Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2008 PC Minutes Planning Commissio11 Minutes Tuesday, March 25, 2008 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:23 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioner:, Wehrenberg, King and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; John Bakker, City Attorney; Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: NONE ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by On. Tomlinson, seconded by Cm. King with Chair Schaub abstaining; the minutes of March 11, 2008 were approved as modified. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 P A 08-003 Oil Changers Site Development Review approval to modify the exterior color scheme for the existing Oil Changers building located at 7194 Village Parkway. Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the color scheme was a brand color and where the present col6r scheme originated. Ms. Rojo answered, the Applicant indicated in his written statement that this color scheme was being used in other Bay Area Oil Changers and it was chosen because the company felt the darker colors required less maintenance. Chair Schaub opened the public hearing. John Read, VP Oil Changers, spoke in favor of the project and read from a prepared statement. Mr. Read stated that his is a local business and a part of the community. He stated that the company was striving to provide a professional looking building for a good image in the community. He stated that the company had gone through a study to determine the best color scheme for their facilities. He stated that 16 of the Oil Chargers facilities have been painted with this color scheme to date. He continued that because of damage from large vehicles the company had to patch the arches but encountered problems when trying to match the paint (}'[anning Commission ~muwr ?tfeeting 31 }.1ardi 25, 20U8 color. The original paint was infused within the building material (as stucco) and therefore, it could not be matched. They decided, at that point, to repaint the building white, with a red band and red trim. He stated that they have painted the Dublin store four different times within 16 years with several different paint combinations, settling on the black, grey and yellow color scheme. He stated that the company conducted a survey of customers and surrounding businesses, which was taken by 660 individuals; 630 customers, and 30 surrounding businesses, with only 29 objections. Mr. Read shared some of the comments from the survey. Mr. Read showed a photo of a gas station in the area painted grey with a yellow band which is located at Dublin Blvd. and Hacienda Drive. He also mentioned another building, one block away that is grey with a pink and purple band around it. He stated that he does not understand the color standards for the City. He did not agree with the Staff Report that stated the approved color scheme in 1987 included white, red and brown. He presented a picture of the original building which he stated was painted cream with a grey band and grey over the arches. Chair Schaub asked to see the picture. He asked the Applicant if these colors were the approved colors from the original SDR in 1987. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the original colors were out of compliance at the time of completion of the building. Mr. Read stated that the picture he supplied showed the colors that were approved by th.e Planning Director at the time. Mr. Read stated that in the original application there was a paint sample board with light cream and grey that went along with the elevation. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Rojo for the SDR that shows the approved color scheme of white and red. Ms. Rojo stated that the color rendering of the building was the original color pallet with signage as red, brown trim, white building and red trim. Chair Schaub asked if the color scheme was mentioned specifically in the documentation for the original SDR. Ms. Rojo answered that only the color rendering of the building and a color sample board that was submitted along with the application. John Bakker, City Attorney stated that Condition 9 of the Conditions of Approval in the SDR stated "exterior colors and materials, particularly the architectural t>im work for the new structure, shall be subject to final review and approval by the Planning Director." He stated that the color scheme would have been approved by the Planning Director at the time of the original SDR in 1987 not the Planning Commission. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager stated that Attachment 3 of the Staff Report is a copy of the original resolution which includes an elevation with a color ,:hip sample that was part of the application. She stated that this elevation and color chips arE the primary source for the color detail. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission can assume that the picture presented by the Applicant is of the color scheme that was approved at the t.me and that the color rendering attached to the Staff Report is what the color chips were found to be consistent with for the building. :P{anmnH Commission ~ml&!r 'M'ecting 32 :Man:/i 25; ZOOS Chair Schaub stated that the Commission was under the assumption that there is an approved SDR and that SDR stays in effect for the next time the building is painting, but the building does not look like the rendering of the original building and he was concerned about the kind of precedent the Commission is considering without having paint chips from the original SDR. Mr. Bakker stated the Planning Commission approved the design and architecture then delegated the authority to approve the final color scheme to the Planning Director. He continued that the color scheme, although not significantly different from the rendering, is different than what was actually constructed. He stated the question before the Commission is whether they can make the SDR findings with the current paint colors. Mr. Read continued that the red and white color did not occur on the building until 1991. He stated that the company has been in this location for 20 years and changed the color scheme several times without approval by the City until he was contacted by Code Enforcement in November 2007. He felt he was being treated unfairly compared to other building color schemes in the area. Cm. Tomlinson asked about the survey the Applicant conducted. He stated that the question on the survey asks "the City of Dublin does not want to allow us to have the new colors that we've chosen for this building. Please write your name and address where noted if you like this new color scheme for our building." He felt that the survey did not allow for negative comments. Mr. Read responded that the survey asked them to fill in a comment if necessary. Cm. King asked Mr. Read if he did not know what colors were approved by the Planning Department in 1987. Mr. Read responded that he knew what colors were approved, but could not match the color because of the building materials. Chair Schaub was concerned that the building was painted with colors that are not consistent with the other buildings in the area. He agreed that the building needed to be painted but wanted to manage color changes in the City. He felt that the o:~iginal color scheme (in the photo the Applicant