The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-002 Chapter 8.104 SDR of Dublin Zoning Ordinance AGENDASTATKMENT PLANNING COMl\HSSION STUDY SESSIO~ DATE: October 9. 2007 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: ZOA 07-002 - Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of the Dublin Zoning OrdinanGe Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Chapter 8.104 2) Review Required in Selected Cities (Table) RECOMMEN~t\~~: )Receive presentation and provide comments. PROJECT DES~~!~N: The City Council, as a high priority goal for Fiscal Year 2007/2008, requested that Staff and the Planning Commission review Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (SDR), of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and determine if any changes should be made to increase the effectivenes:; ofthis Chapter. Currently, Staff is also working on the first portion of a comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission during a Study Session in a few months. The Site Development Review Chapter, however, has been pulled out of the comprehensive review, so that if necessary, changes can be made more quickly to this Chapter. Adoption of the complete comprehensive update is not anticipated to occur for at least one year. In order to begin the review of this Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff has scheduled this Study Session so that Staff and the Planning Commission can discuss the existing Chapter. Staff has included several questions to the Planning Commission to aid in the discussion of Chapter 8.104 at the end of this Agenda Statement. BACKGROUND: Prior to 1997, the Zoning Ordinance was similar to what was in effect when the City was part of Alameda County. The current version of the Site Development Review Chapter was lagely adopted in 1997 as part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update. Minor changes have been made to the Site Development Review Chapter since 1997; these changes were made to require review of projects in the Historic Overlay Zoning District and the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning Distriet. Since the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1997, the City has undergone some dramatic changes. In the last ten years, much of the eastern portion of Dublin has been developed and a significant number of remodels and new constmction have also occurred in the western portion of Dublin due to the age of the structures. COPIES TO: File ITEM NO. \ ' \ Page 1 of7 G:\Zoninl! OrdlSDR Uodate 20071PCSR Study Session 1O-9-07.doc ANALYSIS: A Site Development Review permit in the City of Dublin is required for the following: . All projects within the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District; . All projects within the Historic District Overlay Zoning District; . Additions or new construction of more than 1,000 square feet m the commercial or industrial zoning districts; . Agricultural accessory structures; . Exterior modifications to existing structures or modifications to site layout m the commercial or industrial zoning districts; . Height exceptions for single family residences west of Dougherty Road; . Planned Development Permits; and . Signage. Site Development Review Required As noted above, the Zoning Ordinance specifies improvements which require a Site Development Review. This allows the City to review the project and determine if the proposed project complies with the required Site Development Review findings which can be found in Section 8. t04.070 of the Zoning Ordinance and included as Attachment 1. The SDR Chapter is ambiguous on who may review a Site Development Review. In the past, Staff has reviewed fayade remodels (such as the Shamrock Village fayade remodel) while major projects (such as new construction) are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ove:1ime, the Planning Commission has begun reviewing all fayade remodels (such as Pool, Patio and More). Although the Chapter only requires review be conducted for certain projects, Staff has required approval of a Site Development Review Waiver or Site Development Review for almost all exterior proj ~cts to ensure consistency with the existing development. Site Development Review Waiver Section 8.104.100 allows Staff to issue a Site Development Review Waiver for minor projects. The Zoning Ordinance does not specify what types of projects are considered to be minor, however, Staff has used the Waiver to review minor improvements on non-residential buildings such as door and window modifications, addition of a trellis, access ramps, trash enclosures and minor changes to approved projects. The Site Development Review Waiver process allows Staff to review minor exterior improvements with an expedited review (typically over the counter or up to a few days; and for a flat fee (the current fee is. $250). The use of Waivers is beneficial to both Staff and the Applic ant because it allows Staff to ensure that the proposed project is compatible with the site, impose conditlons where necessary and allows the Applicant a quick review period with a flat fee which ensures that the review will not have a negative financial burden on the Applicant. Staff typically issues approximately 250 SDR Waivers per year. Improvements Exempt from Review As discussed above, there are several types of exterior improvements which require review by the City. The Code, however, exempts review of the following: . Improvements or additions on buildings which are less than 1,000 square feet in size; . Minor exterior changes such as color changes, architectural fI~atures or other minor improvements where a Site Development Review has not been approved; Page 2 of7 . Residential exterior improvements (single family and attached); and . Landscape