The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005/02/01 - Agenda Packet • DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2005 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Cristine McPhail Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Rich Macias Richard Fletcher Larry McNiel CONSENT CALENDAR No items submitted. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. (Tabe/Shelley) HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00260 - PETE VOLBEDA - A request for a single-family residence on Laramie Street in the Very Low Residential District—APN: 1061-801-30. . • 7:20 p.m. (Mike/Mark) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445- MARK CAPELLINO-A request to subdivide a 7.27-acre parcel into 11 parcels in the General Industrial District(Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-01185 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00804. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 - MARK CAPELLINO - A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 127,247 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Melissa Andrewin, Office Specialist ll forthe Cityof Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 27, 2005, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho • Cucamonga. ��72�.�C.dGC�✓Yno�fer,�� • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Tabe Van der Zwaag February 1, 2005 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00260 - PETE VOLBEDA - A request for a single-family residence on Laramie Street in the Very Low Residential District—APN: 1061-801-30. Background: The proposed single-family residence is located in the Hillside and Equestrian Overlay Districts. The intent of the Hillside Development regulations is to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain, preserve the character and profile of the slope,and give consideration to the lots size and configuration. Typically, Hillside Design Review applications are reviewed and approved by the City Planner. However, because of the amount of excavation proposed, the project has been forwarded to the Design Review Committee for discussion. This project also requires the review and approval by the Planning Commission because more than 5 feet of cut is proposed. Design Parameters: The existing topography slopes from about 2,230 feet on the north (rear)side of the lot to about 2,200 feet on the south (front) side. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family residence with a detached 3-car garage. The first floor of the house will have three stepped pads, totaling 2 feet of stepping, with finished floor elevations of 2,212 feet, 2,213 feet, and 2,214 feet (moving from the front to the rear). By comparison, the existing grade falls 7 feet within the same house footprint area. • The garage will be inset into the hillside to the rear of the residence and will have a finished surface elevation of 2,215 feet. The depth of excavation, or "cut," that will be required to construct the garage will vary between 5 feet at its front to 8 feet at its rear(see Exhibit"B"). The north and east walls of the garage will act as retaining walls to the adjacent slopes. The garage, and the stairway leading to the roof top deck of the garage,will obscure the majority of the excavation. The applicant proposes 584 cubic yards of export. The applicant also proposes excavating between 6 feet and 6.25 feet at the front of the residence in order to construct a circular driveway and formal entrance stairway(see Exhibit"B"). The circular driveway will create a 6-foot grade difference,as viewed from the street, between the applicant's lot and the lot to the north. Excavation throughout the rest of the property will be 5 feet or less. Two retaining walls, 3 feet in height,are proposed along the southeast property line in order to construct a driveway. Additionally, a 4-foot high retaining wall will be incorporated into a set of stairways leading to the main entrance of the residence. The overall height of the structure will not exceed 30 feet measured from the finished grade. Lot coverage will be 25 percent—the maximum permissible in the Very Low Residential District. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. • Grading Concept: The proposed grading scheme does not meet the intent of the Hillside Development regulations to minimize grading and ensure that the form, mass, profile, and architectural features of the house are designed to blend with the natural terrain. DRC COMMENTS DRC2004-00260 — PETE VOLBEDA • February 1, 2005 Page 2 Staff believes the following are not consistent with the concept of"minimal grading": the entire lot is being graded; only 2 feet of stepping in the main house is proposed compared to 7 feet of existing fall; and extensive excavation is proposed, much of it to accommodate the detached garage at the rear(uphill) of the lot, and resulting in 584 cubic yards of export from site. The applicant is proposing the maximum excavation ("cut") or fill allowed in the Hillside Overlay of 8 feet for the garage. Amounts in excess are discouraged,and when viable alternatives exist, staff will suggest to the applicant that they