Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/05/16 - Agenda Packet•1 ,~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY MAY 16, 2000 7:00 P.M. Committee Members: Alternates: PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino 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. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-75 -HOGLE- IRELAND - A request to construct five buildings totaling 156,601 square feet) on 7.90 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest comer of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue -APN: 229-111-06. 7:40 p.m. (Debra) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-22 -LEGACY PARTNERS -The proposed development of fourtwo-story office buildings totaling 280,000 square feet on 19.39 acres of land, located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District - APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15. 8:20 p.m. (Rudy) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-51 MODIFICATION -AMETHYST ESTATES L. P.- A request to modify a previously approved Design Review of 18 single family homes for Tentative Tract Map16026 on 11.3 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (0-2 dwelling units per acre), located west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View Street -APN: 1061-401-03.Related files: Variance 99-01, and PAR 99-01. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED 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. AD-~nno~i~ec~iT ~ Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, 1' ate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 11, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the ~ mEhg perGovernment Code Section 54954.2 at 1~05M00 Civic Cen r Dnve, ancho Cucamonga. ~ I / (~ ~~~~ A,~~~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn May 16, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-75 -HOGLE-IRELAND - A request to construct five buildings totaling 156,601 square feet) on 7.90 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-111-06. Design Parameters: The site contains one vacant parcel that is 7.73 acres. There are no mature trees on the site nor is there other significant vegetation on the site. The site is currently cultivated as a vineyard. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. The site is surrounded by the vacant industrially zoned land to the north. To the east across Rochester Avenue are industrial buildings, and to the south across Jersey Avenue are industrial buildings. To the west is the Trammel Crow project Development Review 99-55, which was approved for a large industrial warehouse distribution facility and is currently under construction. The proposed buildings are designed for warehouse tenants. The building designs are oriented (facing south) to front Jersey Avenue (approximately 980 feet) and will side Rochester Avenue and Boston Place (290 feet) on the east and west side of the property, respectively. Each of the buildings will have office areas (1,600 of office and 1,600 feet of mezzanine areas) portions that front on to Jersey Avenue. The storage and loading areas do not face Jersey or Rochester Avenues or Boston Place. Each of these loading areas is oriented towards the rear of the project facing north and will be screened from the Jersey Avenue public right-of-way with 8-foot high screen walls. • The buildings incorporate two primary building materials. The office portions of the buildings are well articulated with strong vertical and horizontal changes and recess to the building plane, that are carried throughout and on all sides of the buildings. Additionally, the public patio areas are designed to be away from the loading areas. The color variation of the building is portico white, grey threshold, and thunder grey (looks blue), color scheme on a concrete tilt-up facade. There are also small amounts of medium sandblast concrete along with blue reflective colored glazing accents to help create contrast. Gates are shown at three locations to secure truck loading areas; however, none is shown at Rochester Avenue driveway, which defeats security. It is assumed that the applicant intends a fourth gate along the north side of Building 5 to complete security perimeter. Regardless, the gate design is attractive and uses a wire mesh to obscure views. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: Redesign project to allow manufacturing uses by providing additional parking. Parking is proposed at the warehouse standard of 1 space per 1,000 square feet. Staff believes that this size of building will also attract manufacturers, which require twice as much parking. Recommend that at least one half of building floor area be calculated as manufacturing at a rate of 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. • DRC COMMENTS DR 99-75 - HOGLE-IRELAND • May 16, 2000 Page 2 2. Provide more sandblasted concrete, particularly in office portions and along the portion of the facility that is visible from public rights-of-way. The amount provided is minimal and does not meet intent of Planning Commission Policy Resolution No. 89-158. Relocate the sandblasted concrete higher up on the building facade, so that it is more visible. Most of the sandblasted concrete is a horizontal band at the base of the building, which will be hidden behind cars or landscaping. Also, the drawings are not clear in some areas regarding what is painted versus sandblasted. Secondary Issues: Provide pedestrian plaza screen walls, 4-& feet high, and dense landscaping around outdoor employee eating areas: 2. The applicant should consider how to address severe Santa Ana winds which may affect east facing truck docks (i.e., Buildings 2 and 4). Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. Provide tables and chairs for outdoor employee eating area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and return as a consent • calendar item. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Doug Fenn Address issues of additional sandblasted concrete and bring back as a consent item. J DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Debra Meier May 16, 2000 CIV VIRVIVIVICIVIAL FIJJCJJIVICIVI /YIVIJ IJGV LLVrIVILIVI RGVIGVY VV-LL-LLVl1VI r/'1RIIYU\J - The proposed development of four two-story office buildings totaling 280,000 square feet on 19.39 acres of land, located near the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District -APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15447 -LEGACY PARTNERS -The proposed subdivision of 19.39 acres into four parcels, located near the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street in the Industrial Park (Subarea 6) District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and within the Haven Avenue Overlay District -APN: 210-081-07 and 210-081-15. Project Setting: The project site is situated long Haven Avenue, existing development in the immediate area includes office development on the north side of Sixth Street, office and multi-tenant industrial (Trademark Industrial Park) adjacent to the south; and the Empire Lakes Corporate Park on the east side of Utica Avenue. The proposed project excludes approximately 8-acres of land at the corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street; including a vacant parcel and Haven Building Materials, which is an existing non-conforming use consisting of outdoor sales and storage of masonry materials and supplies, the site is secured only with chain-link fencing and is fully visible from Haven Avenue and the project site. The site has been previously graded and gently slopes from north to south. The vineyard was cleared from the property in 1989, however several Eucalyptus trees remain. The trees will be removed in conjunction with project development (Tree Removal Permit 00-13). • Staff Comments: The proposed project consists of four office buildings, Phase 1 is comprised of three buildings clustered at the east side of the site, along Utica Avenue. These three buildings are connected by decorative hardscape, outdoor seating space, and building entry plazas, designed in a campus-like setting. Building 4, Phase 2, faces Haven Avenue. The Planning Commission previously reviewed this proposal as aPre-Application Review conducted on January 26, 2000. The applicant has responded to numerous items identified during the pre- application review, including: 1. Master Planning the Not-A-Part portion at the corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street. 2. Use of the second building material on the free-standing wall used on the "front" Elevations of all buildings. 3. The roof-mounted equipment screen has been redesigned to incorporate the architectural style of the building. 4. The "rear" Elevations of the buildings have been modified to provide employee entrances. 5. Building 4 has been moved up to the Haven Avenue streetscape setback. 6. Incorporation of public art into the outdoor seating spaces. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion • regarding this project: 1. The architectural design of the north elevation of Building 1, which faces Sixth Street, and the west elevation of Building 4, which face Haven Avenue, appear as the "rear" of the buildings. Does the design depict the level of articulation, detail, and use of building materials reflect the character of a Special Boulevard? DRC COMMENTS DR 00-22 & TPM 15447 -LEGACY PARTNERS • May 16, 2000 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Extend the decorative pavement into the handicap parking spaces at the west end of Buildings 1 and 3. 2. Use landscaping and/or walls to screen the transformer located in the parking area south of Building 3. 3. Delete the walkway extending from Building 2 to Utica Avenue, which is depicted on the Site Plan (consistent with what is shown on the Landscape Plan). 4. Relocate the landscape planter islands that occur in front of the secondary access doorways, to allow unobstructed access at the north elevation of Building 1, the west elevation of Building 2, and the south elevation of Building 3. 5. Will other access doorways be needed around Building 4? Any such doorways even on the north or south elevations would impact the 10-foot wide landscape planting areas, especially if walkways are needed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee come to a consensus on all issues as noted above, and schedule the project for Planning Commission consideration. • Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Debra Meier The Committee acknowledged the revisions to the project that were made following the Pre- Application Review, which was held in January. The Committee focused on the following discussion: 1. The repetitive design elements used throughout the entire project including color, materials, building footprint, and building patterns. 2. The Committee directed the applicant to study the elevations facing Haven Avenue and Sixth Street to provide architectural detail and style reflective of the Special Boulevard presence. 3. All Site Plan concerns, which were identified as Secondary Issues will be resolved by either conditions of approval, or modifications to the plan in cooperation with staff. It was also noted pertaining to Item 5 -that Building 4 has been designed so that only access to the east side of the building is necessary. No additional building exists will be required. The Committee recommended continuation to a subsequent meeting, in order for the Committee members to visit a similar site in Newport Beach; and requested that the applicant do the following: • 1. Provide further analysis of the design elements of elevations facing Haven Avenue and Sixth ~- Street. - DRC COMMENTS DR 00-22 & TPM 15447 -LEGACY PARTNERS May 16, 2000 Page 3 2. Prepare a perspective rendering of the proposed building to portray to the Committee a more complete understanding of the building design, particularly changes in building plane. Based on impressions gained from the site visit, in conjunction with the additional information requested, the Committee will consider the merits of the project design further. In summary, the Committee was not convinced that the project, overall, represented the goals of the Haven Avenue Overlay District, and that the buildings were generally too repetitive in nature, and the building plane may lack sufficient variation to break up the size of the proposed structures. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 8:20 p.m. Rudy Zeledon May 16, 2000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-51 MODIFICATION -AMETHYST ESTATES L.P.