Modifications. Review Required in Other Cities Staff reviewed a variety of other cities in the area to determine whal types of projects require review and also which projects require staff level approval or Planning Commi1:sion approval. A table listing Staffs findings is included as Attachment 2. As shown in the Attached table, most cities require review of all ncm-residential exterior improvements (both major and minor) and several require review of custom homes (including tear downs and new houses) and residential additions (only Livermore and Dublin do not~equire review of additions). Most cities allow Staff to review custom homes, minor fayade remodels and minor additions on non- residential buildings and residential additions. By allowing Staff to review these types of permits, it cuts down on Staff time required to revicw a project and expedites revieul for the Applicant as well as lowers the Applicant's costs. Recommended Staff Changes Staff recommends that at a minimum, the following changes be made to the Site Development Review Chapter to clarify the SDR Chapter, provide consistency on what is reviewed and to require review of additional projects to ensure consistency with the existing development as well as the neighborhood in which it is located. Requested Change Description of Current BenefitlImpact of Change StandardIRequirement General (Applies Citywide) Clarify Reviewing Body. Does not state which body (Staff, Benefit. By clarifying the reviewing Community Development tody it will allow Staff and the Director or Planning Applicant to clearly identify who is Commission) IS required to r~quired to review each type of project. revicw each type of project which has led to some confusion. Remove Zoning Districts. SDR Chapter states that review is Benefit. Provides better clarity. Also Staff recommends the Chapter required for certain zOlllng enforces the fact that the City will be be changed to state Residential districts, does not include Planned r;'lview exterior modifications in the and Non-Residential. Developments Zoning Districts. Planned Development Zoning Districts. Clarify Projects that can be Allows a Site Development Benefit. By clarifying what types of reviewed with a Site Review Waiver to be issued for projects can be reviewed with a Site Development Review Waiver. "minor projects" although does Development Review Waiver, it not clearly state what types of allows the City and the Applicant to projects are considered minor. determine the type ofreview required. Residential Require a Site Development No planning review is currently Benefit. These types of projects tend to Review for Single Family Tear required. Allows Applicant to be large m scope and can impact Down and Rebuild (or Custom obtain a Building Permit only. adjacent properties. In order to ensure Home) which will be reviewed that the new house will fit in with the by the Community neighborhood and not create any Development Director. negative impacts on the adjacent properties, Staff recommends that Page 3 of7 Requested Change Non-Residential Require all Additions and Exterior Modifications on Non-Residential Buildings to be Reviewed. Require a Site Development Review Waiver to be issued for specified Minor Projects. Minor Projects would include color change, fencing, door and window changes, aWlllngs, mlllor changes to approved plans, roof screens, trellises and similar improvements. Description of Current Standard/Requirement Requires review of additions or building modifications which are on a building which is greater than 1,000 square feet. Chapter is ambiguous on what qualifies as a mlllor change. Currently, the Site Development Review Waiver IS used for aWlllngs, door and window changes and mlllor changes to approved plans. Page 4 of7 BenefitlImpact of Change LIese types of projects require a Site Development Review and review by t1.e Community Development Director. Potential Negative Impact. This will hcrease the overall cost of permitting for the homeowner due to an increase h time required to review the project (:lver what currently exists today) as ./ell as additional permitting costs r;'llated to SDR fees. Will also increase staff workload which could result in an hcrease in overall processing time for [rojects as well as resulting III a r;'lduction in the amount of time Staff t as available to work on long-range [ lanning. Benefit. Require all modifications to be r~viewed which is currently practiced ty the City at this time. Staff r~commends however, that mlllor additions and fayade improvements be r;'lviewed by the Community Development Director (under 500 square feet). Benefit. Clearly states which projects can be reviewed with a Site Development Review Waiver which aids Staff and Applicants in clearly defining the type of permit that is r~quired. Additionally, by allowing Staff to Issue a Site Development Review Waiver, which IS typically completed in 1 to 3 days, this will not impact construction timelines. The application fee for Waivers is a flat fee which will not have significant [nancial impacts on the Applicant. Requested Change Require Review of All Exterior Changes to Non- Residential Building Require a Site Development Review for Major Landscape Modifications and a Site Development Review Waiver, to be reviewed by the Community Development Director, for minor landscape improvements such as the removal of five or fewer plant speCIes on all properties excluding single family residences. Potential Impacts Description of Current Standard/Req uirement SDR Chapter only reqUIres reVIew of specific items. Improvements such as fencing or color changes, for example, are not included in the list of items that require review. Currently, the Chapter does not reqUIre reVIew of landscape modifications at a property. In