Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION <br /> In order to receive early feedback from the Planning Commission and any interested <br /> individuals regarding the proposed project, a Planning Commission work session was held on <br /> November 18, 2020. <br /> Two members of the public attended the work session and spoke on the subject applications. <br /> These attendees expressed concerns related to environmental impacts of the project, including <br /> hazardous materials and light pollution. Staff indicated a comprehensive environmental review <br /> would be conducted as part of the project review. No further public comments were provided at <br /> the work session. <br /> After taking public testimony, the Planning Commission provided the following comments on <br /> the work session discussion points (additional comments made by the Commission are in the <br /> attached minutes excerpt — Exhibit F): <br /> Discussion Point No. 1: <br /> Is the proposed rezone and the proposed land uses acceptable? <br /> Despite the loss of retail space, the Commissioners recognized the existing commercial center, <br /> and retail in general, is struggling, and believed the opportunity to retain an existing business <br /> and major employer within the City outweighed the loss and unanimously supported the <br /> proposed rezoning and uses, although some Commissioners sought more information on <br /> relative differences in sales tax derived from retail uses versus the proposed uses. <br /> Discussion Point No. 2: <br /> What amenities and mitigations should the applicant consider providing to support the <br /> proposed FAR? <br /> The Commission unanimously supported a phased amenity approach tied to the phasing of the <br /> project. Additional comments included significant value based on the scale of the project and <br /> suggested the Council prioritize/determine where the amenities should be applied; however, <br /> nearby to the project site was preferred. <br /> Discussion Point No. 3: <br /> Is the overall massing, scale and setbacks of the proposed buildings acceptable, and should <br /> the heights of buildings 2/3, in particular, be modified? <br /> The Commission unanimously supported the massing, scale, height, and orientation for <br /> Building 1 . The Commission also supported an increase in height for Building 1 from two to <br /> three stories, especially if it meant the heights of Buildings 2/3 could be reduced given their <br /> proximity to the residential use to the east. The Commission expressed concerns with a 32- <br /> foot minimum setback on the east side of the project site and indicated a larger setback may <br /> be necessary to reduce impacts on the residential use to the east. <br /> PUD-139 and P20-0973, 10x Genomics, Inc. Planning Commission <br /> 4 of 32 <br /> �s �c Ampuli Food Truck <br /> `' do - " �` Takeout I <br /> •bc• <br /> 171)1Springdale A revue* 9' A <br /> r ' <br /> c SMuvidge Mali Rd c . t 401. 1 46 <br /> �. <br /> '' Cost Plus World Markw <br /> m - - Furniture stor '. , <br /> erica Bank 3 s 1 , <br /> Lirif, .(11-* 1 ---"- - '.'1 1 I <br /> Kaiser Permanente <br /> ,r .,.Pharmacy • I, N. - k <br /> \ <br /> ,Nay ®Pleasanton '• Stoner,ige;Dr,',, <br /> Medica�Office .1 <br /> •� .. <br /> --. <br /> q.. - <br /> • <br /> 040 •.,"\.0'0roQe 0 Q 7 du <br /> �.o�eaae1, lit <br /> • ev, . - <br /> G000Ie Y 4 -. if• Iv ..., <br /> PUD-139 and P20-0973, 10x Genomics, Inc. Planning Commission <br /> 3 of 32 <br />ionally, page 24 of the <br /> PUD-139 and P20-0973, 10x Genomics, Inc. Planning Commission <br /> 2 of 32 <br /> -8- <br />