HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-003 Oil Changers
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 25, 2008
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 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.
Report Prepared by Jamie 1. Rojo, Assistant Planner
Resolution denying a requ'~st for a Site Development Review
permit to modify the exterior color scheme for the existing Oil
Changers building located at 7194 Village Parkway.
Code Enforcement Notice (dated November 13, 2007).
Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-041 Approving Site
Development Review for PA 87-048 with Site Development
Review Standard Condition:;.
Written statement and photographs of the approved color
scheme and the proposed color scheme.
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
n
~
2)
3)
4)
1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the public hearing;
3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public;
4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) denying a request for a Site
Development Review Permit to modify the exterior color
scheme for the existing Oil Changers building located at 7194
Village Parkway.
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
Oil Changers is located at the southwest
corner of Village Parkway and Amador
Valley Boulevard at 7194 Village Parkway.
The 20,531::1:: square foot site is located within
the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Access to
the project site is provided by driveways on
Village Parkway and Amador Valley
Boulevard. Please' refer to Table 1 for a
description of the surrounding uses.
Vicinity Map
~..---
,.... ,.
<.
o
....,.
.oR'V'"
'>:c.
'Oq"
~
~
~
,.
~
o
;!;
~
"'0
\
<
.
..",';.H TO IV -
~ _ O"',ve ~.If'G"TON
...
-:,. -; IN
~ ... '"
"'7-.. "7. ~
.... ~C'Jt'" ....
DlIt've ;;
...,~'~ 0
~~ ..
....., ~
<>
..,
...I..€
...'
TAMARAC,," 0
"0
"'0
~
,..
~
..
0.,.
<>
'G".,.o
...0
.....
-...
0'"
,.
~
0.,.
+
~
~
o
...
...
~
~
~'"
...'
o
..
,.
..
o
~
o.
..
....
..
<<-
~,
......
\.-...",..$0
,.0"
C"t,
c;,.~
~~
...
-
o
,.
co
ou"'''''''''
"
0.5
Miles
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
File P A 08-003
Page 1 of 4
G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-003 Oil Changers SDR (color changes)\PCSR 3.25.08.doc
ITEM NO. B. \
Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
I LOCA TlON ZONING GENERAL PLAN CURRENT USE OF
LAND USE PROPERTY
Project Site Planned Development (PD) Retail/Office and Automotive Service Station
North PD RetaiVOffice Stores & Offices
South PD RetaiVOffice and Automotive Restaurant
East PD RetaiVOffice Retail Store
West -- -- 1-680
On June 1, 1987, Resolution No. 84-041 was adopted by the Planning Commission for construction and
operation of a 2,700:1: square foot oil change and lubrication, and smog certification facility at the subject
site (Attachment 3). The approved color scheme for the building consisted of white, red and brown
colors as shown on the approved color elevation included with Attachment 3. The Planning Commission
found this color scheme to be consistent with the design of the building and compatible with the character
of the adjacent buildings. The Conditions of Approval (Standard Condition l.h - Attachment 3) required
the improvements to be maintained in accordance with the approved SDR. Any changes, including
changes to the colors of the building, require City approval.
Oil Changers recently repainted the exterior of the building, trash enclosure and equipment enclosure with
a revised color scheme without first obtaining approval in accordance with the Conditions of Approval for
the approved Site Development Review. The revised color scheme consists of black, grey and yellow
colors. On November 13, 2007 the applicant was notified by Code Enforcement that the revised color
scheme was not consistent with the approved Site Development Review. The Applicant was advised to
revise the color scheme of the exterior structures to be consistent with the approved Site Development
Review or obtain approval from the City to modify the approved color scheme.
The Applicant, John Read, currently requests approval of an SDR to modify the exterior color scheme of
the Oil Changers building to allow black, grey and yellow colors as currently painted on the building
(Attachment 4).
20f4
ANALYSIS:
The Oil Changers building has already been painted with the proposed color scheme which includes
black, grey and yellow colors. This color scheme is not consistent with the color scheme that was
originally approved for the Oil Changers building by the Planning Cc,mmission 1987. The approved color
scheme consists of fairly light color tones that include white, red and brown colors. The proposed color
scheme consists of grey colors tones which are darker than the approved colors. Please refer to
Attachment 4 for comparison photos of the original color scheme and the proposed color scheme.
