Design Review Committee recommends approval of DuPont Court industrial building with landscaping and light-shielding suggestions

The Design Review Committee recommended approval of a proposed DuPont Court industrial building after staff and the applicant answered detailed questions about setbacks, loading access, landscaping and lighting.

Brian Arvey, the associate planner presenting the project, told the committee the proposal is for project 26-1033: “The project before you tonight is project agenda item number 4, DuPont Court Industrial Building,” a planned development permit and major design review for a 36,870-square-foot industrial building with a 5,730-square-foot mezzanine on a 2.29-acre vacant site between Eastman Avenue and Goodyear Avenue. Arvey said the design meets the manufacturing planned development (MPD) zone standards except for a requested minor variance reducing the front-yard setback to 20 feet where the track overlay requires 30 feet.

Developer Bob Goetzsch introduced the development partnership and described his team’s local experience. “We think the market is in real need of a product like this,” Goetzsch said, noting prior work in the region and that the team was available to answer technical questions.

Committee members probed site design and code issues. A member asked whether the variance is to the track overlay standard rather than the base zoning; staff confirmed the variance addresses the track standard. Members also raised utility and access questions — including transformer and water-service locations, the width of truck access aisles (the design includes 30-foot drive aisles to facilitate large-truck maneuvering), and bike parking (staff and applicant said required bicycle stalls would be provided near building entries).

The committee spent substantial time on landscaping and streetscape visibility. Members said the proposed front trees (native species including Channel Island oak) might obscure the building’s intended architectural 'eyebrow' features and suggested alternative species or placements that would better reveal the façade. The applicant acknowledged the concern and said the team could reconsider species selection or clumping patterns to maintain both native landscaping goals and building visibility.

Members also flagged exterior lighting along the south property line and recommended shielding to prevent light spill onto adjacent properties. The chair proposed a less visually intrusive bird-deterrent option in place of visible bird spikes on light fixtures; the applicant accepted the suggestion and the committee noted the recommendation.

Arvey said the project provides 70 parking spaces, loading docks oriented to the railroad on the south side, 15,933 square feet of landscaping (about 15.98% site coverage), roof area reserved for future HVAC and solar installations, and photometric lighting designed to meet the municipal code.

After deliberation, the committee moved to recommend that the approval authority or community development director approve the major design review permit as designed, with recommendations that the applicant (1) evaluate alternate large-tree species or placement to preserve architectural visibility and (2) add shielding for the rear property-line lighting. The motion was seconded and passed on a 4-0 roll-call vote.

Next steps: the committee’s recommendation will be forwarded to the approval authority (the community development director) for final review and decision. The applicant will address the committee’s landscaping and lighting recommendations in the formal application materials.