HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 ZOA 07-002 Amndmt to Chaptr 8.104. SDR of Dubln Zoning Ord
AGENDA STATE1VIENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION: May 27, 2008
SUBJECT:
ZOA 07-002 (Legislative) - Amendment to Chapter 8.104, Site
Development Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
attachments);
Minutes from the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Study
Session;
Existing Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review;
Draft Chapter 8.104; and
Level of review required for Residential Demolitions in Selected
Cities (Table).
2)
3)
4)
5)
RECOMMENDATION:
.'.,..~
"
V
Receive presentation and provide Staff with direction/comments on
the proposed modifications to the SDR Chapter and identify any
additional modifications that should be made.
BACKGROUND:
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 effectiveness (of the Chapter. The review of the SDR
Chapter is separate from the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance.
Following this Study Session, Staff will incorporate suggested change, from the Planning Commission and
Staff into the final SDR Chapter. Staff will then bring this Chapter bef(,re the Planning Commission during a
Public Hearing where the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on
whether or not to adopt the revised Ordinance. The SDR Chapter will be adopted separately from the
remainder of the comprehensive update.
October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session
The Planning Commission discussed the Site Development Review Chapter during a Study Session on
October 9, 2007. For background information on the SDR Chapter and recommended changes to the
Chapter, please refer to the Study Session Agenda Statement included as Attachment 1. During this
meeting, the Planning Commission discussed recommended chanf;es to the SDR Chapter; additional
changes were requested by the Planning Commission as shown in Attachment 2. A draft Ordinance was
not presented at this meeting.
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
File
Page 1 of6
G:\Zoning Ord\SDR Update 2007\PCSR Study Session 5-27-08,doc
ITEM NO. 1-. 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of tonight's Study Session is to review the proposed changes to the SDR Chapter, discuss the
proposed changes and determine if any additional changes should be 'nade to the SDR Chapter.
ANALYSIS:
Staffs discussion of the proposed changes to the SDR Chapter i~ described in detail below. General
changes include correcting the text for clarity, relocating information within the Chapter and other minor
changes which are not discussed in this Agenda Statement.
A significant number of modifications are proposed to the existing Site Development Review Chapter that
will improve the clarity of the Chapter, ensure its effectiveness, ensure that the SDR Chapter is consistent
with current practices and to create a more user friendly Ordinance which will benefit the community.
Requirements for permits have been taken from the existing Chapte:f as well as direction provided from
the Planning Commission during the Study Session.
Currently, projects that require Site Development Review are identified in several Chapters in the Zoning
Ordinance, but are not listed in the Site Development Review Chapter. As part of the comprehensive
update, Staff is proposing to relocate these sections from the various Chapters to the Site Development
Review Chapter to ensure that all improvements which require a Site Development Review are easily
identifiable in one location in the Zoning Ordinance. Part of this phase will also include minor
modifications to the existing Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency. These modifications will be
included in the draft Ordinance which will be reviewed by the Plalming Commission during the Public
Hearing.
Purpose Statements (Section 8.104.010)
The purpose statements in the existing (adopted) Ordinance have been revised. The revisions were made
to ensure that projects meet a high level of design, ensure compliancl~ with other structures in the vicinity,
and to ensure a pedestrian friendly environment.
Proiects Exempt from Site Development Review (Section 8.104.020)
This section has been moved from its previous location in Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose, Authority and
Administration (the same section will also appear in Chapter 8.04 until the comprehensive update is
adopted). Staff recommends that this section be relocated to the SDR Chapter to ensure that all projects
that require or are exempt from Site Development Review are locatec. in one location for clarity.
A few modifications have been made to this section to reflect cum::nt practices. Staff is recommending
that landscape replacements, where a species will be replaced with the SaJTIe species, be exempt from
review. Additionally, Staff has modified some of the language in this section for clarity.
Site Development Review Waiver (Section 8.104.030)
This section has been slightly modified to allow Staff to issue a Site Development Review Waiver for any
of the following improvements, regardless of whether or not a Site Development Review was approved by
the City for the site.
Page 2 of6
The following activities are proposed to be subject to Site Development Review Waiver for the following:
. Minor Landscape Modifications;
. Minor modifications to an approved Site Development Review;
. Accessory Structures in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development
Zoning Districts;
. Color Modifications (changes to the color of a structure) in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and
similar Planned Development Zoning Districts;
. Modifications, replacements or construction of fences and walls in the R-M, Commercial,
Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts;
. Parking lot restriping;
. Modifications to the roof materials, parapet or roof screen in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and
similar Planned Development Zoning Districts;
. Modifications to the site layout including new paving areas, sidewalks or similar improvements in
the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts; and
. Window and door modifications in the R-M, Commerc:al, Industrial and similar Planned
Development Zoning Districts including tinting, frosting, window and door replacements, new
windows or doors.
Most of the above listed improvements currently require review, although these types of improvements
are not clearly identified in the SDR Chapter. Site Development Review Waivers typically only take one
to three days (depending on the scope) to process. These projects tend to be non-controversial and no
conditions of approval are added to the project. If at any point during the review of a proposed project
Staff determines that additional review or conditions of approveJ are warranted for a project, this
Ordinance allows Staff to change the level of review required for a project. Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose
and Authority also allows Staff to change the decision making body for a project (i.e. to refer to the
Planning Commission) at any time. This process was recently followed when Staff brought the Oil
Changers color modifications to the Planning Commission.
Three new types of projects have been added to this list to allow StafYto review the merits ofthe proposal.
As proposed, minor landscape modifications in the R-M, CommercieJ and Industrial Zoning Districts will
require review by Staff through a Site Development Review Waiver. Currently, the Chapter does not
require review of landscape modifications at a property. In Chapter H.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations, there is a reference requiring a Site Development Review when a majority of the trees on site
are removed, however "majority" is not defined. By requiring review of all landscape modifications on all
R-M, Commercial and Industrial and similar Planned Development L:Oned properties, Staff will be able to
ensure that adequate landscaping is provided throughout the City as well as ensuring that the proposed
changes are compatible with the site as well as the vicinity of the project site.
Color modifications of structures without an approved Site Development Review do not currently require
review. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission during the Study Session, Staff has
recommended that these changes require a Site Development Review Waiver which would be reviewed by
Staff. By including this in the SDR Chapter, it will allow Staff and the City to provide clearer direction
that review by Staff is required for all color changes to buildings in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and
similar Planned Development Zoning Districts.
Currently, only new windows and doors in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned
Development Zoning Districts require review. Tinting and replacement glass are currently exempt from
Page 3 of6
review. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission during the Study Session, Staff is
recommending that all window and door replacements, new windows and doors, tinting, frosting and all
other materials which obscure the glass require a Site Development Review Waiver. As stated earlier, if
the proposed modification does not appear to be consistent with the surroundings, Staff has the ability to
refer the decision making authority (application) to the Planning Commission at any time.
During the October Planning Commission Study Session, the Commission asked Staff to research the
color regulations for the City of Sunnyvale. The City of Sunnyvale has informed Staff that the City does
not have specific criteria for colors, however paint colors could be complimentary to the surroundings.
Community Development Director Review (Section 8.1 04.040.A)
The following projects will require review by the Community Deve1cpment Director or his/her designee:
. Additions which are 1,000 square feet in size or 15 percent ofthe building (whichever is greater);
. Agricultural accessory structures;
. Custom house (new house);
. Flag poles over 35 feet in height;
. Major landscape modifications;
. Residential Additions over 500 square feet;
. Residential demolition and construction;
. Increase in the height of a residential dwelling above the: maXImum allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance;
. Security gates;
. Wireless Communication Facilities; and
. Minor fa<;:ade modifications.
Currently, individual residential improvements do not require a Site Development Review. Additionally,
residential additions, the demolition of all or part of a house, anC: custom homes do not require Site
Development Review. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission discussed whether or not to
require review additions. At the meeting, after considerable discussion, the Planning Commission
discussed if review should be required for all second story addition8 or additions of a particular size. At
the meeting, the Planning Commission determined that additions which are over 500 square feet could
have significant impacts on a neighborhood and, therefore, determined that review of these additions, by
Staff, should be required.
Additionally, the Planning Commission discussed whether or not to require review of the demolition of
residential houses and the reconstruction of a new house. The Planning Commission requested Staff to
conduct further research on what cities in the area determine a demolition to be. The table included as
Attachment 5 provides information on Staffs research. As shown,nost cities define a tear down as the
demolition of 50 percent or more of the exterior walls of a structure. As proposed, the tear down of 50
percent of the exterior walls and remodel or construction of a residential dwelling would require a Site
Development Review.