The Oil Changers building has architectural elements that include archways and roof rafter tails. These
architectural elements give the building a Spanish character. The proposed black, grey and yellow colors
are not consistent with the design theme of the building. When app~oving the original color scheme, the
Planning Commission made specific findings that the proposed white, red and brown colors were
consistent with the design and character of the building.
The Oil Changers building is prominently situated at a corner lc.cation. The surrounding buildings
generally have light color tones which primarily consist of white, tan, brown and red colors. The
proposed color scheme of black, grey and yellow has a darker color tone than the surrounding buildings.
In addition, the proposed color scheme does not draw upon or relate to the color scheme of the
surrounding buildings. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposed color scheme is consistent with
the color scheme of the surrounding buildings in the area.
The Applicant surveyed 637 customers and obtained signatures from 610 customers in support of the
proposed color scheme. These supporting signatures are contaimd within a binder submitted by the
Applicant. Since the binder with these signatures is so large, it will be available for review in the Planning
office at City Hall.
A draft Resolution is included in Attachment 1 recommending that the Planning Commission deny the
Site Development Review to modify the proposed color scheme for the Oil Changers building.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), which includes minor alteration of
existing public or private structures involving negligible or no expan~.ion of use beyond that existing.
CONCLUSION:
In 1987 the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review (Resolution 87-041) for the Oil
Changers building. The approved Site Development Review included an exterior color scheme consisting
of white, red and brown colors. The Oil Changers building was reGently repainted with a revised color
scheme that consists of black, grey and yellow without first obtaining approval from the City of Dublin.
The revised color scheme is not consistent with the approved Site Development Review nor is it
consistent with the color palette of the surrounding buildings. Therdore Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission deny the request for a Site Development Review to modify the color scheme to
allow the black, grey and yellow colors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate;
and 5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) denying a request for a Site Development Review Permit to
modify the exterior color scheme for the existing Oil Changers building located at 7194 Village Parkway.
30f4
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROPERTY OWNER:
Paul Kim
Kim Family Trust
2956 Saklan Indian Dri"e
Walnut Creek, CA, 94595
APPLICANT:
John Read
Oil Changers, Inc.
4511 Willow Road, Suite 1
Pleasanton, CA, 94588
LOCATION:
7194 Village Parkway (APN 941-0210-001-07)
GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Retail/Office and Automotive
EXISTING ZONING:
Planned Development (PA 02-012)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project has been found to be Categorically Exempt
under Existing Facilitks, Section 15301 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, which includes
minor alteration of existing public or private structures
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that
existing.
SURROUNDING USES:
I LOCATION I ZONING I GENERAL PLAN CURRENT USE O~
LAND USE PROPERTY
Project Site Planned Development (PD) Retail/Office and Automotive Service Station
North PD RetaiVOffice Stores & Offices
South PD RetaiVOffice and Autonotive Restaurant
East PD RetaiVOffice Retail Store
West -- -- 1-680
40f4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVU:W 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
WHEREAS, John Read, a representative of Oil Changers Inc., has submitted an application
requesting approval for a Site Development Review to modify the e~~terior color scheme that consists of
black, grey and yellow for the existing Oil Changers building located It 7194 Village Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a complete application which is on file and available for
review in the Community Development Department, for a Site L evelopment Review for the above
described proj ect; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provlslOns of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the project is Statutorily Exempt per Section 15301 of
the CEQA Guidelines, because it includes minor alteration of existing public or private structures
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 87-041 on June 1, 1987 approving a
Site Development Review to construct an Oil Change and lubrication facility with an exterior color
scheme consisting of white, red and brown colors.
WHEREAS, the Staff Rep0l1 dated March 25, 2008 and in~orporated herein by reference was
submitted recommending the Planning Commission deny a Site Deve'opment Review to modify the color
scheme for the Oil Changers building; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 25,
2008; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
A. The proposed Site Development Review, as conditioned, is not consistent with the purpose and
intent of Chapter 8.104 Site Development Review of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) The
proposed color scheme of black, grey and yellow is not compatible with the color scheme of the
surrounding properties; and 2) the proposed modifications of the existing exterior color scheme
will be not be consistent in color scheme of the originally aJproved Site Development Review
Resolution No. 87-041 CPA 87-048) which includes white, red :md brown colors.
