_Minutes_November 18, 2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

plan and retail experience. He indicated there was a way to benefit everyone living, working, and shopping in the area. Commissioner O'Connor reviewed the current proposed plans presented during the presentation and stated he was amenable to the current proposal where Building 1 is two stories and Buildings 2 and 3 are four stories. Commissioner Allen was also amenable to the current proposed plans, however, suggested Building 1 be three stories and the others be lower, if facing residential. She questioned the 50- to 100-foot setback around the perimeter and allowable 32-foot setback over time. Mr. Luchini explained that 32 feet was the setback minimum and the 50- to 100-foot setback could not be reduced below 32 feet, providing a building envelope and flexibility should 10x Genomics change their plans, though the intent was to keep the setback as presented in the current plan. Mr. Jencek stated they were trying to keep the minimum acceptable setback but wanted some flexibility as needs evolved and to allow future designers to work with the City on the appropriated design. Commissioner Allen expressed concern that a 32-foot setback on a four-story building facing the apartments would seem very high and requested a larger setback. She suggested the Planning Commission determine setbacks when Phase 2 began. Ms. Clark stated it would be helpful to understand the Commission's tolerance regarding setbacks. She reminded the Commission that Mr. Jencek indicated they wanted to retain spaciousness in their project and thought it could be prudent to add language about the design in the PUD to give flexibility but to state the rules. Commissioner Allen reiterated she was not comfortable with a 32-foot setback, but could support a 50-foot setback, as the worst-case scenario. Commissioner O'Connor suggested a 50-foot minimum setback with the applicant requesting a modification if necessary. Commissioner Allen agreed with the suggestion. Commissioner Brown stated he liked the detail in Building 1 with the courtyard and that it mirrored the proposed residential reviewed for the mall development. He stated he liked the revision and suggested it might be better to have three- and four-story buildings but he liked the height. Chair Ritter stated he liked that the design removed the dumpsters currently at the entrance to the Stoneridge Mall area. He suggested waiting to determine setbacks until there were details on building height and location on the lot, adding that community benefit was more important to him. He suggested Building 1 be taller than Buildings 2 and 3 because it was further back and would give the campus more of a park feel. 4. Is the site plan, circulation, phasing approach and parking ratio acceptable? Commissioner Allen stated she would like to wait for Mr. Tassano's analysis on traffic circulation, but that she liked that it was coming from Springdale Avenue. She also expressed concern about the drop off on the Stoneridge Mall side. Commissioner O'Connor indicated support for the proposal but expressed similar concerns as Commissioner Allen regarding access from Springdale Avenue and echoed his desire to see the traffic analysis. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 November 18, 2020 ic impact to the City when the usage of land was changed and whether staff considered that in its analysis. He stated he wanted to ensure the best use for the land was selected because, even though it Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 November 18, 2020