A new custom single-family home is also proposed to require a Site Development Review. Currently, the
code does not require a Site Development Review for the construction of a custom home.
Page 4 of6
Proposed additions over 500 square feet in size, a residential tear down (of more than 50% of the house
and reconstruction) and new custom single faJTIily homes will now require that all property
owners/neighbors within 300 feet of the property be notified of the proposed project prior to a decision by
the Community Development Director. Review of these projects will also allow the City to ensure that the
proposal will be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located. As proposed, the Zoning
Ordinance allows the Community Development Director to transfer hearing jurisdiction of these projects
to the Planning Commission if the Community Development Director determines that the circumstances
of the project warrants it.
Minor fa<;:ade remodels which do not significantly alter the character of a structure in the R-M,
Commercial, Industrial or similar Planned Development will require a Site Development Review which
will be reviewed by the Community Development Director. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows the
Community Development Director to review all fa<;:ade remodels. Staff is recommending that fa<;:ade
remodels be categorized as either major or minor. Each project will have a different reviewing body which
will reflect the impact (major or minor) of the project.
The typical maximum height of residential dwellings west of Dougherty Road is two stories and 25 feet.
The Zoning Ordinance allows an increase in height for residential dwellings in the Agriculture, R-l and
R-2 Zoning Districts to a maximum of 35 feet with a Site Development Review which requires review by
the Planning Commission. In order to be consistent with the proposed review of custom single family
homes, additions and tear downs, Staff is recommending that the reviewing body for a residential dwelling
height increase be transferred to the Community Development Director.
Zoning Administrator Review (Section 8.1 04.040.B)
The following projects require review by the Zoning Administrator:
. Exception to accessory structure requirements;
. Front Yard setback encroachment for living area; and
. Height increase for principal structures in the Agriculture, R-', and R-2 Zoning Districts.
No changes are proposed to what currently requires review by the Zoning Administrator.
Planning Commission Review (Section 8.1 04.040.C)
The following projects will require review by the Planning Commission:
. Additions which are larger than 1,001 square feet or 15 percent ofthe building;
. Height increase for public and quasi-public structures;
. Height increase for towers and water tanks; and
. New principal structures.
Only two modifications are proposed to what currently requires review by the Planning Commission. Staff
has added requests for height increases for public and semi-public ,tructures; towers and water tanks to
the list of projects that require review by the Planning Commission. Currently the Zoning Ordinance
allows a height increase through a Conditional Use Permit. Staffha:; determined that a Site Development
Review is a more appropriate method of review.
Page 5 of6
Findings (Section 8.104.090)
The findings section of this Chapter has been modified. The exi:;ting findings have been completely
revised to be consistent with the purpose section of the Chapter. The proposed findings clearly address
design and aesthetics to site planning issues..
Overlay Zoning Districts
The reviewing body and level of review required for projects in the Scarlett Court (Chapter 8.34) and
Historic District Overlay Zoning Districts (Chapter 8.62) will remain unchanged.
NEXT STEPS:
Following tonight's Study Session, Staff will incorporate recomme:lded changes into the SDR Chapter.
As previously discussed, Staff will then bring this Chapter before the Planning Commission during a
Public Hearing.
CONCLUSION:
A significant number of modifications are proposed to the existing Site Development Review Chapter that
will improve the clarity of the Chapter, ensure its effectiveness, ensure that the SDR Chapter is consistent
with current practices and to create a more user friendly Ordinance which will benefit the community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide Staff with direction/comments on the proposed
modifications to the SDR Chapter and identify any additional modifications that should be made.
Page 6 of6
AGENDA STATE~lfENT
PLANNING COMl\USSION STUDY SESSIO~ DATE: October 9. 2007
SUBJECT:
STUDY SESSION: ZOA 07-002 - Chapter 8.104, Site Development
Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinan;e
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Chapter 8.104
2) Review Required in Selected Cities (Table)
RECOMMEN~~: )Receive presentation and provide comments.
PROJECT DES'b~~~:
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 (SD:~), of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and
determine ifany changes should be made to increase the effectivenes:; of this Chapter.
Currently, Staff is also working on the first portion of a comprehensi',re 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 comprehensivf: 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, Staffhas 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 b<:en 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 Distrid.
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 eastem portion of Dublin has been developed and a significant
number of remodels and new construction have also occurred in thevvestern portion of Dublin due to the
age of the structures.
COPIES TO: File
ITEM NO,
\ . \
G:\Zonine Ord\SDR Uodate 2007\PCSR Study Session 1O-9-07.doc
Page 1 of7
ATTACHMENT 1
ANAL YSIS:
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 Zonirg 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 nodifications to site layout III 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 whid require a Site Development Review.
This allows the City to review the project and determine if the propos ed project complies with the required
Site Development Review findings which can be found in Section 8.104.070 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 fa~ade remodels (such as the Shamrock Village fayade remodel) while major projects (such as
new construction) are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ove:.time, the Planning Commission has
begun reviewing all fa~ade 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 revie-,,' 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 Applicant because it allows Staff to ensure
that the proposed project is compatible with the site, impose conditions 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. Stafftypically issues approximately 250 SDR Waivers per year.
In1provements 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 011 buildings which are less than 1,0')0 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 what types of projects require review and
also which projects require staff level approval or Planning Commi!.sion approval. A table listing Staffs
findings is included as Attachment 2.
As shown in the Attached table, most cities require review of all nm-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 revie"l 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 i!: 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
Standard/Re uirement
Benefit/Impact of Change
eneftt. By clarifying the reviewing
ldy it will allow Staff and the
pplicant to clearly identify who is
quired to review each type of project.
~neftt. Provides better clarity. Also
forces the fact that the City will be
view exterior modifications in the
mned Development Zoning
istricts.
neftt. By clarifying what types of
ojects can be reviewed with a Site
(:velopment Review Waiver, it
lows the City and the Applicant to
termine the type of review required.
neftt. These types of projects tend to
large III scope and can impact
j acent properties. In order to ensure
~.t the new house will fit in with the
i ghborhood and not create any
gative impacts on the adjacent
operties, Staff recommends that
Does not state which body (Staff, 11
Community Development t(
Director or Planning A
Commission) is required to re
revicw each type of project which
has led to some confusion.
SDR Chapter states that review is lit
required for certain zoning en
districts, does not include Planned re
Developments Zoning Districts. PI
D
Clarify Projects that can be Allows a Site Development Be
reviewed with a Site Review Waiver to be issued for fr
Development Review Waiver. "minor projects" although does D
not clearly state what types of al
ro'ects are considered minor. de
Remove Zoning Districts.
Staff recommends the Chapter
be changed to state Residential
and Non-Residential.
Residential
Require a Site Development
Review for Single Family Tear
Down and Rebuild (or Custom
Home) which will be reviewed
by the Community
Development Director.
No planning review is currently Be
required. Allows Applicant to be
obtain a Building Permit only. ad
th
ne
ne
r
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,
awmngs, mIllor 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 a1nbiguous on what
qualifies as a mmor change.
Currently, the Site Development
Review Waiver IS used for
awmngs, door and window
changes and minor changes to
approved plans.
Page 4 on
BenefitJImpact of Change
LIese types of projects require a Site
Development Review and review by
t le Community Development Director.
i'otential Negative Impact. This will
i Icrease the overall cost of permitting
f)f the homeowner due to an increase
i I time required to review the project
(wer what currently exists today) as
Fell as additional permitting costs
r,~lated to SDR fees. Will also increase
si:aff workload which could result in an
ilcrease in overall processing time for
r rojects as well as resulting III a
r;:duction in the aInount of time Staff
1::iS available to work on long-range
J:.lanning.
Benefit. Require all modifications to be
r;:viewed which is currently practiced
t: f the City at this time. Staff
r:commends however, that minor
additions and fa~ade improvements be
reviewed by the Community
Development Director (under 500
ssruare 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~=Iuired. 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/Requirement
SDR Chapter only reqUIres
reVIew of specific items.
Improvements such as fencing or
color changes, for eXaJllple, 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
3enefit. Allows the City to review all
I :xterior changes. By allowing these
] ninor improvements to be reviewed by
:aaffwith a Site Development Review
'Naiver it will not impact construction
timelines or create a financial hardship
lor Applicants but at the same time
will ensure consistency of change with
the existing building.