B. The proposed Site Development Review complies with the policies of the General Plan, the
Village Parkway Specific Plan, the development regulations established for the zoning district in
which it is located, and with the general requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance
because: 1) the existing Oil Changers is consistent with the General Plan and Village Parkway
Specific Plan land use designation of Retail/Office and Automotive which allows a vehicle oil and
lubrication facility; and 2) the proposed modifications to the exterior color scheme would not alter
the existing use of the subiect property.
C. The proposed Site Development Review, will not adversely effect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare in that: 1) the proposed modifications to the proiect site are limited to the exterior color
scheme; and 2) the proposed proiect will comply with all City regulations.
D. The site development, including site layout, structures, vehiCllar access, circulation and parking,
setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, have been designed to provide a
desirable environment for the development because: 1) the proposed modifications to the Oil
Changers building are limited to a revised exterior color scheme which will not alter the existing
site development.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because: 1) the proposed modification is limited to the exteior color scheme which would not
modify or intensify the use of the site; and 2) there will be no increases to the existing square
footage of the building.
F. Impacts to views are addressed because: 1) the proposed modification is limited to the exterior
color scheme which would not impact views.
G. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the site is relatively
flat; and 2) no changes to the existing topographv are proposed.
H. Architectural consideration, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors, screening
of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have not been incorporated into
the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this development with
the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings,
neighborhoods, and uses because: 1) the proposed color scheme includes black, grev and
contrasting yellow which are not consistent with the design concept and architectural theme of the
building; 2) the proposed color scheme consists of a dark color palette which is not consistent with
the color scheme that was originally approved bv the Planning Commission (Resolution 87-041)
and included white, red, and tan colors; and 3) the proposed color scheme is not compatible with
the color scheme of surrounding buildings which have a colors scheme primarily consisting of
white, tan, and brown with reel accents.
1. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant
materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief and an
attractive environment for the public because: 1) no chanl~es are proposed to the approved
landscape plan.
J. The approval of the Site Development Review (SDR) is consstent with the Dublin General Plan
and with the Village Parkway Specific Plan because: .ll...!fr~ Oil Changers is an existing auto
service use located within and existing building and is consistent with the General Plan and
Village Parkway Specific Plan land use designation of Retail/Office and Automotive; 2) the
proposed modification is limited to the exterior color scheme which is not consistent with the
approved Site Development Review (Resolution 87-041 ).
2
K. Approval of this application complies with Chapter 8.58~elating to the Public Art Program
Contribution in that: the Site Development Review is not subject to the Public Art Contribution
requirement as noted in Chapter 8.58. section 8.58.040 (b and d) which states that tenant
improvement projects. remodeling. repair or construction of Hn existing structure is not subject to
the Public Art Contribution requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby deny
P A 08-003, a Site Development Review to modify the exterior color 1;cheme for the existing Oil Changers
building, as generally depicted by the Site Plan, Elevations and written statement dated received January
14,2008 and March 5, 2008, stamped denied and on file with the Dutlin Planning Department.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO PTED this 25th day of March 201)8 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commi~;sion Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-003 Oil Changers SDR (color changes)
3
CITY OF DUBLIN
CODE ENFORCEMENT
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.cLdublin.ca.us
November 13, 2007
Oil Changers
Attn: Eric Frankenberger, COO
4511 Willow Road. Suite 1
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Subject: Exterior Color Change to Structures
Dear Mr. Frankenberger
It has come to the City of Dublin's attention that Oil Changers located at 7194 Village Parkway, has
recently painted the exterior of the their building, trash enclosure, and equipment enclosure without first
obtaining approval of the city of Dublin Planning Division as is required in Oil Changer's Conditional
Use Pemlit / Site Development Reviews (CUP/SDR) PA 87-048 (Drive Through) and SDR PA 89-011
(Equipment Enclosure).
In approving SDR PA 87-048 and SDR PA 89-011, The Planning Commission found that the "General
architectural considerations, including the character, scale, and quality of the design, the architectural
relationship, with the site and other buildings,-buildings materials, colors, screening of exterior
appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have [had) been incorporated in order to insure
compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings and
uses; "
SDR Condition of Approval # 7 (PA 87-048) tmder General Cond.tions indicates that "The applicant
[Oil Changers) shall cOlnply with the City of Dublin Site Developl'lent Review Standard Conditions..."