provided) was appropriate for the area. Mr. Bakker felt that when the Planning Director approved the final color scheme it became part of the approved SDR. He stated the color scheme that was in the photo that the Applicant provided was the color scheme approved by the Planning Diredor. Cm. Tomlinson stated he felt the existing colors on the building now do not match what the Planning Director approved in 1987. Cm. Wehrenberg asked why the Applicant had not been approached by the City for changing the color of the building before November 2007. Mr. Bakker answered that it would not be unusual because Code Enforcement is done on a complaint basis. Chair Schaub felt that it was brought to the attention of the City because the color change was so startling. Hearing no other comments Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Wiarmwli ('omn1L\sion: ''Krf/u[sr :'Hel'ling 33 }.1an:/i 25, 2008 Chair Schaub asked Mr. Bakker if the Commission has the right to tell the Applicant what color to repaint the building, and if so, under what document. Mr. Bakker answered that if the Commission were to approve the application to amend the SDR to grant him the right to maintain the building with the current color scheme, that would allow him to continue to maintain the color scheme as it is today If the Commission denies the application to amend the SDR he would have to go back to hi:; existing SDR which is the color scheme shown on the picture of the original building. He continued that the Applicant could submit a different color scheme or the Commission could tell the Applicant which color scheme they would approve and he could choose whether or not to go forward. Cm. King asked if the Planning Director still has the authority to approve the color scheme. Ms. Wilson stated that authority is still in effect. Cm. Biddle stated that there was an SDR approved in 1987 and Condition #9 stated that the colors and materials must be approved by the Planning Directcr and that would remain in effect any time the building is repainted. Cm. Tomlinson asked if the Commission could make the assumption that the first time it was painted it was in compliance with the Planning Director's color scheme, therefore, the photo would be evidence of the color scheme that was approved. He continued that the date on the rendering is May 10, 1987 and the SDR was approved in June 1987, therefore, the rendering was part of the original submittal packet and there was a condition that the Planning Director makes the final decision on the color which was approved after the final SDR approval by the Planning Commission. Then the Commission can say that the current colors bear no resemblance to the photo of the building which shows the color scheme that was approved by the Planning Director in 1987. Ms. Wilson stated the Commission could use the photo as an e:<hibit as part of the application to make the finding that it was built and was consistent with the original SDR, then the Applicant would be required to paint the building to those standards if the Commission wanted to deny the request to change the color, as it exists today on the building. Mr. Bakker stated that the other alternative would be to leave in place the condition authorizing the Planning Director to approve the final color scheme. Ms. Wilson stated the condition is typical of Conditions of Approval today but when there is a color rendering submitted with the application, the Planning Director ensures that the final colors are consistent with the SDR. Cm. King stated the Applicant is a loyal businessman in the City and he appreciates the fact that the building is being maintained when some in the City are nJt. He felt that the Applicant has raised an important point regarding why he was notified at this time. He stated that, in his opinion, the City and the Planning Commission have been striving to raise design standards and one of them is the general idea that a color scheme should be compatible with other CfiannwH Commission 34 :ltardi 25, 200S J(ff{ular buildings in the area. He stated that while he does not feel the City should all have the same color scheme, he felt that the colors should be similar and that he could not approve the application because the current color scheme is so completely different from what is in the surrounding area. Cm. Biddle pointed out that this site is at the corner of both the Village Parkway Specific Plan area and Downtown Core Specific Plan area. Ms. Wilson stated that this area is also part of the new Comprehensive Downtown Specific Plan. Cm. Wehrenberg agrees that buildings need to be maintained and upgraded and while she was not in favor of the new color scheme initially she has grown used to it. She also agrees that the Planning Director should review and approve as per the origlnal SDR but was not in favor of requiring the Applicant to change the current color scheme because it has blended into the surrounding areas well. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he does not like the colors and felt the reason the new color scheme was noticed is because it was so different. He felt that the original colors matched the logo of red and white and the logo is now black and yellow which appears to be a way of changing the building into a billboard. He felt that a lot of the architectural details of the building had been lost because they were painted the same as the body color and felt the color scheme in the aerial photo was more universally appealing then the current color sc heme. Chair Schaub agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that the color is completely inappropriate. He stated that the Commission put a lot of thought and worked with the Applicants of the new and redesigned buildings in the area regarding the color schemes and this building should have the same look and appearance. He stated that there is an approved SDR that stays with the building and felt that the Commission should uphold the SDR. Chair Schaub asked for a motion. On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by CM. Tomlinson, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved the following: RESOLUTION NO. 08-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT TO MODIFY THE EXTERIOR COLOR SCHEME FOR THE EXISTING OIL CHANGERS BUILDING AT 7194 VILLAGE PARKWAY (APN 941-0210-001-07) P A 08-003 (P[annmg ComliilsS'ion 1{ffjui'ar i.Wedin!! 35 ~}fail;fi 1>, 2008 Mr. Read, the Applicant, stated that he would like to go forward with an appeal of the Planning Commission decision. Ms. Wilson stated that there is a 10 day appeal period and that she will speak with Mr. Read regarding the process following the meeti::1g. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Plan:t\ing Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the P:lanning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). Ms. Wilson reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming Planner's Institute. She indicated that the Community Design Element Study SeEsion is scheduled for 4-1-08 will take place after the regular City Council meeting at approximately 7:30 or 8:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. ATTEST: Respectfully submitted, ~~~c,~so~ Planning Commissio~Chair '" 1 '-"e G: \ MINUTES \ 2008 \ PLANNING COMMISSION\3.25.08.doc T[onnillff ('mnnmsion ''Nf?!fu[m'Meeling 36 ~ltan:1i 25, 20US