- A request to modify a previously approved Design Review of 18 single family homes for Tentative Tract Map16026 on 11.3 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (0-2 dwelling units per acre), located west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View Street - APN: 1061-401-03.Related files: Variance 99-01, and PAR 99-01. Background: On January 26, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 99- 51,for the construction of 18 single-family homes. The approval of the house product included 18 floor plans, from 3,845 square feet to 5,215 square feet with 18 different elevations. The applicant has submitted an application requesting to modify the previously approved Design Review to reduce the number of floor plans/elevations. Design Parameters: The project is located on the west side of Amethyst Avenue, north of Valley View Street. The site is currently vacant except for vineyard and scrub vegetation. The site has a natural slope of approximately 8 to10 percent from north to south, except for approximately 1.5 acres of land directly adjacent to the western property line, which has slopes varying from 12 to16 percent. To the east of the site are single family homes that fronton to Amethyst Avenue. The south side is bordered by single family homes and both north and west are the San Bernardino County Flood Control Channel and Demens Basin. The project site is proposed to be developed under the Hillside Development Standards. Grading • techniques will be used (i.e., split level foundations and/or stem wall construction) to work with existing contours and minimize grading alterations. The site will be developed as a gated community with a private loop street, which has a reduced right-of-way of 40 feet and a street width of 36 feet Four floor plans are being proposed, each having two elevations per floor plan, with the exception of Plan D that has 3 elevations per floor plan. The homes will range in size from 3,365 to 4,937 square feet. All proposed house plans include a 4-car garage. House Plans A-I, A-2, B-1, C-1 and D-2 were previously approved with Development Review 99-51. The rest of the proposed house plans have the same floor plan design and architectural theme of the previously approved products with the following elevation and configuration changes: Plan B2 proposes a hip roof design for all roof dormers. The building plain along the front elevation will feature brick veneer, hip roof, and varying window mullion treatment to all windows. The garage doors feature a different design pattern. Plan C2 features a hip roof design element at the top peak of each roof gable. In addition, all roof dormers proposed will have a hip roof design. The garage doors feature a different design pattern. Plan D2 features a gable roof above front-on garage with a decorative vent element. The garage doors feature a different design pattern. The front entry has been modified with a decorative pitch entryway with fissured style window glazing. The fireplace at the rear • elevation has been replaced with an upper story window and French doors below. DRC COMMENTS DR 99-51 MOD -AMETHYST ESTATES L. P. • May 16, 2000 Page 2 Plan D3 features aside-on garage. The fireplace at the rear elevation has been replaced with an upper story window and French doors below. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide ant outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad issues will be on the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Provide a third elevation for house Plans A, B, and C. The Residential Design Guidelines requires a project of this size to have at least 4 floor plans, with 3 elevations each, which equals 12 distinct homes. Reverse footprints maybe counted as a floor plan. The project is proposing 4 floor plans, with 2 elevations per plan. In addition, Plan Doffers aside-entry garage version. Therefore, a total of 9 distinct homes are proposed (4 x 2 + 1=9). Reverse floor plans do not count as additional elevations. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide additional variation from Plan C1, such as varying materials or varying window treatment. Plans C1 and C2 elevations are identical, except that C2 features dutch gables (i.e., small hip at top of gable). • 2. Revise Plan D3 right side elevation to eliminate the blank wall at rear of garage. Suggest adding windows. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the project be revised and returned to the Design Review Committee, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Rudy Zeledon This item was continued at the request of the applicant. • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS MAY 16, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, rad Buller Secretary •, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY MAY 2, 2000 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Larry McNiel Pam Stewart Dan Coleman Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Rich Macias John Mannerino 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. (Doug) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-06 -CABOT - A request to construct a two phased project consisting of building "A" which is • 240,373 square feet that will be constructed during Phase I; and building "B" that is . 58,099 square feet and will be constructed during Phase II on 17.73 acres of land in General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located northeast corner of Arrow Route and I-15 -APN: 229-021-29 and 57. 7:40 p.m. (Warren) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-19 - SCHAFER DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. -The development of awarehouse/office consisting of 61,351 square feet on 8.4 acres of land in Subarea 9 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10959 Jersey Boulevard -APN: 209-143-19 CONSENT CALENDAR NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. 