Laserfiche WebLink
436 <br /> <br /> Item 6c <br /> AP-90-10 (PUD-89-19), Harvey/Martin, Appeal of a Decision of the <br /> Planning Commission Which Denied Approval of the Application of <br /> Douqlas Harvey and Robert Martin for Planned Unit Development <br /> Rezoninq and Development Plan Approval to Construct a Five-Lot, <br /> Sinqle-Family Residential Development to be Located on an <br /> Approximately 3.5 Acre Site Located at 2818 Foothill Road <br /> <br /> This item was continued to the September 4, 1990 City Council <br /> Meeting at the request of the applicant. <br /> <br /> Item 6d <br /> PUD-S1-a2-7M, Z-90-224, Request of Mozart Development Company for <br /> Ma~or Modification to the Approved Development Plan to Allow for an <br /> Increase in the Maximum Square Footaqe for a Five-Buildinq, Multi- <br /> Tenant Office Complex from 552,750 8q. Ft. to 570,000 Sq. Ft., and <br /> Desiqn Review Approval for a Three-Story, 73,839 Sq. Ft. Office <br /> Buildinq Located at 6120 Stoneridqe Mall Road, Stoneridge Corporate <br /> Plaza <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:343) regarding the <br /> matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br /> application <br /> <br /> Mr. Mark Conroe, representing Mozart Development Company, <br /> developer of Stoneridge Corporate Plaza, stated that he concurred <br /> with the Staff Report in general. He presented a table correcting <br /> an error made in the 1987 PUD modification to allow a total of <br /> 73,836 square foot for Building No. 5, and a total of 566,113 gross <br /> square feet in the entire complex. He added that staff is <br /> requiring the revision and reconstruction of the mechanical <br /> equipment screens on two buildings that were built five years ago <br /> by another developer to better match the improved versions used on <br /> the new buildings. He requested Council not to make this <br /> reconstruction a condition to the approval of the new building and <br /> that a ceiling of $10,000 be considered for such reconstruction. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that the terms of the Development Agreement <br /> with Wells Fargo referred to in Condition No. 6 was ver~ specific <br /> with regard to the cost breakdown of the traffic mitigation. He <br /> inquired if the adjustment in square footage for this project would <br /> be reflected in the cost breakdown. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that staff will calculate on a pro rata <br /> basis, adjusting from the 73,000 square foot used for the Wells <br /> Fargo Project to the actual 73,839 square foot of Building No. 5. <br /> <br /> 8-21-90 <br /> - 12 - <br /> <br /> <br />