HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 ZOA 07-002 Amndmt to Chapter 8.104, SDR, Dublin Zoning Ord
AGENDA STATEl\-IENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 10, 2008
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
~u
BACKGROUND:
ZOA 07-002 (Legislative) - Amendment to Chapter 8.104, Site
Development Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
1.
Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance
approving amendments to Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and
Authority, Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, Chapter 8.40,
Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations and Chapter 8.104, Site
Development Review with draft City Council Ordinance attached as
Exhibit A.
October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
attachments);
October 9,2007 Planning Commission Minutes
May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
attachments);
Draft May 27,2008 Planning Commission Minutes
Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) with modifications to
text in strikethrough (remove) and underline (new)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Receive the Staff presentation;
Open Public Hearing;
Take testimony from the Public;
Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
Adopt Resolution (Attachmen: 1) recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance (El{hibit A) approving amendments to
Chapter 8.04, Title, PUrpOSI~ and Authority, Chapter 8.36,
Development Regulations, Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and
Uses Regulations and Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review.
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 ofthe Chapter. The review of the SDR
Chapter is separate from the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance.
----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
File
G:\Zoning Ord\SDR Update 2007\PCSR 6-10-08.doc
Page 1 of5
ITEMNO. B. J
Planning Commission 1 st 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 2 and Meeting
Minutes in Attachment 3. At the meeting, the Planning Commission requested Staff to prepare a draft
Ordinance based on the discussion at the meeting.
Planning Commission 2nd Study Session
The Planning Commission reviewed a draft Ordinance of the SDR Chapter during a Study Session on
May 27,2008. For background information on the proposed Ordinarce, please refer to the Study Session
Agenda Statement included as Attachment 4 and the Meeting Minutes in Attachment 5. At the meeting,
the Commission reviewed and discussed the draft Ordinance and expressed their support of the draft
Ordinance and requested that Staff return to the Planning Commi~;sion with the draft Ordinance at a
public hearing.
At the meeting, Staff indicated that the next step was the public hearing of the draft SDR Chapter
Ordinance as well as other associated Chapters before the Planning Commission. Several of the proposed
modifications to the SDR Chapter require modification to three other Chapters of the Zoning Ordinance to
ensure consistency throughout the entire Zoning Ordinance.
Staff has included the analysis of the associated Chapters that are also proposed to be amended as a part of
the SDR Chapter amendments.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has prepared the draft Ordinance for the Planning Commisson review and consideration. The
proposed Ordinance (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) includes the followi:lg:
1) Chapter 8.04 (Title, Purpose and Authority)
2) Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations)
3) Chapter 8.40 (Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations)
4) Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review)
The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance are discussed below.
Chapter 8.04 (Title. Purpose and Authority)
This Chapter is proposed to be modified to remove several types of activities that are exempted from
permit requirements that are related to SDR. The newly proposed SDR Chapter includes a section that
describes exempted permits that relate to SDR. There are several acti vities that are appropriate to retain in
Section 8.04.070 - Exemptions from Permit Requirements including (Film and Theater Productions;
Governmental Activities; School Facilities; Solar Collectors; and Utilities). The other activities (Decks,
Paths and Walkways; Irrigation; Repairs and Maintenance; and Retaining Walls) are proposed to be
removed from this Chapter and included as a part ofthe SDR Chapter as exempted activities.
Page 2 of5
The Remodeling activity currently exempts interior changes and the remodeling of single-family and two-
family dwellings in this Chapter. After lengthy discussion, at the Study Sessions, about the regulation
relating to single-family remodels and the construction of custom single-family homes, the Planning
Commission directed Staff to include standards for review for the development of single-family/two-
family residences through the Notice of Decision process (Staff level review). With the addition of the
following criteria, the exemption for Remodeling will be removed Jrom this Chapter and the following
criteria will be used:
1.) Additions greater than 500 square-feet in size;
2.) The demolition of greater than 50% or more of the existing exterior walls of the Principal
Structure and reconstruction, remodel or construction; and
3.) The development of a new custom single-family residence.
The above described criteria was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the 2nd Study Session and is a
part of the draft SDR Ordinance.
The Notice of Decision process is currently a part of the SDR regulations. This process requires the
notification of property owners within 300-feet of the subject site. Ifa property owner(s) has concern with
a proposal, they have a period of time in which they can communication their concerns with the City. If
comment is received from the concerned property owner, the application can be appealed to the Planning
Commission and ultimately the City Council.