SDR Standard Condition # H (PA 87-048) states "That all materh!ls and colors are to be as approved
by the Dublin Planning Department. Once constructed or installed, all improvements are to be
maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any changes which affect the exterior character
shall be resubmitted to the Dublin Planning Department for appJ"oval. "
In addition, SDR Condition of Approval # 9 (PA 87-048) under Architectural states that "Exterior
colors and materials, particularly the architectural trimwork, for the new structure shall be subject to
final review and approval by the Planning Director. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment, and
other mechanical equipment on the structure shall be effectively screened from view with materials
architecturally compatible with the main structure. "
Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 8:13-6605 . Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 . Public Works/Engineering 833-6630' Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610' Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
ATTACHMENT 2
For reference purposes, SDR Condition of Approval #2 for PA 89-011 states "Exterior colors and
materials for the equipment enclosure wall shall be consistent wit"'z those of the existing Oil Changers
structure and trash enclosure. "
Corrective Action:
In order to gain compliance with SDR PA87-048 and SDR PA 89..011, the following action is requested.
1) Should Oil Changers choose to retain their new color scheme (black, gray, and yellow) please
submit an application to the City of Dublin Planning Division requesting that an Amendment to
your Site Development Review (PA 87-048) be considerec..
2) Should Oil Changers choose to repaint the colors of their structures to what had been previously
approved by the Planning Commission (SDR P A 87-048), or to a color scheme that might seem
reasonably similar to that ofthe Zoning Administrator, please submit an application to the City
of Dublin Planning Division requesting an SDR Waiver.
If you should have any questions regarding the application proces:; for an SDR Amendment or Waiver,
. you may contact any city planner. The City planning staff is always available to assist you Monday thru
Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
It is reasonable to expect that you can compile and submit a formc1 application addressing the exterior
color of your structures within the next thirty (30) days. Please mcke every effort to submit an
application by December 14, 2007.
Please be advised that an approved SDR Amendment orWaiver aJplication does not guarantee in itself
that your exterior color change proposal will be approved by the F lanning Commission or Zoning
Administrator.
Your prompt attention of this matter will be greatly appreciated. If you need to contact me or a city
planner, we can be reached at (925) 833-6610.
Sincerely,
~-.-/':>~.
Dean R. Baxley
Code Enforcement Officer
Planning Division
CC: MaryJo Wilson, Planning Manager
File
End
Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel f 33-6605 . Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 . Public WorkslEngineering 833-6630 . Parks & Conunllnity Services 833-6645 . Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610' Building Inspection 833-6620' Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
~,
RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 041
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
----------------------------------------------------------~-------------
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPME}T REVIEY FOR PA 87-048
OIL CHJ.NGERS
WHEREAS, Seth Bland, a reprE,sentative of Lube Management
Corporation, filed a Conditional Use Pertlit and Site Development Review
application for construction and operation of a 2,700+ square foot oil change
and lubrication and smog certification facility at 7194 Village Park-Nay; and
WHEREAS, notice of Public H1laring was published in The Herald,
posted in public buildings, and mailed t,) property owners within 300 ft. of ':he
proj ect in accordance with California St.lte Law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff analysis WIS submitted reco~~ending conditional
approval of the application; and
w~REAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 1,
1987, to consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that:
a) All provisions of Section 8-95.0 through 8-95.8 Site
Development Review, of the Zoning Ordinance are complied with;
b) Consistent with Section 8-95.0, this project will p=omote
orderly, attractive, and harmonious development, recognize environmental
limitations on development; stabilize land values and investments; and promote
the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of
structures having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses 0=
performance standards set forth in the 20ning Ordinance and which a=e not
consistent with their environmental setting;
c) The approval of the application as conditioned is in the best
interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare;
d) General site considerat:.ons, including site layout,
orientation, and the location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and
parking, setbacks, height, public safe~r, and similar elements have been
designed to provide a desirable envirorulent for the development;
e) General architectural c,msiderations, includir.g the character,
scale, and quality of the design, the a':chitectural relatior.ship, with the site
and other buildings, building materials, colors, screening of exterior
appurtenances, exterior lighting, and slmilar elements have been incorporated
in order to insure compatibility of this development with its design concept
and the character of adjacent buildings and uses;
f) General landscape provisions for irrigation, maintenance and
protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to
insure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an
attractive environment for the public;
g) The project is consistent with the General Plan.
NOY, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOlVED T~\T THE Dublin Planning Commission
approves the Site Development Review as generally shown on the plans labeled
"Exhibit A" and subject to the followirg Conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
Unless stated otherwise, all Condition, shall be complied with prio= to
issuance of buildin~ permits and shall be subject to review and approval bv the
Planning Department.