some cases, Staff has recently required that a permit be obtained; however, because the Chapter does not require a permit, this has been inconsistently applied. There IS a reference requmng a Site Development Review in Chapter 8.76 when a majority of the trees on site are removed, however majority is not defined. Benefit/Impact of Change Benefit. Allows the City to review all exterior changes. By allowing these minor improvements to be reviewed by ~)taff with a Site Development Review Waiver it will not impact construction timelines or create a financial hardship Jor Applicants but at the same time will ensure consistency of change with the existing building. Benefit. Allows the City to reVIew landscape changes to all non- residential projects which can result in ::. significant impact if too many plant ~pecies are removed or changed. Potential Negative Impact. Increases review time for Applicants who are not llsed to applying for a permit for these types of changes. Review by the Community Development Director will bwer review time, over what would be required by the Planning Commission. As discussed on pages 3-6 of this Agenda Statement, there are both [,ositive and negative impacts that can occur as a result of increasing the number of projects that require a Site Development Review or Site Development Review Waiver as well as requiring more projects to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The following is a summary of some of the positive and negative impacts resulting from Staffs proposed changes. Potential Benefits By modifying the Zoning Ordinance to clarify what body is required to review each type of project and clearly state when review is required, Staff will be able to consistemly require permits and identify when review by Staff or the Planning Commission is required. Additionally, by allowing Staff to review minor improvements, Staff will be able to efficiently process permits which will save the Applicant time and money. Applicant~: have recently expressed frustration with the requirements to bring most projects to the Planning Commi~;sion, which has led some Applicants to withdraw their requests and as a result, some of the older buildings in town have not been improved. By determining which projects are appropriate to be reviewed at a Staff level, the City could see an increased investment in older buildings in the community. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance does allow the Community Development Director to refer decision making authority to the Planning Commission at any time. In the past, this type ofreferral has done this when there is a Site Development Review that is controversial. Page 5 of7 Potential Negative Impacts Staff has also requested that the Chapter be revised to require permit~ for additional types ofprojects. By requiring additional projects to require a permit, the City could Jace the potential for property owners to decide not to improve their property so that they do not have to fO through the expense of obtaining a Site Development Review. Additionally, by requiring more projects to be reviewed at the Planning Commission level, the City also faces the potential that property owners or tenants may not want to have to spend additional money or time on projects requiring Planning Commission review. Property owners and tenants are typically more concerned with Planning Commission reviewed projects because there is no guarantee that even if Staff recommends approval of their project, that their project will be approved. Additionally, any additional time required for review of their project can mean that the opening of their business will be delayed which will increase their expenses. The current SDR Chapter was crafted to allow Staff to make decisioLs regarding exterior improvements in order to speed up the entitlement process to encourage commercial growth and improvements in the City. By allowing Staff to render decisions on more projects, the entitlement process is faster. Planning Commission review requires the preparation of Staff Reports, review of Staff Reports by the City Attorney, noticing and a hearing. All of these items can increase the number of hours spent on a project by. By requiring Planning Commission review of more projects, this increases the processing time for projects which significantly impacts Staff time as well as creating an additional burden on Applicants due to an increase in time as well as pemlitting costs. Any modifications that increase the number of improvements that re ~uire review by Staff or the Planning Commission will increase the current Staff workload. By increasing the number of projects Staff reviews, it will result in an increase in the total processing time for projects (due to an increase in the number of projects each Staff member is working on). Long range projects (such as specific plans) will also take longer to complete or may not be started due to the amount of time Staff will have available for these types ofprojects. Recently, at the request of the Planning Commission, Staff has required almost all Fayade Remodels to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The change in policy has led to several Applicants to determine that they would not upgrade the fayade because they did not want to wait the additional time required for Planning Commission Review which would delay the opening of their business and have the potential for increasing their costs. Most recently, the Applicants for All Video a1d Aquarium Concepts (both located in older buildings) determined that they would not make minor flyade improvements to the building because Staff informed them that it would require review by the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION: Staff is recommending several modifications to the Site Development Review Chapter to clarify the SDR Chapter, provide consistency on what is reviewed and to require re'/iew of additional projects to ensure consistency with the existing development as well as the neighborhood in which it is located. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is asking for feedback from the Planning Commission on the current Site Development Review Chapter. In order to assist Staff and the Planning Commission in the discussion, Staff has crafted the following questions: . Should we clarify the Chapter to require review of the items ~aaff has identified in the table found on pages 3-6 ofthis Agenda Statement? Page 6 of7 . Are there any additional illlprovements that you would lilce to see reviewed by Staff or the Planning Commission? . What types ofprojects should require Stafflevel or Planning Commission review? . Are there any other changes you would like to see to the Site Development Review Chapter? NEXT STEPS: Following this Study Session, Staff will begin making revisions to the Site Development Review Chapter incorporating feedback from the PlaJrning Commission. Staff will then bring back the modified Chapter to the Planning Commission for review during a Public Hearing. Page 70f7 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Chapter 8.104 CHAPTER 8.104 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 8.104.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to estabLish a procedure for approving, conditionally approving, or denying Site Development Review permits. 8.104.020 Intent. The intent ofthis Chapter is: A. To promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site and structural development compatible with individual site environmental constraints and compatible with surrounding properties :md neighborhoods. B. To resolve major project-related issues including, but not lirnited to, building location, architectural and landscape design and theme; 'lehicular and pedestrian access and on-site circulation, parking and traffic impacl s. C. To ensure compliance with development regulations anc the requirements of zoning districts, including but not limited to, setbacks, heights, :Jarking, landscaping and fences, accessory structures, and signage. D. To stabilize property values. E. To promote the general welfare. 8.104.030 Projects subject to Site Development Review: A. Addition. An addition to an existing structure, where the addition involves 1,000 gross square feet or more, located within a C-O, C-N, C-l, C-2, M-P, M-l or M-2 Zoning District. B. Agricultural structures. All structures in the Agricultural Zoning District shall be subject to Site Development Review with the exception of a single family home. C. Exterior Modification Of Existing Structure. Any eJi terior modification of an existing structure with a gross floor area of 1,000 square feet or more located within a C-O, C-N, C-1, C-2, M-P, M-l or M-2 Zoning District, including but not limited to, facade renovation, new and/or additional windows and doors (with frames), and roof or ground-mounted mechanical equipment. This d<Jes not include painting, window glass replacement or tinting, replacement of sign copy, and similar minor modifications. D. Modification To Site Layout. Any modification to sit(~ layout or improvements in a C-O, C-N, C-1, C-2, \1-P, M-1 or M-2 Zoning District, including but not limited City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 104-1 September 1997 Amended May 15,2007 ATTACHMENT 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Chapter 8.104 to, parking, fencing, circulation, landscaping, accessory structures, or trash enclosures. E. New Construction. Any new construction with a gross floor area of 1,000 square feet or more located within a C-O, C-N, C-1, C-2, M-P, M-1 or M-2 Zoning District. F. Planned Developments. Pursuant to Development Plans approved for a Planned Development district. G. Signage. Pursuant to the Sign Ordinance where applicable. . H. Historic Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review. Any development in the Historic Overlay Zoning District (as indicated on the Zoning Map) shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.62, Historic Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review, in addition to this Chapter. (Rev. Ord. 04-05, Effective March 3, 2005) I. - Where Site Development Review Is Otherwise Required By This Title. Examples include farm buildings, signage, enclosed accessory structures in multi- family districts, security gates, commercial accessory structures, encroachment of living spaces on Front Lot Line, tree removal/replacement, vehicle stacking, non- residential parking lot, parking in Front Yard Setbacks of a non-residential lot, and perimeter landscaping. J. Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review. Any development in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District (as indicated on the Zoning Map) shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.34, Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District; in addition to this Chapter (Rev. Ord. 11- 07, Effective June 14,2007). 8.104.040 Application. The Applicant shall submit a complete application pursuant to Chapter 8.124, Applications, Fees and Deposits, accompanied by a fee and such materials as are required by the Director of CornmU11ity Development. 8.104.050 Notice Of Decision. A Notice of Decision shall be given consistent with Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearings. No public hearing is required for a Site Development Review unless the application is being considered concurrently with another permit requiring a public hearing. 