While the City currently processes SDR through the Notice of Decision process, these proposed
modifications (to review additions greater than 500 square-feet, reconstruction of demolition greater than
50% of a principal structure, and new custom single-family homes) are a shift from existing policy which
currently exempts these types of activities from SDR review.
Residential projects of this type are not currently "noticed" to neif;hbors. Based on historical building
permits issued over the past several years, we have found that we have roughly a dozen (total for all three
categories) of these types of permits per year. As the housing stock grows in age, it could be anticipated
that there will be more modifications to homes (specifically in the western portion of the community) as
people invest in improvements to older homes.
The additional review that will be required for these permits will take more Staff time. By increasing the
review time for smaller residential projects, staffing resources will be directed in other areas and will
thereby reduce staffing resources for other projects. Additionally, the review of these types of permits
could potentially result in the submittal of appeals due to greater community involvement, which requires
additional review by Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council.
For SDR applications, Staff charges time spent on these applications on a time and materials basis, which
can be costly depending upon the amount of time that is necessary 10 process the application. The City
Council has the authority to modify the fee schedule for permit types.
The proposed amendments are shown on Page 2-3 of Attachment 1, Exhibit A.
Page 3 of5
Chapter 8.36. Development Regulations
Per the Planning Commission direction, the review of a residential louse height exception is consistent
with similar actions currently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance which are reviewed by the Zoning
Administrator (i.e. reduced front yard setback and exceptions to accessory structure requirements).
Therefore, Section 8.36.020.A - Agricultural and Residential Development Regulations is proposed to be
amended from requiring Planning Commission Review to requiring review by the Zoning Administrator.
Additionally, the permit requirements for a reduced font yard setback, in the residential zoning districts
(Section 8.36.050.A.2.c.3 - Front Setback Exceptions) and for a height exception for freestanding
structures (8.36.11 0.C.3.b - Height Limits and Exceptions) is propos{:d to be modified from a Conditional
Use Permit, which is currently required in the Zoning Ordinance to a Site Development Review. A SDR
is the appropriate type of review for these activities since it relates to site layout and the design of
structures rather than the approval of a particular type of use.
The proposed amendments are shown on Page 3-6 of Attachment 1, Exhibit A.
Chapter 8.40. Accessory Structures and Uses
This Chapter is proposed to be modified to change the permit requirement from a Conditional Use Permit
to a Site Development Review for flagpoles (Section 8.40.020.D.2 - Accessory Structures) and for an
exception to accessory structure requirements (Section 8.40.F.2.a - Accessory Structures).
The proposed amendments are shown on Page 6-7 of Attachment 1, Exhibit A.
Chapter 8.104. Site Development Review
The proposed SDR Chapter includes corrections for text clarity, re-organization of information within the
Chapter, re-Iocating applicable standards/regulations related to SDR from other Chapters of the Zoning
Ordinance to the SDR Chapter (as described above) as well modifiGations to 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 commumty.
For background information on the changes to this Chapter, please refer to the May 27, 2008 Planning
Commission Agenda Statement (Attachment 4). As directed by the Planning Commission, no additional
modifications were made to the draft SDR Chapter after the May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Study
Session.
As indicated earlier in this Report, a significant modification to the SDR Chapter is the requirement of
homeowners to obtain SDR approval prior to constructing a residential addition over 500 square feet in
size, for residential reconstruction if more than 50% of the principal structure is removed and
reconstructed as well as new custom single-family homes.
Additionally, there are now requirements that color modifications and window tinting for projects within
multi-family, commercial and industrial districts are subject to the Site Development Review Waiver
process. Additionally, there are requirement for both minor (Site Development Review Waiver process)
and major landscape modifications (Site Development Review Notice of Decision process).
Page 4 of5
The Waiver process is usually quick (several days) and does not require public notification. At any time,
a permit that can be reviewed at a lower level (i.e. Waiver) warralts the need for greater review, the
permit can be referred to the Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator or Planning
Commission as the Code currently and will continue to allow. The Notice of Decision process typically
takes 6-10 weeks and does include notice to property owners within 3')0-feet of the proposed project.
The proposed amendments are shown on Page 7-13 of Attachment 1, Exhibit A.