Attachment 3
.1-
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Development of the new single sto~' commercial structure (2,700~ square
feet) shall substantially conform \rith the plans dated received May 20,
1987, consisting of site plan and "levation plans. Development of the
new structure shall reflect the changes called for in these Conditions of
Approval and related Conditional U,;e Permit.
2. Approval for the Site Development ltevie." shall be valid until June 11,
1988. If construction has not co~nenced by that time, this approval
shall be null and void. The appro' tal period for the Site Development
Review may be extended for a perio1 of up to six months (Applicant must
submit a written request for the e<tension prior to the expiration date
of the permit) by the Planning Dir.ctor upon his determination that the
Conditions of Approval remain adeq~ate to assure that the above-stated
Findings will continue to be met.
3. The Applicant shall submit a site plan and a landscape and irrigation
plan prepared and signed by an architect, a landscape architect, or a
licensed civil engineer prior to issuance of building permits.
4. The applicant shall modify the parking layout as generally depicted on
the Staff study (Attachment 3); i. e., eliminate parallel parking spaces
along southern and western property lines, provide angled parking along
western property line, provide lar.dscape and curb separation. An
alternate plan may be utilized prc.vided raised landscaping and curbing is
included to provide separation of parking and drive aisles subject to
review and approval of the Planning Director. Staff shall work with the
Applicant to determine appropriat" parking layout.
5. A minimum of five on~site parking spaces shall be provided. Continuous
concrete curbing is required for all parking stalls.
6. The applicant shall eliminate the existing westernmost driveway cut on
Amador Valley Blvd. and a portion of the southernmost driveway cut on
Village Park-"ay and construct sta'ldard sidewalk improvements subject to
review and approval of the Dublin City Engineer.
7. The applicant shall comply with tle City of Dublin Site Development
Review Standard Conditions and th. City of Dublin Police Services
Standard Commercial Building Security Recommendations.
ARCHAEOLOGY
8. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered,
construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted,
and the City Planning Department notified. If, in the opinion of the
archaeologist, the remains are significant, measures, as may be required
by the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect them.
\
;\3.CHITECTURAL
9. Exterior colors and materials, pcrticularly the architectural trimwork,
for the new structure shall be slbject to final review and approval by
the Planning Director. All duct" meters, air conditioning equipment,
and other mechanical equipment or, the structure shall be effectively
screened from view with material" architecturally compatible with the
main structure.
10. The elevation drawings shall be ]:evised to correctly identify the site-
specific elevation views.
~AGE
11. A grading, drainage, and improvelnent plan shall be prepared by the
applicant and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
12. Roof drains shall empty into approved dissipating devices. Roof water,
or other concentrated drainage, shall not be directed onto adjacent
properties, sidewalks, or drivew.ys.
-2-
13. Where storm water flows against a curb, a curb with gutter shall be used.
The flow line of all asphalt paved areas carrying waters shall be slurry
sealed at least three feet on either side of the center of the swale.
14. DO'Nnspouts shall drain through the curbs of the concrete walks around
buildings.
DEBRIS/DUST/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
15. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, a~d
materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The applicant
shall keep adjoining public street'; free and clean of project dirt, ::lud,
and materials during the construct:.on period. The applicant shall be
responsible for corrective measure" at no expense to the City of Dublin.
Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be
watered, or other dust-palliative Joeasures used, to prevent dust, as
conditions warrant.
FIRE PR0TECTION
16. The applicant shall comply with all applicable DSRSD Fire Department
requirements, including, but not limited to:
a. The applicant shall remove all existing underground tanks prior to
commencing operation of the use.
b. Waste oils shall be stored in approved containers or tanks. Waste
oil shall be removed at regular intervals as required by the Alameca
County Health Services.
c. Garage floors shall drain to ~.pproved oil separates or traps
discharging to sewer in accorc.ance with the Plumbing Coce.
d. Fire exting'.lishers shall be l(,cated within a travel distance of 75' .
These extinguishers shall be (If a 2A-lOBC type.
e. DSRSD Fire Department shall b" notified prior to removal of
underground tanks. DSRSD Fir" Department shall be present at re::loval
of said tanks.
17. Prior to issuance of building penoits, the applicant shall supply w"itten
confirmation that the requirement.; of the Dublin San Ramon Services
District Fire Department have bee'" or will be, met.
