PC 052621 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pace moved the Planning Commission find: 1) the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, 2) the proposed PUD Rezoning and Development Plan are consistent with the General Plan, 3) the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan, 4) adopt a resolution recommending adoption of the Draft IS/MND, 5) adopt a resolution making the PUD findings and recommending approval of Cases PUD-139 and P20-0973, subject to the draft conditions of approval listed in Exhibit A2, 6) adopt a resolution recommending finding the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan, and 7) forward the IS/MND, Cases PUD-139 and P20-0973, and the Development Agreement to the City Council for consideration, with 8) an additional recommendation that the applicant work with staff to provide one potential alternative color palette to be considered by City Council. Commissioner Allen seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Allen, Brown, Gaidos, Nibert, and Pace NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution PC-2021-06 recommending City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Planned Unit Development Rezoning and Development Plan for Cases PUD-139 and P20-0973 and Related Development Agreement was adopted, as motioned. Resolution PC-2021-07 recommending approval of a Planned Unit Development Rezoning and Development Plan for Cases PUD-139 and P20-0973 was adopted, as motioned. Resolution PC-2021-08 recommending a finding of consistency with the General Plan for a Development Agreement for a Planned Unit Development Rezoning and Development Plan for Cases PUD-139 and P20-0973 was adopted, as motioned. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW/ACTION/INFORMATION 4. Reports from Meetings Attended (e.g., Committee, Task Force, etc.) Commissioner Gaidos mentioned his attendance at his first meeting of the Heritage Tree Board of Appeals. 5. Actions of the City Council Ms. Clark provided a brief overview of the items listed in the report. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 May 26, 2021 sthetics to make it even more attractive. Chair Brown asked the Commissioners for feedback on Commissioner Allen's concerns related to amenity value and inflation. Commissioner Nibert stated he would rely on experts to make the determination on the value of the proposed amenity. In response to Chair Brown, Ms. Clark stated the amenity payment was triggered when the FAR exceeds 35-percent. She stated the DA provided certainty to the developer of their vesting in the project, and an inflation factor might be contrary to that intent. Chair Brown inquired whether previous PUDs included an inflation factor added to the amenity value. Ms. Clark stated it had not occurred in the past, to her knowledge. Commissioner Pace stated he was reluctant to include a specific color in the motion. Commissioner Allen suggested the concept of an alternative color scheme to be presented to the Council. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 May 26, 2021 and lower base of buildings, such as stone or masonry work. She requested an inflation increase to the $1 million amenity contribution. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8 May 26, 2021 d the new trees to be planted to create a lush landscape. He discussed the future parking structure off Stoneridge Mall Road and the benefits of the location. He referenced the queuing details and site circulation plan. He discussed efforts to remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 May 26, 2021