CONCLUSION:
There are a variety of modifications 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 to address the Planning Commission direction from the Study Sessions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) receive the Staff presentation; 2) open Public
Hearing; 3) take testimony from the Public; 4) close Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt
Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Exhibit A)
approving amendments to Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority, Chapter 8.36, Development
Regulations, Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses Ref;ulations and Chapter 8.104, Site
Development Review.
Page 5 of5
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
INCLUDING CHAPTER 8.04, TITLE, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORITY, CHAPTER 8.36,
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 8.40, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES
REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER 8.104, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
ZOA 07-002
WHEREAS, 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, of the Zoning Ordinance
and determine if any changes should be made to increase the effectiveness of the Chapter; and
WHEREAS, this update is separate from the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance
which is currently being reviewed by the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed update to the Zoning Ordinance is set forth in the proposed Ordinance
that is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and
all applicable Specific Plans; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the amendments to Title 8 (Zoning
Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal Code does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held Study Sessions Orl October 9,2007 and May 27,2008
to discuss amendments to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the proposed modifications
on June 10, 2008, for which proper notice was given in accordance with California State Law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendments to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the
Dublin Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its June 10, 2008, meeting did hear and use its
independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set
forth.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment including Chapter
8.04, Title, Purpose, and Authority, Chapter 8.36, Development R'~gulations, Chapter 8.40, Accessory
Attachment 1
Structures and Uses Regulations and Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, as described in Exhibit A
to this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AN]) ADOPTED this 10th Day of June 2008 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\Zoning Ord\SDR Update 2007\PC Reso.DOC
2
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
**********************
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.04, TITLE, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORITY,
CHAPTER 8.36, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 8.40, ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES AND USES REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER 8.104, SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW
ZOA 07-002
WHEREAS, the City Council, as a high priority goal for Fi~cal Year 2007/2008, requested Staff
and the Planning Commission review Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of the Zoning Ordinance
and determine if any changes should be made to increase the effectiveness of the Chapter; and
WHEREAS, this update is separate from the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance
which is currently being reviewed by the City; and
WHEREAS, the exact text amendments are shown in Section 2 through Section 5 of this
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project
on June 10, 2008 and adopted Resolution 08- _ recommending that the City Council approve
modifications to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance )of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on
; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.120.050.B ofthe Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council
finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independer:t judgment and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1.
Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): The City Council declares this
ordinance is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15601(b) (3). Section 15601(b) (3) states
that CEQA applies only to those projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the
environment. This adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA because the ordinance does not, in
itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sel:S forth the regulations that shall be
followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be
developed. This ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for w:ulting in significant physical change
in the environment, directly or ultimately.
Exhibit A
SECTION 2.
Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose, and Authority of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended only in
those sections so noted below. Text to be removed is shown in strikethrough and text to be added is
shown as underlined.
Chapter 8.04 TITLE, PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
8.04.070
Exemptions From Permit Requirements. The permit requirements of this Ordinance do
not apply to the following activities, uses ofland and s:ructures, which are allowed in all
zoning districts:
,.... Defies, paths aad driveways. Decks, platforms, on site path[, and driveways that are not required
to have building or grading permits by the MWlicipal Code, aro not over 30 indies above the
walking socface, and not over- any basement or story below.
BA. Film and theater productions. Structures and related development required for temporary
motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery, atld still photographic sessions,
provided that the development does not require alterations of the natural environment, i.e.,
removal of vegetation, grading or earthwork.
GB. Governmental activities. Activities ofthe City, State or an agency of the State, or Federal
Government on leased or federally owned land.
D. Irrigatioa. The installation of irrigation lines.
E. Remocleliag:
1. Iaterior ehaages. Interior alterations that do not result in an increase in the number of
rooms or the gross floor area within the structlKe, or a ,;hange in the permitted use ofthe
structure.
2. Single Family aad two family dwelliags. The remoc.eling of single family and hvo
family d'/lellings, provided that the proposed remodeling is in oompliance with all
applicable regulations of this Ordinance.
F. Repairs aad maiateaaaee. Ordinary repairs and maintenancl), 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 struoture, and if any exterior repairs employ the same materials and design as
originally used.
C. Retaiaiag walls. Retaining 'Nalls (retaining earth only) that are not over fOlK feet in height
measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall and are not required to have a
grading permit.
DC. School facilities. Certain school facilities as provided by GOvernment Code Sections 53091 et.
seq.
Page 2 of 14
ID. Solar collectors. The addition of solar collection systems to tlle roofs of existing structures.