seriously consider those alternatives first. The applicant was informed that both the garage and circular driveway would need to be modified in order to reduce the amount excavation. He was also informed that if these changes were not made that the plans would need to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. The applicant has responded in writing that he does not wish to modify the plans to correct the excess grading issue (see Exhibit"C"). Development Code Section 17.24.070.G.11 establishes the following criteria for the Planning Commission to allow 8 feet or greater excavation: "Cut orfill slopes shall not exceed 8 feet in height at perimeters of the site or elsewhere without the use of walls, terracing, and other mitigating measures, such as contour grading or landscape buffering, and then only as approved by the Planning Commission after conclusive demonstration that such cut or fill heights will not adversely affect adjacent properties, views, landforms, or other significant considerations not specifically discussed here, and that they are absolutely required to accomplish land • development under extreme or unusual circumstances and conditions.'[emphasis added] Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Slope planting does not meet minimum City standard of: Slope banks 5 feet or greater in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate groundcover for erosion control. Slope banks 5 feet or greater in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical and of 2:1 orgreater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 square feet of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer priorto occupancy. Maintenance by a Homeowners'Association may be required by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis." {emphasis added]This will be a standard condition of approval. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee not approve the proposal as submitted. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: • Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag Members Present: • .•. ��- 1 1 .1 �111T MI . .i-r-' • -- o I 1 / 7 1 �1 o❖, ,3• 11 • I� Otel << i �•��Ii •P e a i°'�.r r - v i9i IMAM.��❖IQ�� 1 � ysfym i. ��I I� �:�•�� "' �it � . ..... OW, Pm } V , 4 o m 0 M 101 y � 1 1 1 l i i l l I I e o k o, l mall !!! F I I ] 1•.;. i � � I 1 1 �1 6 1 1 p 1 1 ] � 4 i4 4 1 I i 6 14 d 1 1 pdp Iq � e6� d 1 ; fi�fi I l p a e l ! • � d d EXHIBIT ` B' PETE VOLBEDA, ARCHITECT City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. January 12, 2005 Taba Re: Iftakhar We got your phone message. We want to proceed with the design as is for both the garage and circular driveway. We have worked with Rubin too long to now be informed that the design will not be supported. Also the reason we want to remove the existing trees is to make a more usable rear yard and to delete the "hump" that is being created by the cut on both sides of the PL including the Chen residence under construction. Please review this situation t at is being created at the side PL. Sincerely, Pete Volbeda • CC: Iftakar • EXHIBIT 'V' JIT C • UPLAND, CA 91786 • PH 909-373-1150 • FAX 909-373-1152 mR Ur ew rvi OSII llf 606 �1 V0NOYIV0f1O OHONVN 'NO 3119VHVI 0969 98[16 VD QJVIdl 7 airS'3AV N,UMU N SI9 09LOO-b00LON0 NtlHVh1131 603 S36 d " ®�®9®A �b�d y NVId 60013 iSN13 e LLp � 0 °r N <wVa LL O mm'. _ Mpp ________ ___ ---------- a owa°w 4 1 RS'-Y 1-e 34- °N i� ry p Y_ T Y u6 m Ylp Z m Q _ 1 a p TV < o N : r N e N I Wli now N b 4 la Fn = PFD d 0 ® � W � e MRY y N N � e 4 fi e'-Y N Im N v N � mmr v v ypr o _ IY-fP 1 EXHIBIT ` D' muc aoe vrd 09H UV 606 -91 VONOYIVOOO OHONVN '80 31Y1 NVl 0962 9646 V0 CNVld1 J 3LM'3AV NO%eg N 919 09z00-i400z0210 21VHVNlL31 2103 S3H N NV-ld a0013 aNZ 4 r --------------- it it I I n' I I i n m ur 1 tiq I I II I II II I II II 2 II J TF 11 ¢U II � Wes_ f .b 6 U_ a_yT I W tY-Y / i' I / AI- -1 1 t b / I b I fi Q 1 1-is i® b d ® b 0 O I O 1 I � I b NI ' I I 1 I I I I O I o- 1_ IY- I O b h ID'-T I -T al'-T 'u P aT-IP T 2 4 a EXHIBIT ` E' seer aoe»v 0311 VZV 606 131 VONOYIVOOO OHONV21 NO IYIV8VI 0969 99,36 VO CNVI&O 31/14'3AV NOMIR N 919 09ZOO-4002080 8VHVN031 2103 538 --- I I I I I I 1 bl I I II C I I II I II W II OIt � II it it T J J W II H iI I I 11 I N � I IIICCC I i e \ y I I I I y I I- 13Y I a 1 I I I I I N I I I O I I I I N I I I O d I I I I I I G I 1 I I I N y I I f I F I w F i I J f— F B 1 I I --_ -_______ 1- I O I N a Q I N I p I I a I I I I I I I I I � I I I I t I I V I I I � i I I I I } • EXHIBIT `F' S 1 1 mm-e ' OSII 9LC 606 131. tl NOYIVOOO OHJNV21 'NO 3IYIV21Vl 0968 N 9946 VD alvldl O 31R9'3AV NO%eg N S19 09200-40020210 21VHVWiJI 2103 5321 w SIN UVA3�3 8014:]1X3 4 I , I I , I 1 II I I I I I 1 11 I s I I 1 11 I A'ltt 1 tv 1 1 11 I LL 11 I II ¢p II 11 I II I 11 I I 11 1 I I 1 � I I ® I 11 1 I II 1 1 11 I 1 II I 111 1 11 1 I N I II 1 I II I 1 1 I j 1 1 1 n I 1 I I 1 I w I 1 1 I Q I I > 1 I 1 W 1 py I I I I J I 1 1 I I I I W 1 I A 1 I I (n I 1 I � W a l I I � I I N 1 1 I N I 1 • - I .