Benefit. Allows the City to reVIew
I andscape changes to all non-
residential projects which can result in
~. significant impact if too many plant
~ pecies are removed or changed.
J)otential Negative Impact. Increases
review time for Applicants who are not
Ilsed to applying for a permit for these
tfPes of changes. Review by the
Community Development Director will
hwer review time, over what would be
required by the Planning Commission.
As discussed on pages 3-6 of this Agenda Statement, there are both I,)sitive 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 project~; to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The following is a summary of some of the positive :md 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 consistently 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!;~:ion, which has led some Applicants
to withdraw their requests and as a result, some of the older buildingsn 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 of referral 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 of projects.
By requiring additional projects to require a permit, the City could lace 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 Staffto make decisior s 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 enttlement process is faster. Planning
Commission review requires the preparation of Staff Reports, re view of Staff Reports by the City
Attorney, noticing and a hearing. All of these items can increase tht: number of hours spent on a project
by. By requiring Planning Commission review of more projects, tlJis 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 :tuire 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 (sllch as specific plans) will also take
longer to complete or may not be started due to the amount of timl: Staff will have available for these
types of projects.
Recently, at the request of the Planning Commission, Staffhas required almost all Facyade 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 thei~ business and have the potential for
increasing their costs. Most recently, the Applicants for All Video ald Aquarium Concepts (both located
in older buildings) determined that they would not make minor f;l.;ade improvements to the building
because Staff informed them that it would require review by the Plann:ng 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'{] ew 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 ~alff has identified in the table found
on pages 3-6 ofthis Agenda Statement?
Page 6 of7
. Are there any additional improvements that you would liJ:e to see reviewed by Staff or the
Planning Commission?
. What types of projects should require Staff level or Planning (~ommission review?
. Are there any other changes you would like to see to the Site] )evelopment Review Chapter?
NEXT STEPS:
Following this Study Session, Staffwill begin making revisions to the Site Development Review Chapter
incorporating feedback from the Phuming Commission. Staff will the 1 bring back the modified Chapter to
the Planning Commission for review during a Public Hearing.
Page 7 of7
Planning Commission
Study Session Minutes
CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 9,
2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to
order at 5:30 p.m.
ATTENDEES
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Tomlinson;
Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner;
and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
1.1 Study Session - Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review)
Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report.
Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff
Report.
Ms. Fraser stated that exterior fa<;ade remodels are brought to the Planning Commission at the
request of the Planning Commission.
Chair Schaub asked if the Shamrock Center project was brought to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Fraser answered that, at the time, it was reviewed by Staff only, as permitted by the code a
number of years ago. Chair Schaub mentioned that this is an example of a big change that did
not come before the Planning Commission.
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director stated that the reason Staff approved the
Shamrock Center. at the Staff level was because the property owner stated that the only way
they would do anything to the shopping center was if it was done at the Staff level. Ms. Ram
stated that Staff weighed the possibility of not getting anything done to the property for years
or getting a partial fa<;ade remodel approved at the Staff level. Ms. Ram stated that the
developer was upset about an issue that was discussed with the Mayor at a City Council
meeting after which they stated that they would not work with the City again. Therefore,
approving the project at Staff level gave the City the abili-:y to get something done to the
shopping center.
Cm. King asked Ms. Ram why they didn't want to go in front of the Planning Commission. Ms.
Ram stated that it was because they had some history with the property owner and did not
want to repeat it. She stated that the developer was angry about what happened at the City
Council meeting previously and therefore, did not want to elevate the application at all.
pfanniTlg Commission
. ')t lufy Session
1
A TTAcafMlJNT 2
Cm. King stated that what he was trying to figure out was whether the reason was because of
certain personalities or events or if they thought the Planning Commission was a huge hassle.
Ms. Ram stated she didn't think it had anything to do with the Planning Commission but rather
with a previous experience relating to a super market project.
Ms. Ram stated if everything is elevated to the Planning Commission and nothing at the Staff
level then sometimes improvement projects won't happen.
Cm. Biddle asked if cost was a factor for the developer not wanting to deal with the Planning
Commission.
Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to continue with her presentation and they would revisit the
discussion later in the meeting.
Ms. Fraser continued the presentation of the Staff Report. Staff has recommended changes to
the SDR to bring the chapter into compliance with what is cun~ent1y being practiced today. The
table on pages 3-7 of the Staff Report shows the reviewing body, Le., Community Development
Director can review all Site Development Reviews. Ms. Fraser stated that this not the process
currently, some applications are reviewed by the CDD Director and some are reviewed by the
Planning Commission. She stated that when things are clear in the code then the process is
easier for the Applicant and Staff.
Cm. King commented that this Zoning Code change connects with the Community Design
Element and indicates what kind of standards the Commission prefers.
Ms. Fraser continued that the chapter specifies when a Site :Jevelopment Review is required
and gives a list of every zoning district that it applies to. She stated that this section is
confusing and it leaves out Planned Development, which Staff will still review, therefore, to
make it clear Staff could remove the zoning ordinance tags md indicate either residential or
non-residential. Then it would be clear as to when an SDR is required to be brought before the
Planning Commission. She continued that it is not clear in the code for an SDR Waiver what a
minor project is and that would need to be clarified.
Cm. Biddle asked if there should be a dollar figure or square footage requirement for what
constituted a minor improvement. Ms. Fraser answered that jf the project was an addition to a
non-residential building then it would be easier to use square footage not a dollar amount
because the dollar amount would be hard to verify.
Cm. King asked if there was something specific in the other cities' codes and/ or definitions that
we could use and mentioned Foster City's codes. Ms. Fraser stated that in Foster City there is a
policy that states the definition of minor and major. This document was not in the code but a
few pages written by Staff and adopted by the City Council to provide clarity.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if it worked. Ms. Fraser answered that it worked and it allowed the
director to make a determination on if a project was a minor cr major improvement. She stated
that items in the code that were considered minor improvements were items such as; door and
(j){anni"fI ('ommission
St /la"y Sessi01l
2
{)cto6er 9, 2007
window changes, paint color, or awnings. She stated that there was a policy that determined
when the projects would have to go to the Planning Commission.
Chair Schaub stated that this discussion includes the entire City but there are also specific plans
within the City. He asked if the Commission would be making decisions for the entire City.
He gave the example that the Planning Commission was working on redoing the Downtown
Specific Plan which would allow the Commission to work on some of these items just for that
specific plan.
Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager added that the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance are
applicable to all of the specific plans or properties that are outside of the specific plan.
Therefore, the Commission would not be precluded from making regulation modifications even
if Staff is working on a specific plan. If there were to be a change to a specific plan it would
have to be consistent with the Zoning Codes. She stated that specific plans do not regulate the
SDR process.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she thought that the Commission had touched on the subject of
minor improvements when they worked on the Garage Conversion Ordinance and asked if this
would be related to what is being discussed tonight. She thought that there was something
similar incorporated in the ordinance and thought that the City does not approve garage
conversions any longer.
Chair Schaub stated that garage conversions are not approved in the City.
Ms. Wilson stated that a garage conversion would not be called out as a specific item in the SDR
chapter of the Zoning Codes.
Cm. Wehrenberg continued with the question regarding the Applicant that is supposedly
converting a garage and wants to change a window and leave the door - Ms. Wilson stated that
a garage conversion is governed by the garage conversion sect,on of the code.
Chair Schaub stated that he did not think that Applicants should have to have an SDR for
something as minor as changing windows from single to double pane, for instance.
Ms. Fraser stated that Staff has not recommended getting bto the specifics with residential
projects as that would include a lot of Staff time and a grEat deal of expense with a lot of
regulations.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought it would be worthwhile to see the Foster City list of
minor vs. major improvements. She continued that the list, which is provided with the Staff
Report, is a broad spectrum document that provides informc,tion on cities in the area such as
Foster City, which is smaller, to San Jose which is quite a bit larger. She continued that Foster
City is a highly regulated City. For example, windows, garage doors, even skylights are
required to have design review by the City.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the requirement was for a full design review not just an application
for a permit. Cm. Tomlinson asked if some of the design reviews are over-the-counter. Ms.
P[aT/nine Commission
Stm{y Sessi(m
3
Octover 9, 200?
Fraser answered that a windaw change can usually be dane aver-the-counter, hawever, with
the increase in permit applicatians there is a delay in getting the permits issued. She cantinued
that when you add the ten day appeal period a permit can take a lat langer.