JE. Utilities. The erection, construction, alteration, or maintenance by a public utility or public agency
of underground or overhead utilities (i.e., 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 nc,t 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 te. City Council review and approval
prior to acquisition of rights-of-way.
SECTION 3.
Chapter 8.36. Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended
only in those sections so noted below. Text to be removed is shown in strikothrough and text to be added
is shown as underlined.
CHAPTER 8.36
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
8.36.020
Agricultural and Residential Development Regulations. It is required that every
building shall be built upon a site which conforms to the General Plan, applicable Specific
Plans, and the following development regulations:
A. Development Regulations are minimums unless stated as maximums. All areas are given in
net square feet.
STANDARD A R-l R-2 R-M
LOT AREA
Interior lot 100 acres 4,000 8,000 5,000
sq. ft. SQ. ft. SQ. ft.
Corner lot 100 acres 5,000 9,000 6,000
SQ. ft. SQ. ft. SQ. ft.
LOTSQUARE NA 4,000 sq. ft. and 4,000 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft. and larger
FOOTAGE larger as consistent larger a~; consistent as consistent with
PER DU with General Plan with General Plan. General Plan
LOT WIDTH
& FRONTAGE
Interior lot 300 feet 50 feet 80 feet 50 feet
Corner lot 300 feet 60 feet 90 feet 60 feet
LOT DEPTH NA I 00 feet 100 feet I 00 feet
RESIDENTIAL 1 duo 1 du 2 du's 1 du per full 750 sq.
USE 1 Second Unit 1 Second Unit ft. (and larger as
(maximum per consistent with
lot) General Plan)
SETBACKS
Front 50 feet 20 ft. avg. 20 ft. a\g. 18 ft. 20 ft.
18 ft minimum to mmImum
garage (1)
Page 3 of 14
Side 30 feet (2) 1 0 feet 10 feet(3)
Street Side 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Rear 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet
(1) Living spaces may encroach to 15 ft. from Front Lot Line with Site Development Review on lots
up to 6,000 square feet in size.
(2) Side Yard setbacks in the R-1 zoning district shall be a minimum of 5 feet plus one foot for each
full 10 feet by which lot width exceeds minimum lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet.
(3) Buildings with 4 or more residences in the R-M zoning district shall have a 15 foot Side Yard on
one side.
STANDARD A R-l R-2 R-M
DISTANCE BETWEEN 100 feet 10 feet 20 fe{t 20 feet
RESIDENCES
MAXIMUM LOT NA 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story, 40% 1 story,
COVERAGE 35% 2 stories 35% 2 stories 35% 2 stories
COMMON USEABLE NA NA NA 30 % of net site
OUTDOOR SPACE area
HEIGHT LIMITS (1) (1) (1) (2)
(1) West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and 2 stories; may be increased to 35 feet and 2 stories pursuant
to a Site Development Review approval by the Planning Commission Zoning Administrator. East
of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and 2 stories.
(2) 35 feet if 4 or fewer du.; 45 feet if 5 or more du.; 75 feet if 5 or more duo and lot coverage does not
exceed 35%.
8.36.050.A Front setback exceptions:
1. Future Right-Of-Way lines. Future Right-Of-Way lines may hereby be established by the
City of Dublin to determine special building setbacks from certain street or highway rights-
of-way, including future road rights-of-way. In any case where a Future Right-Of-Way
Line is established, the Front Setback shall be measured from the Future Right-Of-Way
Line instead of the existing right-of-way line required by this Title, provided that the
exceptions for sloping lots in subsection A2 below shall also apply.
2. Sloping lots of 40,000 square feet or less. Where an existing sloping lot contains 40,000
square feet or less in net area and setback requirement~ are not specified on a recorded
subdivision map, the required Front Setback may be determined as set forth in this
subsection instead of as otherwise required by Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations.