~~
18. Grading shall be completec in com?liance with the construction grac~ng
plans and the soil engineering re:ommendations as established by a Soil
and Foundation Study prepared for this project (subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer). the report shall discuss the compaction
of soil under the proposed struct~res.
19. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the Project Soil and/or Geologic
Report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations
contained in the original investigation, a revised Soil and/or Geologic
Report shall be submitted for apFroval by the City Engineer.
HlPROVE.>1ENT Pl.AJ.\lS, AGREE.11ENTS. A,'1D SECtRITIES
20. The parking and driveway surfacir.g shall be asphalt and concrete pa';i~g.
The projects's Soils Engineer's !tructural pavement design shall be
subj ec t to revie'", and approval b~' the City Engineer.
21. The applicant shall enter into all Improvement Agreement with the City for
any public improvements. Comple':e improvement plans, specifications, and
calculations shall be submit:ted ':0, and reviewed by, the City Engineer
and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements
prior to execution of the Improv,!ment Agreement. All required
securi ties, in an amount equal t.) 100% of the approved estimat:es of
construction costs of improvemen:s, and a labor and material security,
-3-
equal to 50% of the construction ccsts, shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the City and affected agencies having jurisdiction over
public improvements, prior to exect.tion of the Improvement Agreement.
22. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer for any
work done within the public right-"f-'Nay where this work is not covered
under the improvement plans.
23. The applicant shall correct defic1E:ncies in existing frontage
improvements, such as offset sidewalk, as required by the City Engineer.
24. A grading, drainage, and improvement plan shall be submitt:ed t:o the City
Engineer for review and approval.
25. The existing concrete g'~tters at the back of sidewalk, catch basins, and
pipes through the curb shall be cl"aned, repaired, or replaced as
necessary to function properly as ':equired by the City Engineer.
lJU~DSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PLft~S
26. A detailed Landscape and Irrigatio~ Plan (at I inch - 20 feet or larger),
along wit:h a cost estimate of the Nork and materials proposed, shall be
submitted for review and approval oy the Planning Director. Landscape
and Irrigat:ion Plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed landscape
architect.
27. Landscape Plans shall indicate the general plant pallette with
cescription of plant type, growth rate, and container size at planting.
28. lbe Developer/Owner shall sign anc submit a copy of the City of Dublin
Landscape Maintenance Agreement.
29. Planting and Maintenance Specific>.tions shall be prepared and submitted
to the Planning Director for reviE'N and approval.
30. Landscaping at drive'Nays and at the intersection of ;'..macor Valley Blvd.
and Village Par~Nay shall be such that sight distance is not obstructed.
Except for trees, landscaping sha:.l not be higher than 30" above the curb
in these areas.
LIGHTING
31. Exterior lighting shall be of a d"sign and placement so as not to cause
glare onto Village Parkway or Arna,ior Valley Blvd. or onto adjoining
properties. Lighting used after ,iaylight hours shall be adequate to
provide for securi~f needs. Wall lighting around the exposed perimeter
of the new buildings and along th! west and north elevations of the
existing structure shall be supplLed to provide 'wash" security lighting.
Photometrics and lighting plan fo, the site shall be submitted to the
Planning Department and the Dubli~ Police Services for review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
~~
32. All signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Director.
MISCELL""'~EOUS
33. The applicant shall comply with all applicable building code
requirements, including Title 24 relating handicapped parking
requirements.
34. The detailed design, placement, and construction materials of the on-site
trash enclosure area shall be sueject to review and approval by the
Livermore-Dublin Disposal Service and the Planning Department prior to
the issuance of building permits. Concrete apron pads in front of each
trash enclosure area shall be SUI,plied with the design and location of
the aprons subject to review and approval by the Planning Department: and
the Livermore-Dublin Disposal Selvice.
.4-
35. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved landscaping and
irrigation plans and the drainage and grading plans prior to the release
of occupancy of the new structure.
36. The applicant shall secure all applicable building and demolition permits
from the City Building Department prior to commencing work on the site.
37. The applicant shall submit a demolition plan for the existing service
station, to the Alameda County Heclth Care Services Hazardous Materials
Program for review and approval. Said plan shall include removal of the
underground tanks, lab analysis of soils under the tanks, and a plan for
correction if the soil under the t:anks is found to be contaminated.
Plans for installation of any undErground fuel tanks, including waste oil
storage, shall be reviewed and approved by the Alameda County Hazardous
Materials Program office prior to installation.