�41 ' I 1 I I I 3 1 N Fff JEMI I N 1 I ' I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I p-p 1 1 I 1 I1 1 S I I I I 1 1 N I gp g 6a 1 I I 1 1 1� S I IEj{p I 1 I N z 1 I I I I I II I 1 I 1 1 1 w I J W N 1 II I 69 W I I I I I 1 I 1 1 • -_ -- - .I-A I PI I A-PC I IIII EXHIBIT `G ' II 1 A 1 UNIi '' I New CD Z 7V .Illf✓•.:, D>i� _- LPG= ��'y�:.,,`,�'� • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Mike Smith February 1, 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445 - MARK CAPELLINO - A request to subdivide a 7.27-acre parcel into 11 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street-APN: 0209-211-19. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-01185 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00804. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 - MARK CAPELLINO-A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 127,247 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street- APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445. Background: This application was previously reviewed by the Committee on November 2, 2004. At that time, several architectural and landscape design issues were raised that the Committee indicated must be corrected (see attached November 2, 2004, Design Review Committee Action Comments). The applicant was directed to revise the application and resubmit the plans for a follow-up Committee review and recommendation to the Planning Commission. The basic design parameters remain unchanged from the previous submittal. The majority of the design revisions requested by the Committee have been completed,as noted below. Staff believes that the project is • now representative of the City's design characteristics and standards. Issue #1: Architecture—All building elevations, except those with a zero setback at the property lines, should have spandrel glass and physical articulation of the wall planes in order to achieve 360-degree architecture as noted below: • The southwest corner of Building#7 and southeast corner of Building#9(adjoining wall planes at theirsouth elevations)must incorporate horizontal and vertical articulation of the wall plane, raised cornices/parapets, and spandrel/vision glass. These parts of the building are at the end of the entry drive aisle and must provide a focal point. Solution: The parapets at the described location have been raised 2 feet higher than the parapets of adjacent panels and cornices to match the "tower' elements have been applied. The wall plane of these corners project outward from the primary wall plane 5 feet, providing additional physical articulation. Spandrel glass, sandblasted finish, and vertical reveals are now included. • The east elevations of Buildings 1, 3, 5, and 7 must have spandrel glass panels. It is not necessary to articulate these elevations because of the practical limitations of the rail spur alignment on the east side of the project site. Solution: The east elevation of the most visually prominent building along 6th Street, Building 1, has two 5-foot by 6-foot spandrel glass panels and, at the top half of the"tower"element on the southeast corner, one 10-foot by 6-foot spandrel glass panel. The east elevations of the other buildings, which are not visually prominent from 6th Street, do not have spandrel glass. • The west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9; the north elevation of Building 10;and the south elevation of Building 11 must have spandrel glass and physical articulation. DRC COMMENTS SUBTPM16445 AND DRC2003-01185 — MARK CAPELLINO • February 1, 2005 Page 2 Solution: The west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, and 8 now incorporate wall planes that, at unequal intervals between 50 to 80 feet(horizontal measurement), project inward/outward by 2 to 3 feet. The north elevations of Buildings 5 and 10 and the south elevations of Buildings 3 and 11 each incorporate a wall segment that is inset 2 feet from the primary wall plane. A 2-foot higher parapet is provided at the segments where the wall planes have been articulated. Added definition has been provided at the southwest corners (Buildings 2, 6, and 9), at the northwest corners (Buildings 1, 4, and 8), and the southeast corner (Building 1) by incorporating physical"pop-outs"and raised parapets that create"tower"elements. All tower elements include spandrel glass on their upper sections and, depending on visibility and location, vine trellises or spandrel glass on their lower sections. Issue #2: Landscaping— The Committee requested changes to the landscaping as noted below: • The area in the parking lot directly in front of Buildings 7 and 9, at the end of the drive aisle, should incorporate a landscape island with an art piece. The Committee indicated that the applicant could forego some of the parking at this location and still fulfill the parking requirement for the overall site. Solution: The applicant has eliminated the parking stalls and replaced them with an outdoor employee eating area and landscaping. See Major Issues below for additional discussion. • The 3-foot wide (including 6-inch curb)landscaped area at the west sides of Buildings 2, 4, 6, and 8 can be eliminated and, in exchange, the landscape area along the west property line can be widened to compensate. • The landscaping around each trash enclosure can be minimized to vine pockets only. • The rail spur easement along the east perimeter of the site shall incorporate landscaping throughout its entire length. Solution: The applicant has revised the landscaping at the west side of the project site and around the trash enclosures,and has added ground cover within the rail spur alignment along the east side of the project site. Issue#3: Material/finish—Form-lined concrete as proposed by the applicant is an acceptable finish. Sandblasting will not be required. Solution: The applicant has elected to apply bands of sandblasted finish to all elevations along the base and at mid-height of each building and on the panels of the tower elements. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. The applicant has requested clarification on the artwork requested in front of Building 7 and 9. • They have modified the building elevations and open area as noted above in a manner that they believe adequately creates a focal point at the north end of the drive aisle. Only three palm trees are proposed for this 60-foot long space. Staff recommends a stronger, more creative landscape design including, but not limited to, canopy shade trees or trellis structure. The Committee should also discuss whether public art should be provided. DRC COMMENTS SUBTPM16445 AND DRC2003-01185 — MARK CAPELLINO • February 1, 2005 Page 3 2. The applicant is providing ground cover with irrigation within the rail spur alignment. Although the Committee requested trees and shrubs, the applicant requests consideration of ground cover only as this condition is temporary until a rail spur is constructed by others. Staff recognizes that any landscaping in the rail spur area is"throw-away;'however, recommends adding trees and shrubs along side of Building 1 only because of its prominence to 6th Street, a designated special boulevard. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Decorative paving shall be provided at the primary vehicular access point on to the site, behind the right-of-way line extending at least 20 feet deep into site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee recommend approval to the Planning Commission subject to the above recommendations. Attachment Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Mike Smith Members Present: • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Mike Smith November 2, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16445 - MARK CAPELLINO - A request to subdivide a 7.27-acre parcel into 12 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: DRC2003-01185. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 - MARK CAPELLINO-A request to develop 11 industrial office/warehouse buildings totaling 127,247 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street- APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16445. Design Parameters: The irregularly shaped parcel resembles an upside-down "L." The site is undeveloped with limited vegetation. The property to the north is vacant; all other surrounding properties, including the"Not-A-Part"quadrant, are developed with industrial buildings. Parallel to the east property line is a rail line. Each building incorporates different design attributes that favor specific types of tenants. The design and layout of Buildings 2,4, 6, 8, and 9 are relatively small and,with the exception of roll-up doors, will most likely be occupied by office tenants. The other remaining buildings are larger and • have truck-loading docks incorporated into their design. Additionally, as required by Section 17.30 of the Development Code regarding rail service, because Buildings 1, 3, and 5 are situated along the existing rail line,their design incorporates'knock-out'panels for potential future rail service,via a rail spur constructed by others. The site has two access points (one primary and one emergency) from 6th Street. Truck parking and loading areas are located out-of-view from the public right-of- way. These areas will be screened by walls and gates, or by the building themselves. Employee/visitor parking will be located throughout the site. The buildings are designed with two primary building materials/finishes. The construction each building will be comprised of concrete tilt-up panels. Each wall plane will have both painted and form-lined concrete texture bands. Horizontal and vertical articulation of the wall planes is limited to the office areas of each building;there is no articulation on any of the other wall planes. The lack of articulation is most apparent along the west elevations of Buildings 2,4,6,and 8;the north elevation of Building 10 and the south elevation of Building 11; the adjoining wall planes of Building 7 and 9; and the northeast corner of Building 1. The design of each building includes a mix of vision and spandrel glass at the office corners and along the wall planes adjoining the primary building (office)entrances. The other wall planes along the west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, and 8; the east elevations of Building 1, 3, 5, and 7; the north elevation of Building 10 and the south elevation of Building 11;and the adjoining wall planes of Building 7 and 9 