Chair Schaub stated that there is a significant amaunt af neighbarhaads with HOA CC&R's and
they are very specific abaut what can and cannat be done. He continued that a resident can't
change the frant yard landscaping or hause calor ar windaws unless it is approved by the HOA
baard. He thaught that the CC&R's are a gaod thing that wodd take some af the burden off of
Staff. Ms. Fraser stated that most cities don't review to the levd af detail that Faster City daes.
Cm. King abserved that Livermore and Pleasantan have the same kind af code and that they
must have same way of determining a minar ar majar fac;ade rl~made1.
Chair Schaub stated that Dublin will never be very big and that our City acts like a small tawn
which is different than Pleasanton ar Livermare. He stated that he did nat like the calor change
that Oil Changers made to' their store and asked why landscaping is nat required in some areas.
He wandered haw we can stap this type af thing from happening within Dublin.
Cm. King asked abaut haw much is the Cammissian willing to' stand aur graund if a praperty
awner indicates that they wan't make any improvements if they have to gO' in frant af the
Planning Cammission.
Chair Schaub answered that he believes that the Cammissian shauld nat be threatened by a
praperty awner. He stated that they still have to have a shopping center that appeals to' the
public, that there is still a market that farces the property a'\Amer to make improvements. He
stated that in the past, when the Cammissian made it clear that the fac;ade had to be changed,
the property awner came back with same gaad prajects.
Cm. Tamlinson agreed with Chair Schaub and the Staff Repart that indicated that same
praperty awners were holding aff an gaing farward with fac;ade remadels because they don't
want to' go before the Planning Cammissian. He stated that he didn't think the Commissian
was that hard to' deal with. Ms. Fraser asked if the Cammissian cauld wait to' discuss this
subject until they talk about the pros and cans. She didn't think that it was because the praperty
owners thaught they were hard to' deal with. She stated that there is a different perspective
when yau are the Applicant.
Ms. Wilson stated that Dublin's papulation at build-aut is projected to be approximately 65,000
to 70,000. She stated that the balance is critical in terms af whO' has the role of approving
projects, Staff, City Cauncil ar the Planning Cammissian.
Chair Schaub stated that his point was that there may be 78,000 peaple but the square miles ar
footprint af the City is small compared to' the ather cities in the Tri- Valley area. It's a fractian af
Pleasantan or Livermore. He stated that he thaught it was even more impartant to' get it right
because the City will be denser.
Ms. Wilson said that as the existing ardinance stands, Staff has the ability to' approve almast
everything that the Cammission sees but they dan't because it is better to' have the Commissian
p{anninfJ Com11lissifm
Stllily Session
4
October 9, 2007
review certain projects which includes public notice. She stated that it is not necessarily
appropriate to make a huge policy shift and that the reason fol' this study session is to bring this
discussion to the Commission to determine the appropriate balance for review of projects.
Ms. Wilson also mentioned that the Community Development Dept. has hired a new Code
Enforcement Officer and that there will be a greater opportunity to look at landscaping and
code enforcement issues related to conditions of approval for the enforcement of those
conditions.
Cm. Tomlinson asked about the Oil Changers paint change and if they had a permit to paint the
building. Ms. Wilson answered that there are no restrictions in the code that would not allow
the use of that color. She mentioned that she was doing some research to determine what other
permits are on file but she believed that the building wa~, approved before the City was
incorporated and was not sure if the existing permits have any condition regarding color. She is
still looking into it but mentioned that there are many buildings within the City that have
existed for a long time and do not have any regulations that would stop a color change.
Chair Schaub asked if the Commission could propose regulations that would begin to manage
all the buildings in Dublin regardless of when they were built.
Ms. Fraser answered that was the reason for the Study Session regarding the SDR changes so
that the code is clear as to what it applies to. At present the code states a color change does not
required an SDR. She continued that there are reviews required for some color changes within
an existing SDR where the color was part of the original conditions of approval.
Chair Schaub stated that the subject of paint color was brought up 2 1/2 years ago and the
Commission didn't want to get into regulating that issue. He stated that he thought it was not
fair to the rest of the residents and the property owners next to them when the paint color is too
different.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff wanted the Commission to decide at what level they want to review
a project. Color is one example of the lowest level of site development review and asked if they
want to regulate every color. She stated that this type of review is a shift from current policy
and requiring review of many more permits. She was alsc concerned that there would be
property owners who would not come forward, even at the Staff level because of the level of
review that would be required.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that he spoke with Larry Stone who had worked in Sunnyvale and
stated that they did not regulate residential colors only non-residential. He asked Staff to
check on Sunnyvale's policy on regulating color. Ms. Wilson agreed to have Staff check.
Chair Schaub mentioned that most CC&R's have color restrictions. Cm. Tomlinson continued
that Sunnyvale is comparable to Dublin with a lot of old structures and that he thought a
property owner of a single family residence could paint it wt.atever color they choose and the
City does not get involved. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would like to start looking at multi-
family developments and then commercial and then industrial
P/cmninf! Commission
StuaySession
5
Octo6er 9, ZOO?'
Cm. King thought that Cm. Tomlinson was suggesting that the City may want to have a more
demanding standard for commercial and retail. Cm. Tomlinson answered that he thought the
Commission should review the color change on any large ap artment complex that wanted to
paint, especially if it is in a gateway area and would be very visible.
Ms. Wilson stated that Dublin has relatively new developments and many of them have been
approved as a part of the Planned Development process. Whether they are commercial,
industrial or residential they would already have restrictions built in and SDR's approved
which would require them to paint the same or similar color that is required by the SDR. If the
developer wanted to change the color dramatically then the City would be able to review it at
the Staff level or bring it to the Commission, as needed. She stated that the ones that are not
necessarily caught in the process are the projects that were approved before Dublin became a
City and do not have SDR permits.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that at some point the developer or pro:?erty owner would want to bring
the project or color change to the Planning Commission because if the building does not look
good it would affect their business. Ms. Fraser gave the example of the area where the Heritage
Center Park will be. The shopping center adjacent to it did not feel they needed to spend the
money to fix it up. She continued that in the City there are a large number of new buildings,
and a large number of 20+ year old buildings which causes a disparity between the ages of the
structures. This is also where some property owners have to make the decision on whether it
makes sense to remodel or not. She stated that the cost of remodeling and what they get in rent
now and what they can get in the future influences their dEdsion. Ms. Fraser gave another
example of the Dublin Station shopping center. Staff recommended changes but the property
owner said that they didn't want to spend the money. She continued that they felt they were
fully occupied and didn't feel they needed to remodel. She felt that Staff will always be faced
with applicants who are asked to make changes and then decide not to because they feel it is too
expensive and there are no guarantees that it would be approved.
Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned the timeline is also a problem for the Applicant. If they want a
new roof and have to wait and it starts raining then it is a problem. Ms. Fraser stated that the
time constraints can be a problem for the Applicant.
Cm. Wehrenberg continued that if we solidify the process and make it clear as to what is
required then the code is clear.
Ms. Fraser stated if someone wants to tear down a building and build something new they
should be required to submit for design review. She continued that she thought that there is a
fine line that has to' be drawn as to at what point do we send everything to Planning
Commission.
Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that she doesn't want to see everything, but thought that it should
be clear what types of projects we do want to see, i.e., major things come to us but minor things
don't.
Chair Schaub suggested a policy that says that if the applicant wants they can bring up the
exception at a meeting without a Staff Report and states what they want to do and that they
Pfanning Comnmsion
Study Sessian
6
Octo{jer 9, ZOO!'
would like to keep it at the Staff level. Then the Commission would give permission for Staff to
approve the project and it would not come before the Commission.
Ms. Wilson explained the SDR waiver process, i.e., a slight change that could be approved at the
staff level without going to the Planning Commission, less cost is involved, less Staff time and
no public noticing is required but there is documentation in the file to show that the change is
consistent with the SDR. She stated that the next level would be a project that needs an SDR
permit but a public notice would be required, there would be more time involved in writing the
Conditions of Approval but would still be at the Staff level. Sl-,e stated that it would be a project
that we would want the public to be aware of but is not that significant.
Chair Schaub stated that he thought it was an interesting at what point is it of value to the
public to have knowledge and input on a project. Ms. Wilson answered that it is based on a
threshold.
Ms. Fraser stated that, for example, The Elephant Bar project was not required to go to the
Planning Commission but Staff forwarded it to the Planning Commission because there were
concerns about the project design.