8.104.060 Concurrent Consideration. When a Site Development Review is required for a project which is also subject to a Conditional Use Permit and/or Variance, it shall be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the same decision-maker or body for those actions. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 104-2 September 1997 Amended May 15,2007 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Chapter 8.104 8.104.070 Required Findings. The following findings shall all be made in order to approve a Site Development Review: A. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter. B. Any approval complies with the policies of the General Plan, with any applicable Specific Plans, with the development regulations or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located, and with all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. C. The approval will not adversely affect the health or safe:y of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public bealth, safety and general welfare. D. The approved site development, including site layout, structures, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public ~afety and similar elements, has been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and irtensity of the approved development. F. ln1pacts to views are addressed. G. ln1pacts to existing slopes and topographic features are :tddressed. H. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and o:her buildings, building materials and colors, sGreening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project and as conditions of approval in order to insure compatibility of this develo[,ment with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses. I. 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. J. The approval ofthe Site Development Review is consi~,tent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans. K. Approval of this application complies with Chapter 8.58 relating to the Public Art Program Contribution. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 1 04-3 September 1997 Amended May 15, 2007 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Chapter 8.104 8.104.080 8.104.090 8.104.100 8.104.110 8.104.120 8.104.130 Action. The decision maker for Site Development Reviews shall be the Director of Community Development (and hislher designee). The Director of Community Development may, based on evidence in the public record, and the findings above, make an administrative decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Site Development Review. Amendment. The process for amending a Site Development Review shall be the same as the process for approving a Site Development Review except that the decision-maker for such Site Development Review shall be fue same decision-maker that ultimately approved the Site Development Review including approval on appeal. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may grant a Site Development Review Waiver for applications approved by another decision-maker or body upon the determination that the modification is a minor project and in accordance with Section 8.104.100, Waiver. Waiver. The Community Development Director or hislher designee may allow a minor physical change to an approved Site Development Review as a Waiver upon determining that a Site Development Review Waiver is in substantial conformance with the Site Development Review is a minor project, is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and is consistent with the conditions of approval for the Site Development Review. It is not the intent of this Chapter that a series of Site Development Review Waivers be used to circumvent the need for a new Site Development Review. Rev. Ord. 16-02 (November 2002) Guidelines. Site Development Review Guidelines adopted by the City Council on May 11, 1992 shall be used to guide the review of Site Development Review applications. Building Permits. Building Permits shall not be issued except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Site Development Review approval. Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, shall apply except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 1 04-4 September 1997 Amended May 15,2007 City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance > .., .., > ("') = ::: tIj z .., N -u en * () II 5" II en n :QwE lll=lla. ::J (1) ::J (j) S' -l CO (1) () ~ o 3 3 00' (j) 0" ::J o o ~ ::J Q Cf) 0 < -U r 11 C CD <' 0 0) 0) 0) 0) en ::::J ~ s::: (") CD CD 0 C- O) en ..., c.... 0) 3 ..., ;:;: 0 0- ::;. ::::J 0 0 '< en CD :::J CD 0- CD ..., ~ - ::::J CD C \:l 0- < 0 Cf) )> ;::::l!CDOl c.. . ..., 0 Z Z 0 c.. II (]1 0 Cf) )> Cf) Cf) )> ..., ;:;: "Uoen -U o' 00..0 0 ::::J en en ..0 ;::::l! II Cf) IO "U "U "'tJ "U o c Cf) Cf) Cf) 3 en ;0 0 0 (") 0 - CD 0 m en. 3 Cf) 0 .J:>. C a? z m 0 z ..., \:l < 11 CD --j 3 II - )> -U -U "'tJ Cf)o -U "U "U CD 0) :E 0 t8 ~. ~ r 0 0 (") ..., ji)w 0 0 0 CD :::::3 3 -::::J II '<co "U ;:;: CD - ::::J CD 0 en - --"c (]1c o\:l 0"0 0 0 - CD Z ..., 0 ..., 0- < 11 CD -U -U "'tJ 3 co "U 3 .J:>. -U CD 0) :E 0 0 (") 0 c 0 0 c 0 ~ ~. s: ..., ..., CD ::::J CD ::::J 3 - c ;:;: II ;:;: '< - II CD - en "UCft " -U II ::::J 0Cf) 0Cf) - CJ) ::Ull 0 CD 0) Cf) Cf) .., Cf) Cf) Cf) Cf) 30.(") o 0) "'tJ c..c.. (") CD CD Cf) Cf) ::u CD~~ -U 0 "'tJ 0 -U "U -U 3 0.(") 0) 0 ..., (") ..., 0 0 0 o 0) ~. -U -U c..c..o 0 0 CD CD ..., OlC (]1C 0 o\:l ~ o\:l 0 0- ::::J 0- ~ 00 0 00 ~ enOl ..., en 01 )> m II II~ 0 Cf) ..00 c.. ::u -u;::::l!o "'tJ II' 0 "U -U -U c.. 0 ~ (") Cf)~0 ,0 0 0 ;:;: o. 0 o' )> o en ~. o en ::::J ...,~ 0 ...,~ en r ..., 3 ;::::l! II 3 ;::::l! 0 II -U 0 II ..., 0 ..., CD Cf) CD Cf) 0 COO "'tJ -U c 3 z "U "U -U -U "U -. 3 0 0 (") 0 0 0 0 c.. CD -. CD :E ~ Q. 0) z (1) ~ I o c (j) (1) "'1J ... o -" CD (') - ;;0 CD .JJ C ~" :s CO ;;0 CD < (5" =e ~ :s Q, ;;0 CD < (5" ~" :s CO OJ o Q, '< " o ... en !. CD (') - CD Q, (") ;:::; (5" en