, since the driveway locations were unknown on the Simon property, staff did not look to that level of detail for the circulation, but staff would work with Simon Properties to ensure they were appropriately located in the design. Commissioner Pace asked if the driveway finalizations would come back before the Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 May 26, 2021