Cm. Biddle stated that he did not want the Planning Commission to have to approve every
paint color or every minor change.
Ms. Fraser indicated that in the Staff Report, on page 4, she included the items that are being
recommended to stay at staff level for SDR Waivers, minor projects would include: 1) color
change; 2) fencing; 3) door and window changes; 4) awnings; ~)) minor changes to the approved
plans; 6) roof screens; 7) trellises; and 8) similar improvement:;. She stated that items could be
added to the list that the Planning Commission would like to remain at Staff level. She stated
that she got the impression from the Planning Commission lhat they want to look at the big
projects that are very visible.
Cm. Tomlinson made the example of Video Only and the painting/tinting of their windows.
He asked if they are allowed to paint their windows without an SDR. Ms. Wilson responded
that there is no restriction in the code. She mentioned that if there were an SDR that clearly
stated that the windows had to remain clear glass then they would have to keep them that way.
The problem is the older buildings have no previous SDR.
Cm. Tomlinson thought that painting/tinting windows I:; something that 'the Planning
Commission should address.
Ms. Wilson stated that when Video Only tinted their windows she sent the Code Enforcement
Officer out to see if there are other buildings with similar painted/tinted windows in the City.
She stated that our research found that there are a variety of businesses that paint/tint their
windows.
Chair Schaub thought that no one should be able to make those types of changes without a
review by the City. He stated that even the businesses that are not located on major
P(all1lilllJ Commissio1l
StUffy Se.\'si01l
7
Octo6er 9, 20IJ?
thoroughfares would be impacted by those types of changes. Ms. Fraser stated that with clearer
codes the City would be able to enforce them.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City has enough Staff resources to take care of these kinds of
project reviews. She added that in the City of Santa Clara tney have an architectural review
committee that reviews projects before they come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser
answered that a review board would add an extra step which would add extra time to a project.
She stated that the more projects that are allowed to be approved at Staff level the less Staff is
necessary and the quicker it is for the developer or property ovmer.
Ms. Wilson commented that, as Ms. Fraser stated, the more re,511lations you have the more staff
you need to implement them. If the Commission implemented an architectural review board it
would have to be staffed. Ms. Wilson continued that Staff was not recommending an
architectural review board. She stated that the Commission now has the opportunity to review
land use changes, legislative actions, policy and codes, and SDRs but if there were an
architectural review board such a body would review design and the Planning Commission
would only review land use regulations.
Ms. Fraser stated that it would depend on what the Commis~.ion will allow the staff to review
and what has to go to Planning Commission. She stated that SDR waivers typically take a small
amount of time to review. If you require projects to have a full site development review then
there are more steps to be taken, i.e. noticing, staff reports, conditions of approval and
appealable action letters which would increase staff's time.
Cm. Tomlinson liked the concept of Staff reviewing as much as possible. He felt it is more
efficient for the Applicant and the Staff. He said his problem with the projects that were
discussed earlier was that nobody was reviewing them. He felt it would not be necessary to
bring those projects to the Commission but thought the Staff snould at least take a look at those
types of non-residential painting projects.
Ms. Fraser suggested that it would be helpful if the Commission gave staff an idea of what they
consider minor improvements that could be reviewed by Staff.
Chair Schaub asked how the discussion tonight would impact the Design Element that the
Commission has been working on. He felt that it would clarlfy what the Commission expects
the vision to be.
Ms. Wilson answered that the General Plan is a policy document and that the Community
Design Element will be part of that General Plan. She stated that the Design Element will be
policy based and not at the detailed level as a Zoning Ordinance.
Cm. King asked if it will dictate design standards. Ms. Wilson answered that it will give policy
for design standards but will not be detailed, Le., slope of rod or architectural detail standard.
She continued that the general plan is meant to be a broad document that would not be as
detailed as a specific plan or an ordinance such as the SDR Chc,pter.
prOnl/inn Commission
Study Sessi,m
8
Octo6er 9, ZOO?
Chair Schaub mentioned that the Commission had talked abo'.1t "form based" code as opposed
to zoning.
Ms. Wilson stated that a "form based" code is anticipated to be a part of the new downtown
specific plan because it looks at the detailed level of how the land uses are laid out, as well as
what the form of buildings will look like.
Chair Schaub thought that color must be a part of form. Ms. 1Nilson answered that if color is a
concern, neither the Community Design Element nor any of the Specific Plans would get to the
level that would requir~ review by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Fraser stated that the Community Design Element and the Specific Plan would have
statements to the effect that projects must be compatible with the community or other buildings
in the vicinity.
Chair Schaub stated that Staff should have the ability to take an exception to the Planning
Commission. He continued that things change and colors are updated and slowly the colors in
the neighborhoods change.
Ms. Wilson stated that if all houses are white, then one purple, intuitively we know that it
doesn't make sense to allow that one purple house.
Ms. Fraser stated that the important thing to remember is that any good general plan or specific
plan will acknowledge that communities change over time. She stated that if the colors are
compatible with each other, the problem is when there is someone who wants a totally different
color.
Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser when the change will be made. Ms. Wilson mentioned that it
will depend on what the outcome of the meeting is. Chair Schaub was concerned about
whether the Planning Commission should be working on a Zoning Change at the same time the
Community Design Element is finalized. Ms. Wilson stated that they are both different and one
does not drive the other. Chair Schaub was satisfied that the Planning Commission could work
on the SDR Ordinance changes and the work on the Community Design Element and they
would not be duplicating efforts.
Ms. Fraser asked the Planning Commission to indicate where Staff should go from here. Input
and suggestions from the Planning Commission tonight, will be incorporated as a part of the
rewrite of the SDR chapter. This project will be totally separcte from everything else, separate
of the Community Design Element and separate from the other Zoning Ordinance
Amendments.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were any businesses that know about this change and are trying
to slip something through before the ordinance is passed. Ms. Wilson answered that there were
no applications at this time. Ms. Fraser stated that aside from this chapter, Staff is currently
working on an update to the entire Zoning Ordinance but star:ed with this chapter because it is
a high priority goal for the City Council.
PfanniTlg Commission
Stm[y ,~'ession
9
October 9, 2oo?
Cm. King was concerned whether the Planning Commission can expect large projects to be
required to come before them.
Ms. Fraser continued that in the Residential section of the Ordinance it states that as of now
when a resident proposes modifications to their house they are not required to get any level of
review from Staff or Planning Commission. Staff is suggesting that if a property owner wants
to do a complete tear-down and rebuild that Staff would recommend a Site Development
Review (SDR) reviewed by the Community Development Director.
Chair Schaub asked what was meant by a complete tear-down. He mentioned a house on
Silvergate where the owners left the front part of the garage up and rebuilt the house and it
didn't look like any other house in the neighborhood. Ms. Fraser asked the Commission to
discuss with Staff what they felt was a complete tear-down. She stated that if the code does not
define a tear-down a property owner could leave up the garage and not be required to process
an SDR.
Cm. Wehrenberg answered that she thought 50% of the exterior walls could be considered a
tear-down.
Chair Schaub stated that he thought it also means building up. He thought that if the option of
a second floor was not available when the house was built then it should be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Wilson stated that if the Commission wanted to set a specific percentage of the home that
was to be rebuilt it could be done but is implementation cf such regulations become very
complex.
Ms. Fraser suggested that they separate the issues, one is an addition, and the other is a tear-
down. She stated that usually when an Applicant is doing a tear-down the project a large and
could include a second story. She asked the Commission at what point would they consider the
project a tear-down.
Ms. Wilson suggested that Staff could do more research on the subject. She stated that her
experience was that 50% is an appropriate number that is used frequently.
Ms. Fraser stated that in some cities a full wall must be left up but the garage would not count
as part of the project. Some cities require that two full exterior walls must be left intact.
Chair Schaub stated that he thought requiring the Applicant to leave two full exterior walls is
appropriate and that the most important are the walls that face the street.
Ms. Fraser suggested that would be a difficult requirement because an Applicant could leave
the front, teardown the back of the house and build up two stories.
Chair Schaub stated that changing a house from a single story to a two story needs to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
pfarl1li7lfJ Comm~~sioll
Stuay Sessi01l
10
OetoGer 9, ZOO?
There was a discussion regarding the size of an addition that must be brought to the Planning
Commission for review.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff will do more research on the subject of residential development for
SDR.