38. Prior to the issuance of building or demolition permits, the applicant
shall supply written confirmation that the requirements of the Alameda
County Health Care Services Hazarllous Materials Program have been or will
be met.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of June, 1987.
AYES:
Commissioners B'lrnham, Mack and Petty
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
. Commissioners B unes and Raley
ATTEST:
-5.
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAND~ CONDITIONS
CITY OF DUBLIN
.lUl project3 approved. by t.'J.e Cit".:[ of Cubli!'l;hall ITe:t t.':e follc..;ir.g s~cl=d.
conditions unless 5p:cifically e..-::er.;:ted. by t'le Planni,..g J:e::ar=r.e..'"lt.
1. Final bcildi.nc arn site c.evelc::me..'1t plans shall ce re'l;ie-.__"ed ar.c' accrcve:i
bv t..:':e Pl2I"..ni."1o Ce~c-':.t st:..:Ef crior tJ t..~e isS"~-.ce of. a cuildi.-:c ce.......~t.
~~l 5UC~ pl~'"lS sb~ll ~'"l5ure:
OJ? 83-13
a.
T:-..at s~card. c~ci2.1 or rasic.~~tial se=..:.--:.t? r;-::ui.r:"'!'.e..T'l.ts as
est.:blisi:e:5. by t.~e ~li..T1. police CE92.!:~~.e.."1t c.=e 'f=:i:'CV2.Ced.
b.
Tt"zt rarn;:s, s~ecial par;6;..g s?2ces, si~g, 2Z:C. ct..~er a=.:r::criat.e
Fh~lSic.:!l feac.J.r2s far t...~e fl..2!"'ccac-:ed., are ~==vic.ed t.;.~cShcut '~.::e
site for all F1.ililicly used facilities. -
~...2.t c~nti.Tlt:cus cc~c::et: C..2:":'l..:.'"'lg is provieec :f.~r all ~ili:g s--~ls.
~.2.t e.~~ior liSht.:L.;..S' of t.";,e l:cilding ar..d site is not di..r~-=d cr:t::)
ac.jace..':.t prc;:~~es ar:.d t.'-.s light ~aurce is shielc.ed. f~ Ci=?::~
offsite vie~~~g.
c.
c.
e.
Tt.?.t all rr=c~J.cal ~;:DE!"..t, incl\:ding el==--=:.c.=.l 2.:.-:C C-cS u.e-:.=.=s,
is 2!:'c:-.i:tect.::=ally sc=eer:~ f=aa v:..E':i I 2.:.-:C. t.~t elec--=i~~ t=-:!'~-
fcr:i:".E:!:'s a!'2 ei~~e..= ur:c.e~===t..:...-:c.ed. Cj~ arc..~~=ally sc=;e!"~e:5."
~~~~~~) ~=lh i-~~~~~;5'N~~ ~~e a ~~~~::~~;; t-~~r~~~~ (5) .
.<:
.L_
g.. T:-;':;:.t all va'1ts I C;"..lt"7:e!:'s I c~':,~"-SpCc..ts r flash..:--:;s I et=.. I 2.::":= cai...'"'l"t=d t:J
rr.atc~ c-.e coler of acjace:lt su=::ac;=..
h.
T:-:.at all rrat.:!"ic.ls anc. c=lcrs 2.!:'e t) r:e as c.~~"e:i by t..~..e Dub' in
~~~~r'fe c:~~~~ L~~~::~~~:~(;~;''1 c~.;~~:;'~:.i ~C!";:".r~~a'lts
c..~~ces wi"'.ic:t affect t:-:e e:~...2!:":.cr:har2c-"':== s~2.11 ,..0 r===6ni.tt.=C tJ
t.~e Dililin Pla!"~~g re=~e:t fer a;:9rcval..
i.
'T"':.o:lt e::l.c..~ ~ar~<.i.;,a s=c.ce c.esiC7'.ated. Eor c::::-=.a.c:. ca=s l:e i~'1tiEieC
-~it.~ ~ pa~'"E:.~"1.t" IT"c.r~<i:.-:g r:2=.~ir:g lI~nall ~ Cnlyl1 or its €-~"T.ral:..'"lt,
a..-~d aca.iticnal siS'.ir:g l::e prG\,..,ic.ed ; ~ r..e:e5~a=i..