This section is not intended to allow the placement of any structure within any easement
without explicit permission from all parties to the easement. This section is not intended to
allow the creation of new lots that do not satisfy all applicable standards of this Zoning
Ordinance.
a. Reduced setback for buildings. Where the average slope of an existing lot is one
vertical foot for every four horizontal feet (1 :4) or more in the first 60 feet of the lot
measured perpendicularly between the edge of the pavement or traveled way and
the proposed building, the Front Setback may t e reduced by no more than 50
percent of the amount required for other lots in the same zoning district. Any
structure placed at the reduced setback shall sat isfy the requirements of subsection
Page 4 of 14
A.2.c. below.
b. Reduced setback for parking. Where the average slope of the front 30 feet of the
lot is one vertical foot for every five horizontal feet (1 :5) or more as measured
between the edge of pavement and the proposed building, a private garage, carport,
uncovered paved parking pad or deck with at least 2 parking spaces may be built to
the property line at the street Right-Of-Way, provided that it is located at least 8
feet from the nearest Side Lot Line of the front half of an adjacent lot, and also
satisfies the requirements of subsection A.2.c. below.
c. Restrictions on structures at reduced setbacks. Any building or structure
approved for construction at the reduced Front Setbacks provided by this section
shall satisfy the following:
1. Approved by Department of Public Works. Any proposed construction
requiring a building permit shall first have been approved by the
Department of Public Works.
2. Encroachment Permit. No structure or improvement shall be allowed
within any City road right-of-way without first obtaining an encroachment
permit from the Department of Public Works.
3. Living Area. No living area shall be permitted above any garage or other
structure located within the Front SetbaGk area, except as provided in this
section, unless specifically approved by the Zoning Administrator or the
Planning Commission in response to a Conditional Use Permit Site
Development Review application and at a legally noticed public hearing.
8.36.110
Height Limits and Exceptions
C Exceptions to height limits. The height limits for buildings and structures established by this
Chapter are subject to the following exceptions:
1. Public and quasi-public buildings and structures. In a zoning district with a height
limit ofless than 75 feet, public and quasi-public buildings, communications equipment
buildings, schools, churches, hospitals, and other institltions permitted in the zoning
district, may be erected to a maximum height of75 feet, provided that all required setbacks
shall be increased by one foot for each foot of height tfat the building exceeds the normal
height limit established by the zone.
2. Residential exception - Sloping lots. The maximum height allowed for a dwelling may
be increased when the average natural slope of a proposed building envelope is 15 percent
or more, as follows:
Building Site Slope Max. Allowed He
Increase
15 percent 5 feet
22.5 percent 10 feet
~
Page 5 of 14
I 30 percent or more I
15 feet
The maximum allowed height for a dwelling on a site with slope between 15 and 22.5
percent may be increased over the five feet specified ahove by the same proportion that the
actual site slope exceeds 15 percent. The maximum allowed height for a dwelling on a site
with slope between 22.5 and 30 percent may be increa1;ed over the 10 feet specified above
by the same proportion that the actual site slope exceeds 22.5 percent.
3. Exceptions for specific types of structures:
a. Architectural features, mechanical equipment. Chimneys, vents, and other
architectural or mechanical appurtenances on buildings may be a maximum of 15
percent higher than the height limit of the applicable zone.
b. Freestanding structures. Towers, poles, water tanks, and similar structures may
be constructed higher than the height limit of the applicable zone if the additional
height is authorized through a Conditional Use Permit Site Development Review
approval by the Zoning Administrator.
c. Utility and communications facilities. Individual radio and television receiving
antennas, satellite dishes, transmission and distribution poles and towers for public
utilities are not subject to the height limits of this Chapter. See Chapter 8.92,
Wireless Communication Facilities Regulation;, regarding land use approvals for
those facilities.
SECTION 4.
Chapter 8.40. Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations, of the Dublin Municipal Code is
hereby amended only in those sections so noted below. Text to be removed is shown in strikethrough and
text to be added is shown as underlined.
CHAPTER 8.40
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES REGULATIONS
8.40.020
Accessory Strnctnres
D. Requirements for Specific Accessory Structures that Apply City-wide.
1. Antennae. Antennae are subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.92, Wireless
Communications Facility Regulations.
2. Flag poles. Maximum height of 35 feet with a minimum 5 foot setback from any property
line. Additional height may be authorized through Conditional Use Permit Site
Develo{lment Review approval by the Zoning Admini~trator.
F. Permitted Residential Accessory Structures.
1. General Requirements.
Page 6 of 14
SECTION 5.
a. Exceptions to Accessory Structure Requirements. An exception to the
requirements of this section may be approved by the Zoning Administrator by
means of a Genditional Use Permit Site Development Review.
Chapter 8.104. Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 8.104
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
8.104.010
8.104.020
Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure for approving,
conditionally approving, or denying Site Development Review permits and to ensure the
following:
A.
To preserve the architectural character and scale of nei.5hborhoods and the community.
B.