Ms. Fraser stated she thought the Commission is in support of now requiring a review of SDR's
for residential development and that the review could be done at the Staff level and not brought
before the Commission.
Chair Schaub and the other Commissioners agreed.
Chair Schaub reiterated that the Commission agrees that substantial residential changes need to
have an SDR and be reviewed by Planning Commission.
Ms. Fraser commented that this change to the SDR process could potentially affect a lot of
people; this is a shift from existing policy. She stated that the older houses are, for the most
part, in the west part of Dublin, are attractive as a remodel type of house because of their yard
size and they are more affordable. She indicated that is a potential that more people will be
doing a teardown and rebuild in the future.
Ms. Fraser stated that Staff is recommending that all additions and exterior modifications on
non-residential buildings should be reviewed.
She stated that in the Staff Report she recommended that a minor addition should be reviewed
by the Director. She stated that a minor improvement of less than 500 square feet is suggested
to be reviewed by Staff.
Chair Schaub stated that a minor improvement, less than 1,000 square feet can be reviewed by
Staff.
Ms. Fraser asked the Commission to determine at what point an addition would be large
enough for the Commission to review.
Chair Schaub answered that if it is 1,000 square feet or larger or more than 50% of a change to
the front fa<;ade.
Ms. Wilson stated that some buildings face into a parking lot, not necessarily onto Dublin Blvd
so they may not want to restrict it to the front fa<;ade.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that if the project was controversial enough it would be brought to the
Commission.
Ms. Fraser stated that the restriction could be 1,000 square feet and under or not visible from the
public right-of-way.
(P[annil1fJ Commission
Stllay Session
11
()cto6er 9, 2007
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would support 1,000 square feet or 2,500 square feet and under or
not visible from the public right-of way.
Ms. Wilson shared the example of a building of over 100,000 ~;quare feet that could propose an
addition of 3,000 to 4,000 square feet which would be a small addition relative to the size of the
building, but would have to come to the Commission for review. She continued that the Staff
would review the overall size of the building in relation to the :,ize of the proposed addition and
determine if it should go to the Commission for review. She stated that it could cause a
problem in the development community if the code stated that 2,500 square feet of minor
improvement/ addition can be reviewed at Staff level and then Staff brings the project to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
There was a discussion about what size addition can be reviewed at Staff level and what should
be brought to the Commission. They discussed the fact that sometimes there will be a building
where the regulations don't make sense. Ms. Fraser suggested that the Commission needs to be
comfortable with whatever level is selected as an average. It was suggested that the code read
the level would be at 1,000 square feet or over 5% of the building area.
Cm. King asked if it was agreed that at a certain level, there are projects that need to be
reviewed by the Commission. He gave the example of the Shamrock Center that the fa<;ade
was remodeled and was never brought before the Commission and asked if something that
large should be brought before the Commission.
Ms. Wilson discussed the Shamrock Center project stating that there was no change to the
project square footage. She stated that unless the overall building size is taken into
consideration then it would trigger the SDR process or the cede could be interpreted that any
change to the building must be reviewed.
Ms. Fraser suggested that they go over each item, point by poillt and indicate whether it should
be reviewed at the Staff level or brought to the Planning Comrrission.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that almost all of the items could be reviewed by Staff as much as
possible with the option to bring the item to the Planning Commission if needed. Ms. Wilson
stated that was the way the code was written at present.
Ms. Wilson stated that the code is written with a lot of flexibility. She stated that the
Commission is reviewing more items than the code requires, h:Jwever, there are certain types of
modifications that are not regulated, which has become a big concern of the Commission. She
thought that the Planning team had learned from the Commission and working as a team had
learned what the Commission wants to see and what they don't feel they need to see. She
asked the Commissioners if they thought we were going too hr or maybe trying to modify the
chapter to a degree that is not necessary. She stated that we need to add some items into the
code that will catch items that are not currently be regulated and with the understanding that
Staff still has the discretion to send items that were not historically sent to the Planning
Commission. Additionally, Staff does believe that there are some of clean-up issues that need to
be addressed from an implementation standpoint.
P{annil1fJ Commission
Stwfy Session
12
October 9, 2007
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he didn't think that the existing system is broken and he supports
the idea of Staff having more flexibility. He felt that flexibility makes Staff, as well as the
Commission, more efficient. Ms. Fraser stated that, as the code is currently written, everything
has the ability to be reviewed by Staff.
Cm. King asked if the code will indicate that certain things must come before the Planning
Commission or will it always be at Staffs discretion. He stated that the reason he is asking the
question is because the Commission never reviewed Shamrock Village and he did not like the
colors and that there are two large buildings that were never rEviewed.
Chair Schaub stated that the Commission did not review Bassett Furniture either and there are
items on that building the Commission would have required the Applicant to change.
Ms. Fraser stated that there could be a balance. A project that is a significant change, such as
Bassett Furniture, where the remodeled building looked nothi::1,g like the old building, could be
required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser suggested that if the
Applicant wants to make a slight change but the form of the building is the same, but there is a
new element or material on the building then Staff can review it. She stated that she understood
the Commission wants to see the "big picture items" .
Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Ms. Fraser and stated that he wanted to make sure that items which
are exempt or not regulated in the process, whether they are reviewed by Staff or at the
Planning Commission level, are included.
Chair Schaub stated that if a change makes a significant impact on the public then the
Commission should review the project.
Cm. Biddle stated that the examples that have been given are examples of projects that were
submitted before the current process was in place and his recommendation was to have Staff
review according to the current process and then close the holes that need to be closed with
those items that were missed.
Cm. King stated he would like Staff to write an ordinance that will show when a minor
improvement would become significant enough that the Commission would want to hear it. He
stated that he didn't feel comfortable listing all the possibilities of minor and major projects.
Ms. Fraser thought that Staff had received good direction from the Commission and that she
had wanted to speak in very broad terms to see if there was anything that was glaring enough
that the Commission would definitely point it out as something that should come before the
Commission. She asked the Commission if there was anythin:~ aside from residential additions
that was not mentioned that they would like to see reviewed under the SDR process when the
chapter is updated.
Chair Schaub asked how the Commission can ensure that buildings are regulated that were
built before there were processes in place. He didn't think it was reasonable that since a
building was approved 20+ years ago they don't have to submit an SDR application.
(fraT/ning Commission
St /l(Iy ,S'ession
13
O,:t.o6er (), 20IJ7
Ms. Fraser stated that Staff would determine an appropriate method to address the issue.
Cm. King asked the city attorney if the City can go back and add conditions to a permit that was
approved under Alameda County.
Ms. Faubion, City Attorney's Office, answered that the City cannot tell a property owner to do
something by itself but must have an application. Once the application is submitted then the
City can regulate in a reasonable manner. If there are regulations that cover design or scale then
to the extent that the project has design or scale to it then regulations would apply. For
example, the City could not make a homeowner take off a comer of their house that is legal but
isn't very nice, but, if they submit an application for a project that the City has determined
should be regulated, then the City can regulate from that time forward.
Cm. .King asked if there was a commercial building that wanted to change the paint color they
must submit an application for a permit to Staff first. Ms. Fraser answered that the code could
clarify regulations regarding color modifications.
Cm. Biddle stated he thought that the new chapter should be consistent with other codes. He
thought that the City would not allow a home owner to change their electrical panel and not
require them to bring the panel up to the current electrical code and it should be the same with
the SDR code.
Ms. Faubion stated that as a legal matter the City should explain to the public, in the findings
and purpose statements, and as a regulator of the public good, why it is important to regulate
large projects as well small projects.
Chair Schaub stated that he thought the process was workinl~ well and that anything that the
Commission can do to make Staff's job easier he would support. He thought that Staff has done
well in determining what comes before the Commission.
Cm. King agreed with Cm. Biddle that the SDR ordinance should remain the same.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there should be a provision in the ordinance that states if there is a
questionable item that Staff could invite a Commissioner to review the item.
Ms. Wilson answered that typically Staff would not do that because the Planning Commission is
considered a "body" and would not look at an application individually. She stated that the
code should be understood well enough that Staff can make such a determination.
Ms. Wilson stated that the next step would be for Staff to go back and do more research and
bring that research back to the Commission in another study session.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub adjourned the mEeting at 7:00 p.m.
P[annino Commission
Sf I/([Y Session
14
October 9, ZOO?
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 of this Chapter is:
A. To promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site and structural development
compatible with individual site environmental constraiLts and compatible with
surrounding properties and neighborhoods.