'TI"'--=.t all exte=ior a='c:-"i:t..ec~-=21 ele:r.e.."1ts ~-isi.::Jle f=cm vier,'; a.:.-:d r:ec
c.et.ai.led. en t..~e pl~iS k:e fir'-isl-~ed in a st:[le a'"'la L." mate=ials ~:.
h~cny wit..~ t.~e e-~t~ior of b.'-1e l:uilCir:s:.
Ttat all ot.~e.!:' ceblic ace:.;,cies tbat. r~e re~..."i~., of t..~e project 1:e
su==?lied vlit..~ ~a':Jies af t:~e final buii~C' a~c. site pla'"'ls ~c. t.~t
c::=:rr;;liar.ce te cbtzir:e:i wit..'i. at le2st the;:' Ii".i.~~-n CCCE reql.li"=e!':".e!lts"
j.
k..
.
. \
~
n
0
r
0
:::0
.. (j)
n
I
fTl
,. 3:
fTl
(j)
I;:J-L
: ~r \
t
"'J
~.
~I
.:)
..1..
I.)
-':
~~
~.Al{l~[ r A
1>A f(!;1"'()4~ Ol,- CJN:lAV'....P ,r~
0 ;0
c :s:
~ m
r- ~
Z ::::0 0
'U 1-" In
S; c...:;
2: (Q -<
z
:i c.o
"'J m
'3 0
WRITTEN STATEMENT: We are requesting a color change to this existing facility that
we have recently completed.
We have been in this area for over 19 years and our corporate office is located in this
area. We have supported the community events and have al'Nays tried to meet or exceed
the community standards which led us to update this facility We live in this community
and take part in their activities. We take pride in our business and being part of this
community.
We are requesting an amendment change to our Site Development Review. We have
painted our facility with the following color scheme {black, gray and yellow}, as shown
with the attached photos. In upgrading our facilities, we have used these colors and we
have received very favorable responses. Our original desigr used arches on the entrance
to our service bays as a design feature to enhance the appearance of our building. When
we started servicing small box vans we encountered a pre blem with the arches being
damaged.
When repairing these arches it was impossible to obtain this color, because the original
finish on the building was derived with a color mixed into the dryvit material applied like
stucco.
So, after several years we had to start painting the entire building so it would not look
like a series of patches.
This facility in Dublin has been painted 5 times in 19 years. The first 5 years it was the
original color, and then we went to a red and white color ~:cheme. Five years later we
changed to a green and whi te color scheme. After 2 years v'e changed it back to red and
white. This was the' current color until we changed it to ~he {back, gray and yellow}
which are the current colors.
White is a hard color to keep clean and it doesn't take Ions before the crispness of the
color is gone. The red color fades very fast in the bright sUllight. When trying to come
up with a color scheme that would not lose its luster we d,~cided that a combination of
black, gray and a yellow band around the building would aCl;omplish what we were after.
We were trying to take into consideration a clean, more professional looking building
when we considered these colors. We were trying to improve our curb appeal.
We believe that this color scheme is in keeping with the standards that were spelled out in
the original Site Development requirement.
We have included the results of a survey we took with cur customers as well as our
surrounding neighbors. The results of these surveys are located in the back of this
application submittal.
So, we are requesting a favorable amendment change to incllde this color scheme.
We have included the original written statement from our original Site Development
Review with this application.
All other questions on this application do not apply since this is an existing facility.
I
Attachment 4 . ~
Dublin Store
Painting Comparison
BEFORE
I
,
I ,
I '
AFTER
,..
PLEASE RETURN TO ATTENDANT
..
~
2'
~
I ~
I~
.
I.
n
J,
"
I!
:.1) ,
','
'.'1',' ~'.. B
, I'
I
~.'..,.~.'.:.~.'.~..'1..".
~f
~.
i~:
E~
,rt:.
"1
'."'~."" \"
":rl
de I
, 1'(
'. ".1
I
',f I'
\.~ I.-
. :: I
J ;' 1
.'; t.
,
t'
. .
I'
~_ 4_
:~ J~u,
f
.
'I
l.
n
~,
'"
II
1
-;
t
~
.
fJ
,
~
t,
.~
t
_ I
~
" I?
III
1
,
'1
0;
~~
n
t
j
&.
u
~~,
f; I
~.
I
II I
I.
ii:l
f
(j
I
IIlI
II
.1
a
n
,J
,. I:)>
t "-J-
C
.-."llI
jJ
III
:;
n
.
"
u
".I