are missing this commonly required architectural element. Note that this deficiency generally coincides with the missing articulation resulting in relatively bare wall planes. Landscape coverage as proposed by the applicant meets the minimum requirements of the Industrial Districts. However, in some areas, the depth of the planter areas provided is less than 5 • feet(not including the 6-inch concrete curb). Along the west sides of Buildings 2,4,6,8, 10,and 11; along the north sides of Buildings 1 and 5;the south side of Building 3; and the east side of Building 11 the depth of the planter provided is 3 feet, including the 6-inch curb. DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTPM16445 AND DRC2003-01185 — MARK CAPELLINO November 2, 2004 • Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Provide additional horizontal and vertical articulation on the wall planes of each building as noted above. 2. Provide additional vision/spandrel glass on the elevations of each building as noted above. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Incorporate bermed landscaping along the 6th Street frontage within the landscape setback and landscape areas. 2. Incorporate ground cover and irrigation within the 25-foot wide by 615-foot long area dedicated for the future rail spur (constructed by others) at the east side of Buildings 1, 3, 5, and 7. Outdoor storage or similar use is not permitted within this area. 3. Increase the depth of all landscape planters to 5 feet, not including the 6-inch curb. • Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Decorative paving shall be provided at the primary vehicular access point on to the site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal with the above modifications prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Coleman, Fletcher, Stewart Staff Planner: Mike Smith The Design Review Committee reviewed the architectural plans forthe proposed industrial buildings and stated that the project requires revisions. The applicant was directed to incorporate their comments into the revision and resubmit the plans for Committee review. The application can then be forwarded to the Planning Commission for its review and action. Issue #1: Architecture —All building elevations, except those with a zero setback at the property lines, should have spandrel glass and physical articulation of the wall planes in order to achieve 360-degree architecture as noted below: • The southwest corner of Building #7 and southeast corner of Building #9 (adjoining wall planes at their south elevations)must incorporate horizontal and vertical articulation of the wall plane, raised cornices/parapets,and spandrel/vision glass. These parts of the building are at the end of the entry drive aisle and must provide a focal point. DRC ACTION AGENDA SUBTPM16445 AND DRC2003-01185 — MARK CAPELLINO November 2, 2004 • Page 3 • The east elevations of Buildings 1, 3, 5, and 7 must have spandrel glass panels. It is not necessary to articulate these elevations because of the practical limitations of the rail spur alignment on the east side of the project site. • The west elevations of Buildings 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9, the north elevation of Building 10, and the south elevation of Building 11 must have spandrel glass and physical articulation. The physical dimension of each panel must be proportional to the size of the wall panel to which it is applied (i.e. excessively small panels are not acceptable). Also,the quantity of glass panels should be proportional to the length of the wall plane. Physical articulation of the wall planes, where required, should include "pop-outs" of wall panels about 3 feet from the primary wall surface and raised parapets. As an alternative, the applicant can "inset' certain wall panels to achieve the desired depth. Issue #2: Landscaping —The Committee requested changes to the landscaping as noted below: • The area in the parking lot directly in front Buildings 7 and 9, at the end of the drive aisle, should incorporate a landscape island with an art piece. The Committee indicated that the applicant could forego some of the parking at this location and still fulfill the parking requirement for the overall site. • The 3-foot wide (including 6-inch curb)landscaped area at the west sides of Buildings 2,4, 6, • and 8 can be eliminated and, in exchange, the landscape area along the west property line can be widened to compensate. • The landscaping around each trash enclosure can be minimized to vine pockets only. • The rail spur easement along the east perimeter of the site shall incorporate landscaping throughout its entire length. Note that the minimum landscaping (7 percent)is still required. The landscaping incorporated into the rail easement area cannot be counted towards this minimum. Issue#3: Material/finish—Form-lined concrete as proposed by the applicant is an acceptable finish. Sandblasting will not be required. Secondary issues—The Committee expressed some concerns about the outdoor employee eating areas and access by all property owners/tenants on the site. The applicant indicated that reciprocal access would be provided. •