B. To resolve major project-related issues including, but llo)t limited to, building
location, architectural and landscape design and theme; vehicular and pedestrian
access and on-site circulation, parking and traffic impacts.
C. To ensure compliance with development regulations and the requirements of
zoning districts, including but not limited to, setbacks, heights, parking,
landscaping and fences, accessory structures, and signa:~e.
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 exterior 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-1 or M-2 Zoning District, including but not
limited to, facade renovation, new and/or additional wiLdows and doors (with
frames), and roof or ground-mounted mechanical equipment. This does not include
painting, window glass replacement or tinting, replacerrent of sign copy, and
similar minor modifications.
D. Modification To Site Layout. Any modification to site layout or improvements in
a C-O, C-N, C-1, C-2, M-P, M-l or M-2 Zoning District, including but not limited
to, parking, fencing, circulation, landscaping, accessory structures, or trash
enclosures.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-1 September 1997
Amended May 15,2007
Attachment 3
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
E. New Construction. Any new construction with a gros:; 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. Sign age. 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 removaVrep1aceffii~nt, vehicle stacking, non-
residential parking lot, parking in Front Yard Setbacks )f a non-residential lot, and
perimeter landscaping.
J. Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review. Any
development in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning DistJict (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 tbs 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 Community
Development.
8.104.050
Notice Of Decision. A Notice of Decision shaL 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 Fiudings. The following findings sh;ill all be made in order to
approve a Site Development Review:
A. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose and intent ofthis
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 saft:ty of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, 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 fo)f the development.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development.
F. Impacts to views are addressed.
G. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed.
H. Architectural considerations, 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 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 charad~r of adjacent buildings,
neighborhoods, and uses.
L 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 of the 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
104-3 September 1997
Almended 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 his/Iler designee). The Director
of Community Development may, based on evi::lence 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 Developrr ent Review shall be the
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 D~velopment Review Waiver
for applications approved by another decision-maker or body upon the
determination that the modification is a minor roroject 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 Ca1ijornia Environmental
Quality Act, and is consistent with the conditions of approval for the Site
Development Review. It is not the intent of thi, 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 (/ltovember 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 he issued except in
accordance with the terms and conditions of thf: Site Development Review
approval.
Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures,
shall apply except as otherwise provided in this Chapter.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-4 September 1997
Amended May 15,2007
DRAFT
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 Deve opment Review permits and to
ensure the following:
A. To preserve the architectural character and scale of neighborhoods and the
community.
B. To ensure that development is well designed in relation to surrounding properties,
including that the design, character, height, favade length, roof forms, colors,
materials, roof mounted equipment and architectural details of a proposed
structure or remodeled structure are compatible with the design, character, height,
favade length, roof form, colors, materials and architectural details of structures in
the vicinity.
C. To ensure that projects enhance their sites and are harmonious with high
standards of improvements in the surrounding ar~a.
D. To enhance the residential and business property values within the City.
E. To ensure compliance with development regulations and the requirements of
zoning districts, including but not limited to, setbacks, height, parking,
landscaping, public art, fences, accessory structures and signage.
F. To ensure that each project is designed to comply with the intent and purpose of
the zoning district in which it is located and with the General Plan and applicable
Specific Plan.
G. To promote the health, safety and general welfar~.
H. To ensure that projects provide adequate circuation for automobiles as well as
pedestrians and bicyclists to create a pedestrian friendly environment.
8.104.020 Exemptions From Site Development Review. The permit requirements of this
Ordinance do not apply to the following:
A. Decks, Paths and Driveways. Decks, platforms, on-site paths, and driveways in
the R-1or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned DElVelopment Zoning Districts which
allow similar uses, are not over 30 inches above the walking surface, and are not
over any basement or story below.
B. Fences. Fences in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development
Zoning Districts which allow similar uses.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-1
Month Year
Attachment 4
DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
C. Governmental Activities. Activities of the City, State or an agency of the State,
or Federal Government.
D. Irrigation. The installation of irrigation lines.
E. Landscaping. The replacement of landscape species with the same species in
the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development
Zoning Districts that allow multi-family or non-residential uses shall not require Site
Development Review. All landscape modifications in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning
Districts, excluding Heritage Trees, are exempt from review. Landscape
modifications in Planned Developments with single family uses shall not require
review, except where review is required pursuant to Section 8.1 04.030.A.1.
G. Interior Modifications. Interior alterations that clo not result in an increase in the
gross floor area within the structure, a change in the permitted use of the structure
or the modification of the existing configurations and uses of each room.
H. Repairs and Maintenance. Ordinary repairs and maintenance are exempt if the
work does not result in any change in the approved land use of the site or
structure, or the addition to, enlargement or expansion of the structure, and if any
exterior repairs employ the same materials and design as originally used.
I. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls (retaining earth only) that do not exceed four
feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall and
are not required to obtain a grading permit.
J. School Facilities. Certain school facilities as provided by Government Code
Sections 53091 et. seq.
K. Utilities. The erection, construction, alteration, or maintenance by a public utility
or public agency of underground or overhead utilities (Le., water, gas, electric,
telecommunication. supply or disposal systems, including poles, towers, wires,
mains, drains, sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire-alarm boxes, police call boxes,
traffic signals, etc.), but not including structures, shall be permitted in any zoning
district, provided that the route of any electrical transmission line(s) having the
potential of 50,000 volts or more shall be subject to City Council review and
approval prior to acquisition of rights-of-way.
8.104.030 Waiver. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may approve
a Site Development Review Waiver to allow a minor physical change to a site or
structure, with or without an approved Site Development Review, or minor
modifications to approved Site Development Reviews, where the improvement is
Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as specified
below.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-2
Month Year
DRAFT
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
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.
The Community Development Director shall determine if a Site Development
Review Waiver is appropriate for the review of the proposed improvement and
may transfer hearing jurisdiction of the project at any time.
A. Site Development Review Waiver. The followng projects are subject to a Site
Development Review Waiver:
1. Single Family Residential Landscape Modification. In a Planned
Development with residential uses, the n3moval of a tree which is part of
the streetscape of a development or iB required by the Conditions of
Approval which is proposed to be replacl3d or is proposed to be replaced
with a different species.
3. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The following
improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or
Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family, commercial or
industrial uses.
a. Minor Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are less
than or equal to 120 square feet in size.
b. Color Modifications. Repainting of an existing building with a
color(s) which is different from the Hxisting or approved color(s).
c. Fences and Walls. The replacemEmt, reconstruction or construction
of fences and walls.
d. Parking Lot Restriping. The restriping of a parking lot.
e. Roof. A modification to the roof of a structure, including new roofing
materials, modifications to the parapet or the roof screen or a new
parapet or roof screen. Changes to the style or roof type (Le. gable
to a mansard, are considered to be a fayade modification and
require a Site Development Review).
f. Minor Landscape Modifications. Minor landscape modifications in
the R-M, Industrial and Commercial Zoning Districts and Planned
Developments with multi-family, incustrial or commercial uses.
g. Minor Site Layout Modification. A minor modification of the layout
of the site including new paving areas, sidewalks or other similar
improvements as determined b~1 the Community Development
Director.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-3
Month Year
DRAFT
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
h.
Window Modifications. Window modifications which include new
and replacement windows, frostinq, tinting or the addition of other
materials which may obscure a window as determined by the
Community Development Director.
4. Minor Modifications to Approved Site Development Review. Minor
modifications to an approved Site Develo:>ment Review (other than what is
listed here), where the modification is in substantial conformance with the
approved Site Development Review, is consistent with the conditions of
approval for the Site Development RE!view, and is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act.
5. Other Improvements. All other improvements determined by the
Community Development Director to be minor in nature and requiring
review.
8.104.040 Projects Subject to Site Development Review. The following projects are
subject to Site Development Review. When a project which typically requires a
Site Development Review Waiver is combined with a project subject to a Site
Development Review, the review and project type shall be the highest level. In
accordance with Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, the Community Development
Director and the Zoning Administrator may refer decision making to the Planning
Commission at any time.
A. Community Development Director. The following projects are subject to a Site
Development Review, and shall be reviewed by the Community Development
Director or his/her designee:
1. Major Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are greater than
120 square feet in size.
2. Addition. An addition which is less than 1 ,000 square feet in size or less
than 15 percent of the total floor area of tile structure (whichever is greater)
to an existing structure in the R-M, Commercial, or Industrial Zoning
Districts, or Planned Development Zonin!;; Districts with multi-family or non-
residential uses.
