PC 08/26/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Mahem, McGuirk, Michelotti, Wrl ht, and Chairman Hovingh None None None Resolution No. PC-92-75 was entered and adopted recommending approval of Case PUD-92- 06 as motioned. Stoneridl!e Reeional Shoooinl! Center Develooment Al!I'eement Application of Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center Owners ( ecurity Trust Company, as Trustee under Trust #1860-0) Cor a Development Agreemen which: (1) would allow presently permitted uses for the IS-year term of the Agreeme ; (2) would allow new development totalling an additional 356,000 sq. ft. of leasable oor area in additional department stores, specialty stores, and/or additional mall sto ; (3) would restrict height of new improvements to that oC the existing center stru tures; (4) would establish minimum parking ratios and allow up to three-level parking ctures; and (5) would establish and cap the owners' obligations Cor Curther traffic igation improvements. The Development Agreement would be applicable to 35 acres f the Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center located within the Stoneridge Mall Road ova. A negative declaration has been prepared Cor this project and will be considered at t is hearing. Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending approval of th draft Development Agreement. Attention was called to letters dated 8/18 and 8/21 f m the Mozart" Development Company and one from Wells Fargo. Mr. Swift no that Wells Fargo would like some modification in the Agreement in regard to future traffi mitigations. Mr. Swift suggested that the draft Development Agreement track with the ag eement with Wells Fargo so that both are virtually the same. Commissioner Wright discussed the concerns of Wells Fargo with Mr. Swift. Mr. Swift explained at some length the issues dealing with traffic mitigation that were of concern to Wells Fargo. In response to Commissioner Mahern's question, Mr. Swift noted that parking issues are addressed in Exhibit C. Commissioner Mahern questioned Mr. Swift as to whether additio al parking floors could be added to a deck. Mr. Swift said they probably could; however, c rtain restrictions might be included. Discussion ensued regarding traffic mitigation issues. Chairman Hovingh called attention to Page 5, 1.3 - Conditions. H questioned whether the applicant would be subject to any other new type of fees, other th traffic mitigation fees. Mr. Beougher noted that the fees would be frozen to the rate they are now, as in affordable Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1992 Page 9