_Minutes_May 26, 2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Brown echoed the Commissioners in commending the applicant, their outreach and responsiveness with the Commission. He asked Commissioner Nibert if he was concerned with the material withstanding time. Commissioner Nibert stated the construction materials might be easily damaged but could also easily be fixed. Commissioner Allen concurred with the sufficiency of the construction materials, especially if suitable to the applicant. Chair Brown requested clarification on Commissioner Allen's concern regarding building color and aesthetics. Commissioner Allen suggested the addition of another color and masonry to create contrast. Commissioner Pace expressed concern regarding the suggestion of using stone because it might be out of style in a short timeframe. He stated he liked the neutral color palette but expressed concern over outdated design elements and he did not want prominent design colors that deteriorate poorly over time. Commissioner Allen concurred with also not wanting to see bright colors but re-stated she did not want an all gray building. Commissioner Morgan inquired whether there were different textures in the building that could not be seen from the visuals. Mr. Jencek concurred that they did not want a homogenous building. He explained the proposed design, massing, and landscaping. Mr. Bright mentioned the panels above the windows which were a slightly different color and stated the glazing would produce good aesthetics, similar to jewel tones. Chair Brown noted the varying corner notches and subtle articulations. Commissioner Gaidos expressed his understanding of Commissioner Allen's concerns related to the visual and color scheme; however, noted his appreciation for the eye-catching entrances and visual of the window panels. Commissioner Morgan stated he liked the building in Phase 1 and suggested potential modifications for Phase 2 and future phases. Commissioner Nibert expressed his agreement with Commissioner Allen and encouraged improvements to aesthetics 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 s industrial feel; 2) modifications to the roof screening material to reduce the "pop appearance"; and 3) reducing uniformity by creating a differentiated treatment around the corners 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 e 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 k to that level of detail for the circulation, but staff would work with Simon Properties to ensure they were appropriately located in the design. Commissioner Pace asked if the driveway finalizations would come back before the Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 May 26, 2021