3. Agricultural Accessory Structures. All agriculture accessory structures.
4. Custom House. A new house in any Residential Zoning District or Planned
Development Zoning District with single family residential uses.
5. Flag Poles. All flag poles in any zoning district, which are over 35 feet in
height.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-4
Month Year
DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
6. Major Landscape Modifications. Major landscape modifications in the R-
M, Industrial and Commercial Zoning Districts and Planned Developments
with multi-family, industrial or commercial uses.
7. Residential Additions. Residential addiHons which are over 500 square
feet in size in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development
Zoning Districts with residential uses.
8. Residential Demolition and Construction. A residential demolition and
construction which includes the demolition of 50 percent or more of the
existing exterior walls of the Principal Structure and the reconstruction,
remodel or construction of a new house in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts
or any Planned Development Zoning Districts with residential uses.
9. Security Gates. Security gates at the entrance(s) to a residential or office
development.
10. Signage. Signs which require a Site Development Review pursuant to
Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations.
11. Major Site Layout Modification. A major modification of the layout of the
site including but not limited to a significant increase in paving areas,
circulation, light fixtures, parking or other similar improvements as
determined by the Community Developme nt Director.
12. Wireless Communications Facilities. Subject to the provisions of Chapter
8.92, Wireless Communications Facilities.
13. Minor Fac;ade Modifications. Minor fac;ade modifications in the R-M,
Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning
Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses. Minor fac;ade
modifications include, but are not limited to, trellises, arbors, arcades,
building materials, architectural details, a combination of improvements
which would typically require a Site Development Review Waiver if
constructed separately, or any other improvements determined to be minor
by the Community Development Director.
B. Zoning Administrator. The following projects are subject to a Site Development
Review, and shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator during a Public
Hearing:
1. Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements. An exception to the
requirements of Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-5
Month Year
DRAFT
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
2.
Front Yard Setback Encroachment for Living Area. As permitted by
Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, an encroachment for living area
above the garage or for any structure within the Front Yard Setback area.
3.
Height Increase. An increase in the hei!Jht of the Principal Structure, as
permitted by the regulations for the Anricultural, R-1 and R-2 Zoning
Districts.
C. Planning Commission. The following projects are subject to a Site Development
Review and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission during a Public
Hearing:
1. Height Increase for Public and Semi Public Structures. A height
increase for public and semi public prindpal structures, as permitted by
Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations.
2. Height Increase for Towers and WatElr Tanks. A height increase for
towers, poles, water tanks and similar structures, as permitted by Chapter
8.36, Development Regulations.
3. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The following
improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or
Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family or non-residential
uses:
a. Additions. Additions which are 1,000 square feet or more, or greater
than 15 percent of the floor area of the structure.
b. Major Fac;ade Modifications. Meljor fac;:ade modifications include
projects where the character or design of the, building will
significantly change as determined by the Community Development
Director.
4. New Principal Structures. All new princ pal structures, including principal
structures in a Planned Development, and any structure which is to be
demolished and reconstructed.
D. Historic Overlay Zoning District. All improvements within the Historic Overlay
Zoning District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.62,
Historic Overlay Zoning District.
E. Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. All improvements within the Scarlett
Court Overlay Zoning District shall be reviewed n accordance with and subject to
Chapter 8.34, Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-6
Month Year
DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
F. All Other Improvements. All other improvements to structures or a site, which
are not otherwise mentioned in this Chapter, shall be subject to a Site
Development Review Waiver or Site DevelopmE'nt Review, as determined by the
Community Development Director.
8.104.050 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 Community DevHlopment Director.
8.104.060 Action. The decision maker for Site DevE:lopment Reviews shall be the
Community Development Director (or his/her designee), the Zoning Administrator
(or his/her designee) or the Planning Commis!:,ion as set forth in this Chapter.
The decision maker may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Site
Development Review based on the required findings in Section 8.104.090.
8.104.070 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 during the same public hearing.
8.104.080 Notice Of Decision, Public Hearing. The fo! lowing notice requirements shall
apply to decision makers for Site Development Review:
A. Notice of Decision. The Community Development Director shall provide notice
that a Site Development Review decision is being considered, consistent with the
Notice of Decision provisions of Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearings.
B. Public Hearing. A public hearing is requimd for decisions by the Zoning
Administrator or Planning Commission, with notice provided consistent with the
provisions of Chapter 8.132, Notice and HearingB.
C. Notice for Concurrent Processing. Where a Site Development Review is being
considered concurrently with another permit req:.Jiring a public hearing, the notice
and public hearing requirements of the other permit shall apply.
8.104.090 Required Findings. All of the following findings shall all be made in order to
approve a Site Development Review and shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the public record:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General
Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to tile City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties and the lot in which the project is proposed.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-7
Month Year
DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the tyoe and intensity of the approved
development.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the
design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings,
screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar
elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and
compatible with other development in the vicinity.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment
for the public.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensUl-e proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles.
8.104.100 Construction Permits. Building and Grading P'3rmits shall not be issued except
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Site Development Review
approval.
8.104.110 Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, shall
apply except as otherwise provided in this Chaptl3r.
8.104.120 Design Guidelines. Any design guidelines wh ch are approved for a particular
site or area shall apply to all Site Development Review Waivers and Site
Development Review applications for that site or area.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-8
Month Year
f/)
CD
E
o
"C
CD
-
(.)
CD
Q)
en
I-
o
LL
~
"C
o
CO
C)
c
.i
CD
">
CD
0::
"C
C
ca
3=
CD
.>
CD
0::
C)
C
.i:
::s
C"
CD
0::
-
(.)
CD
.-
o
l-
n..
ro
'0 g:
'- c
~ Q) .- f'
Q)E"O'-'
Z =a..
E :J
OlD
o
....J
<(
o
0::
w
~
~
o
o
w
c
o
E
"0
"0
<(
'- Q) Q)
0"0"0
.CO' ro 0 0
~~Ea..
L1.. Q)
0::
Q) Q)
"0"0
co 0
e>oE
CO Q)
L1..0::
-
I C
:.;::; Q)
:J>-E
~ 'E 9 0
~cooa..
Q) L1.. ~
Z Q)
o
Q) C
- Q)
g'>-E
.-J U5 'E g 0
<t:~coQ)a..
-Q)L1..>
r-z Q)
z 0
w
o
00
W
0::
E ..w
o Q)
iii E
:J 0
OI
w
C
o
E
"0
"0
<(
c
(3
o
a..
o
a..
00
'(?o
wa..
:!::: II
C Q)
:J 0 0
'<:t E a..
o '-
- 0
g-l()
o
a..
o
a..
'-
o
00
~
(3
'-
Q)
-
w
o
L1..
o 0
a.. a..
o 0
a.. a..
CJ) 00
o
a..
00
<(
--
z
Q)
'-
o
E
'-
Q)
>
::J
o
a..
o
a..
00 Q)
II '-
.0
;:::: E
0-'-
w 0
o~oo
o . II
00-
LOW
00
_ 0
a. 0_
:JL{)
o
a..
'-
o
00
00
000
II a..
~ II
'c Q)
:J '-
o
mE
o '-
- 0
0.0
:J.....
o
a..
w 0
- a..
c,- II
:J_Q)
"^ co '-
." - 0
B'{?E
a. '-
:J 0
'<:t
00
00
00
00
C
o
-
C
co
w
co
Q)
a..
Q)
.:;
co
()
co
>
()O
D..a..
o
a..
f'OO Q)
'-' II '-
a.. . 0
II ;:::: E
'-
.Q go
co . 0
()~o;::::a..
D.. 00 8 0- II
II - W
,-l()
000
c-O
~ o.~
:Jl()
o
()a.. 0
D..o a..
00
()
D..
...00 00
o
t/)
()O 0
D..a.. a..
()O 0
D..a.. a..
()O 0
D..a.. a..
00
II
~o-
W
<( goo
o a..
Z-- 00 0 l() II
o '- .
l()Q);::::
o >
-0
a.
:J
s::: Q)
-"8-
.g E
c co
o
Q)
w
o
J
C
co
00
Q)
en
:J
o
:1:
:i:
Q)
z
c:
o
'u;
en
'E
E
o
ro ()
Q) OJ
1- c:
en c:
Q) c:
'0 :t: ro
.::1 .l9 c::
U (/) II
.!: II ()
,(/)0..
(;
c:
:i:
o
i:l
Attachment 5