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, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 27, 2000, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center D 've, Rancho Cucamonga. - ---- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Doug Fenn May 2, 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-06 -CABOT - A request to construct a two phased project consisting of building "A" which is 240,373 square feet that will be constructed during Phase I; and building "B" that is 58,099 square feet and will be constructed during Phase II on 17.73 acres of land in General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located northeast corner of Arrow Route and I-15 - APN: 229-021-29 and 57. Design Parameters: The site contains two vacant and adjacent triangular shaped parcels that will be merged into a single parcel of 17.73 acres. There are no mature trees on-site nor is there other significant vegetation on-site. The site is currently cultivated as a vineyard. The site slopes from north to south at an approximately 2 percent. The site is surrounded by the Interstate 15 to the west and northwest and to the northeast is the commercial development (Foothill Market Place). To the east is a vacant vineyard with no other significant vegetation. To the south are industrial uses such as, Parallel Products and the recently approved Origen industrial warehouse project. The proposed buildings are designed to house either a single or multiple industrial tenants. The building design will be oriented (facing south) to front Arrow Route (approximately 1,160 feet) and will side and be clearly visible from I-15 (1,660 feet) on the north and northwest side of the property. Each of the buildings will have office areas portions that fronton to Arrow Route. Building "A" has an office area of 14,121 square feet and building "B" has an office area of 3,499 square feet. The • storage and loading areas do not face I-15 or Arrow Route. Each of these loading areas is oriented towards the east and will be screened from the public right-of-ways with 8-foot high screen walls. The buildings incorporate two primary building materials. The buildings are well articulated with strong vertical and horizontals changes and recess to the building plane, that are carried throughout and on all sides of the buildings. Additionally, the public patio areas are designed to be accessible to the office entryways of the facilities without conflicting with on-site traffic maneuvering areas. The color variation of the building is stonewall grey, white and silver chime, color scheme on a concrete tilt-up facade. There are bands of medium sandblast concrete along with blue reflective colored glazing accents to help create contrast. 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: The large area at the north end of Building "A" is an excessive amount of asphalt paving without trees for shade. Suggest redesigning area to provide employee recreation facilities (i.e., volleyball or basketball court). If area is intended as future building expansion, then temporary hydroseeding would be appropriate. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The applicant should consider how to address severe Santa Ana winds which may affect • truck loading operations. DRC COMMENTS • DR 00-07 -CABOT May 2, 2000 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Landscape the freeway slope embankment along northwest property line or pay in-lieu of construction fee. 2. Provide tables and chairs for outdoor employee eating area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modification as recommend above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Doug Fenn The applicant presented a revised scheme to reduce pavement at the northeast corner. The Committee recommended approval with the modifications. • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Warren Morelion May 2, 2000 CIVVIIIVIVIVIGIV If1L l1JJCJJIVIGIVI I'11VU ULV LLVrIVILIVI I\LVILYY VV-IJ - VVI 1I'\I L-I\ DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. -The development of a warehouse/office consisting of 61,351 square feet on 8.4 acres of land in Subarea 9 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10959 Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-143-19. Design Parameters: The site is located on the southeast corner of White Oak Avenue and Jersey Boulevard. The site slopes southeasterly at approximately 2.7 percent and currently contains a 77,000 square foot office/warehouse building. A 2.33-acre portion on the west of the site is vacant, except for a patch of approximately fifty trees and five pools near the northwest corner. A Tree Removal Permit has been submitted for the removal of the trees. As part of development, the pools will be relocated to the west along White Oak Avenue. Access to the site will be through an existing entrance on Jersey Boulevard and two new entrances proposed along White Oak Avenue. The project will consist of a 61,351 square foot building with two-story offices. The building will be built on the vacant 2.33 acres of land just west of the existing building. The building has been designed to house two tenants. One tenant will have offices fronting Jersey Boulevard and the other has offices fronting White Oak Street. The truck loading area will be located between the buildings. 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: Add visual interest to building elevations by introducing architectural elements such as pop- outs, wall treatments, insets, etc. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide additional exposed aggregate concrete on office portions of building. 2. Continue reveal pattern around to truck loading area on East and South Elevations 3. Eliminate the dock rollup door in front of the space that will be used as truck parking stall. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Berm landscaping wherever possible within the landscaped setback to screen parking and loading area. 2. Provide side stall parking planters in rear parking area of existing building. 3. Add landscaped planter, a minimum of 5 feet, to East Elevation of proposed building. In areas of public view adjacent to structures and along property boundaries, trees will be planted at • a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building dimensions and interior property lines. 4. Provide one tree for every 3 parking spaces to shade 50 percent of pavement at tree maturity. Use canopy types. ' DRC COMMENTS DR 00-19 -SCRAPER DEV. GROUP INC. • May 2, 2000 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Warren Morelion The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to staff comments. In addition, the Committee directed the applicant to raise the office facade a few feet in order to break up the building's long continuous plane. The applicant was also directed to limit screen wall heights to a maximum of 8 feet. This could be achieved either by berming or by wall design. The applicant agreed to revise the project per the Committee's comments. • n U DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • May 2, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectful) submitted, Brad Buller Secretary • •