Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2011-06-26 #3 CITY OF Community Development Department – Planning Division P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Meeting Date: June 28, 2011 Agenda Item: Case Numbers: ED10-092 Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini (415) 485-3092 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 812 4th Street (Pizza Orgasmica Restaurant Exterior Repainting) – Continued hearing on request for Environmental and Design Review Permit approval of revised building colors for Pizza Orgasmica commercial restaurant and brewery building, located in the downtown area; APN: 011-224-08,-10,-11&-19; 4SRC District; Gale Fisher, owner; Taylor Maia, applicant; File No.: ED10-092 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 24, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed Pizza Orgasmica Restaurant’s proposed building colors. The Commission unanimously voted to continue the project to June 28 with direction that the proposed building colors be substantially modified and reviewed by the Design Review Board on June 21. On June 21 the Board reviewed revised color concepts that proposed a significantly lighter yellow color for the building. The Board concluded the revised lighter yellow color did not address their comments and recommended that the applicant must provide an option with a neutral main body color, using yellow and green as accents. Staff discussed the Board’s direction with the applicant following the meeting, and will meet with the applicant again prior to the Planning Commission meeting. However, the applicant has indicated a preference to pursue one of the lighter yellow color options, and not to propose an option with a neutral paint color. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Commission consider the revised color schemes, the recommendation of the Board, and deny the project without prejudice. The May 24, 2011 Planning Commission staff report with attachments, and June 21, 2011 Design Review Board staff report are attached which provide pertinent background and analysis of this case. Staff has further summarized the comments provided at these meetings in the analysis section of this report. This report focuses on the applicants response to the May 24, 2011 Planning Commission action. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying the application, without prejudice, and directing the applicant to submit a revised application addressing the identified issues or restore the original approved paint colors within 30 days. Without prejudice option is intended to allow the applicant to resubmit without 1 year limitation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project requests design approval for revised commercial building colors, as modified following the May 24, 2011 meeting of the Planning Commission. The revised color schemes are as follows: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED10-92 Page 2 The Sunshower 370B-5 paint color scheme proposes to use green color as accents and bright Lemon Zest yellow to highlight the rear columns, the front column pedestal bases and the entry alcove. The applicant prefers Sunshower as the alternative body color. The applicant indicated that this color would be painted out in the field on the existing trash enclosure. The Bicycle Yellow 370A-3 paint color scheme proposes a slightly lighter yellow alternative than Sunshower. This scheme would incorporate additional bright Lemon Zest yellow accent border lines on the parapet façade and on the front building columns. The applicant prefers the painting design details shown in this scheme. This color also is proposed to been painted out in the field on the trash enclosure. The Summer Harvest 380A-3 paint color scheme is similar to the Sunshower scheme with a reversal in application of the bright Lemon Zest accent color to the front and rear columns, entry alcove and rear entryways. The Summer Harvest neutral yellow body color is the lightest of the three proposed alternative neutral yellow color tones, and is the most similar to the recommended color applied to Marin Hydroponics on Francisco Blvd East. This color has not been represented in on-site field paint- outs. The landscape wall and trash enclosure are proposed to be painted the neutral yellow color. The sample paint-out of the enclosure has been completed in the field. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the May 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting accepted public testimony, including responses provided to its questions of the applicant and color designer, and provided the following comments: ¾ Commissioner Lang expressed her appreciation for having this great business in San Rafael. With regard to the color scheme, the business needed to fit in with the community context while evoking the theme. Lang expressed confidence a color scheme could be developed that would achieve these goals. She proposed that the project come back with an alternative with understanding there must be substantial changes to the color; noting that the previous minor changes to color value are not what is desired. If the applicant does not come back with substantial changes then she would agree with the need to deny the request. ¾ Commission Colin concurred with the comments of Commissioner Lang. She noted that neutral color does not mean watered-down. There needs to be a backdrop color provided for the bright colors. The problem does not have as much to do with the brightness of the color, but more so with the quantity of the color that has been used. She expressed is confidence that it is possible to develop a scheme that would celebrate the business colors and attract the eye in a way that would also integrate with the community context. ¾ Commissioner Pick agreed the color is jarring, which may be part of the intent. He agrees that the City wants to help the business to succeed. He hopes the owner would see a benefit in making a decision not to alienate a segment of the population through the choice in color selection. He would encourage the applicant to think about revising the colors in a way that would not dilute the Brazilian connection and be more acceptable to a broader group. Saturation of the color is the issue he identifies with this proposal. The applicant could de-saturate the color and use the flag colors as accents. There is plenty of room to execute a tasteful, business friendly version done in a balanced kind of way. He agreed with Commissioner Lang regarding the process but feels the Design Review Board also has been alienated by the process, and it would be fair that if an incremental step is taken there needs to be a fairly substantial change. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED10-92 Page 3 ¾ Commissioner Wise concurred with her fellow commission members comments, which summed up her thoughts. She is very happy to have this business in our City. To an untrained eye she does not have a problem with the revised color saturation, as proposed, but agrees the neon is too bright. Her concern is with the sheer quantity of the color in front but also in back. The yellow wall, including trash receptacle is overwhelming. She recommends they revise the color scheme in a substantial way, with use of bright vibrant colors a wonderful idea but just as accents. She does not support the project as currently proposed. ¾ Commissioner Paul stated that the portions of the colors are wrong. They need the designer to help develop the scheme with colors used in way that expresses the vibrancy without dominating the whole building. The large building is too much, dominating the field of vision. Use of color accents is fine, but they need to tone down the color. There is an opportunity to pickup the more vibrant colors on the interior, which is visible through the windows. He suggests providing three alternate schemes which are substantially different from what we have now, so that we can approve one and move this forward. ¾ Commissioner Kirchmann encouraged the applicant to review carefully the Board meeting minutes. The Commission relies on the Board and respects their professional opinions. The Fifth Avenue elevation as proposed would make the entrance appear to be in center but it is actually on the right side. There is an opportunity to use the vibrant colors to highlight the entrance on that side. This is a huge expanse of wall and needs to get variation in there regardless of the color. There is no question that the matte and modestly toned down color painted on the sample is more acceptable, but it is not nearly enough. There are problems with proportions and ratio of color used. He is not as shocked by the color. However, there is plenty of opportunity to develop a solution as opposed to making building a sign. The existing approval requires the color scheme approved when it was Rafters and this proposal is to get away from that, but it needs to fit in with the guidelines to respect the surroundings. ¾ Chairman Sonnet concurred that the applicant needs to go back and read the Board minutes. He agreed the colors need to be de-saturated or scaled back. It is important that a neutral color option is proposed that works with the proposed colors. He would support the revised option returning to the Board, which is best suited to react to that. The applicant indicated that allowing four weeks to prepare a revised scheme would be more than fair. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the project to its June 28 meeting, with the understanding that the proposal would be substantially revised and presented to the Design Review Board June 21. Staff notes that the audio/video of the meeting is available on the City website. The May 24, 2011 report with the prior meeting minutes have been attached as Exhibit 4. Prior written comments on the project presented to the Commission on May 24 will be made available for review at the meeting. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION At its June 21 2011, meeting the Design Review Board reviewed the alternate color schemes and accepted testimony from the public and co-owner, Gina Taylor. Staff recommended the Summer Harvest color scheme, which is the lightest of the scheme more in keeping with the hydroponics building on Francisco East, with application of paint colors similar to the Bicycle Yellow proposal which is more interesting in application of accent colors. This proposal meets the minimum recommendation to significantly reduce the intensity of the yellow color. Liaison Pick noted that the Commission encouraged a more restrained with a significant lighter yellow color change that implemented the Board recommendation, or use bold colors as accents. The yellow scheme with brighter yellow accents did not seem to be quite what was intended by the Commission. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED10-92 Page 4 The applicant stated they intended to present a color scheme that would be beautiful, vibrant, less reflective and please everyone. The color consultant was not available. They believed the revised lighter yellow color scheme addressed the recommendations with a subdued color while retaining their desire to maintain a nice vibrant yellow and green Brazilian color scheme for the building. They understood they needed to give a lighter yellow but would be able to input their more vibrant color as accents. Member Summers asked if a neutral color had been considered. Gina Taylor stated she understood the lighter color was the direction given. There was one member of the public that spoke in support of the bright vibrant color scheme proposed. Prior to the meeting staff also received updated emails from project proponents that indicated they would not support repainting of the entire building an alternate bright yellow color. The Board comments were as follows: ¾ Member Summers stated that there is still way too much yellow. His original sense was to provide a neutral color with yellow and green as accents. The flat color helps lighten it. If there is a light flat yellow color, the yellow accent is not needed. The rear elevation does not need to be painted all yellow, just the center portal and entry, with the rest of the walls and trash enclosures neutral so as not to draw attention to the trash enclosure. He would prefer to see an option that leans toward a more neutral color rather than three schemes that are all yellow on yellow varying degrees of intensity of yellow. He noted that the details shown in the Bicycle Yellow scheme and Sunshower are starting to go in the direction we want. ¾ Alternate member Robertson felt that the reproduced copies provided to the Board were much paler and seemed to be something more of the Board could support. He would support the Summer Harvest choice with the application as shown in the Bicycle Yellow scheme. ¾ Member Huntsberry agreed with Charles Pick and Summers that the Summer Harvest Yellow reproduction printout that was provided in the packet seemed to have potential merit, with what appeared to be a very light flat body color, but that the chips presented tonight do not show enough variation to even talk about. Something more akin to the very light color in the packet would have potential with the Forest Green versus the bright green on the building, with the details shown on the Bicycle trim. The columns on the front need the darker color on the base with lighter colors on the pilasters. There is not enough differences in the schemes and they are entirely too bright. He also agreed with member Summers that the rear elevation needs a neutral color with yellow colors used for the entry and center portal only. He noted that the Board has not seen a neutral scheme presented, which was part of the original direction. ¾ Chair Garg reiterated his discomfort whether the yellow plan would conform to General Plan policy NH-29, because the building would standout in the context of the downtown setting. He agrees with comments provided at prior hearings that the yellow is glaring. He is still uncomfortable with yellow but would be inclined to support the lightest yellow color. The main yellow body should be really subdued, with the trim as shown on Bicycle Yellow, two tone scheme with a slight accent. ¾ Liaison Pick noted the Commission did note that Fifth Avenue is much more subdued and it would be appropriate to have a more restrained palette on that side. The Fourth Street side is more of the main façade. Based on the discussion provided it was agreed that the revised schemes were all very similar, consisting of repainting the entire building a lighter matte yellow color, and that none of the schemes proposed a neutral color as recommended by the Board and Commission. The photocopied version of the color schemes that were presented to the Board in their packets indicated much lighter neutral beige/yellow body color that was more acceptable than the actual color samples presented at the REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED10-92 Page 5 meeting. The matte finish was an improvement, but the amount of yellow and brightness of colors were still too much. Staff noted the Board could continue the project again to allow time for the applicant to provide the scheme with a neutral color, as directed. Staff further noted that if the applicant chooses, this may go forward to the Commission on June 28 with a recommendation for denial. The Board on a 3-1 vote (Alternate Robertson Opposed, Members Lentini and Kent Absent) recommended continuance of the project to July 6, to allow time for the applicant to develop a professionally prepared neutral color scheme option with the following changes: • A revised option must be presented with a flat neutral main body color (e.g., cream color) and a single flat yellow color and flat green colors as accents. • The yellow accent color must be much lighter than the proposed summer harvest proposed scheme, with a matte finish. • The two-tone effect as shown in the Bicycle Yellow scheme is supportable, with a neutral main body and column color for the front elevation. • The back of the building on the Fifth Avenue side must be repainted with a neutral color. The yellow and green colors must be limited to the main portal and rear entry on the back. • The accessory structures must be painted with the approved neutral color. • The pedestal base of the columns should be painted a darker color, with lighter pilaster color. • The green trim accent color must be a toned down matte color. • A formal sample board must be provided, with all of the proposed color samples attached and labeled on the sample board, rather than a sample attached to printouts. The June 21, DRB Report is attached as Exhibit 3. The audio/video of the meeting is available on the City website. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the application, without prejudice, as recommended by staff (in which case the applicant must restore the original approved scheme, but may resubmit a revised application in response to the direction of the Board and Commission). 2. Deny the application, with prejudice (in which case the applicant must restore the original approved scheme, and may propose a substantially different project or must wait one-year before resubmitting the same project). 3. Approve the application with or without modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution; or 4. Continue the application to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission’s comments or concerns. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution of Denial 3. Design Review Board Report of June 21, 2011 4. Planning Commission Report of May 24, 2011 with attachments 5. Project Plans - distributed to Planning Commission Members only. Color samples will be presented at the hearing.