To ensure that development is well designed in relation to. surrounding properties,
including that the design, character, height, fa~ade 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, fa~ade 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 area.
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 welfare.
H.
To ensure that projects provide adequate circulation for automobiles as well as pedestrians
and bicyclists to create a pedestrian friendly environment.
Exemptions From Site Development Review. The pl~rmit 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-lor
R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts which allow similar
uses, are not over 30 inches above the walking surface, and are not over any basement or
story below.
Page 7 of 14
8.104.030
B.
Fences. Fences in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning
Districts which allow similar uses.
c.
Irrigation. The installation of irrigation lines.
D.
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. Alllandscc.pe 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.l04.030.A.1.
E.
Interior Modifications. Interior alterations that do 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.
F.
Repairs and Maintenance. Ordinary repairs and mailtenance, if the work does not result
in any change in the approved land use of the sire 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.
G.
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.
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 bel,)w.
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 deterrrine if a Site Development Review
Waiver is appropriate for the review of the propo~;ed improvement and may transfer
hearing jurisdiction of the project at any time.
A. Site Development Review Waiver. The following projects are subject to a Site
Development Review Waiver:
1. Single Family Residential Landscape Modification. In a Planned Development
with residential uses, the removal of a tree which is part of the streetscape of a
development or is required by the conditions of approval which is proposed to be
replaced or is proposed to be replaced with a different species.
Page 8 of 14
8.104.040
2. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrhll Improvements. The following
improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Incustrial 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 existing or a[Jproved color(s).
c. Fences and Walls. The replacement 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 TO<)f type (i.e. gable to a mansard, are
considered to be a fa<;ade modificaticn 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, industrial 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 by the Community Development Director.
h. Window Modifications. Window modifications which include new and
replacement windows, frosting, tinting or the addition of other materials
which may obscure a window as determined by the Community
Development Director.
3. Minor Modifications to Approved Site Development Review. Minor
modifications to an approved Site Developmelt 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 Review, and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act.
4. Other Improvements. All other improvements determined by the Community
Development Director to be minor in nature and requiring review.
Projects Subject to Site Development Review. The jbllowing 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 Zonirg Administrator may refer decision
Page 9 of 14
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 stmctures which are greater than 120
square feet in size.
2. Addition. An addition which is less than 1,000 gross square feet in size or less than
15 percent of the total floor area of the stmcture (whichever is greater) to an
existing structure in the R-M, Commercial, or Industrial Zoning Districts, or
Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses.
3. Agricultural Accessory Structures. All agricdture 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.
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 additions 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 residentiallses.
9. Security Gates. Security gates and gate houses at project 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
Development Director.
12. Wireless Communications Facilities. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.92,
Wireless Communications Facilities.
Page 10 ofl4
13. Minor Fa<<;ade Modifications. Minor facade modifications in the R-M,
Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning
Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses. Minor fayade 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.
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 height of the Principal Structure, as permitted
by the regulations for the Agricultural, 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 principal structure:>, as permitted by Chapter 8.36,
Development Regulations.
2. Height Increase for Towers and Water Tunks. 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 gross square feet or more, or greater
than 15 percent of the floor area of the ~,tructure.
b. Major Fa<<;ade Modifications. Major fayade 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 princlpal structures, including principal
structures in a Planned Development, and any structure which is to be demolished
and reconstructed.
Page 11 of 14
D.
E.
F.
8.104.050
8.104.060
8.104.070
8.104.080
8.104.090
Historic Overlay Zoning District. All improvementE within the Historic Overlay Zoning
District shall be reviewed in accordance with and sub}~ct to Chapter 8.62, Historic Overlay
Zoning District.
Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. All impr,wements within the Scarlett Court
Overlay Zoning District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.34,
Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District.
All Other Improvements. All other improvements t:> structures or a site, which are not
otherwise mentioned in this Chapter, shall be subject to a Site Development Review
Waiver or Site Development Review, as determined by the Community Development
Director.
Application. The Applicant shall submit a complete application pursuant to Chapter
8.124, Applications, Fees and Deposits, accompaniec. by a fee and such materials as are
required by the Community Development Director.
Action. The decision maker for Site Development Reviews shall be the Community
Development Director (or his/her designee), the Zoning Administrator (or his/her designee)
or the Planning Commission 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 8.104.100.
Concnrrent Consideration. When a Site Development Review is required for a project
which is also subject to a Conditional Use Permit ard/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.
Notice Of Decision, Public Hearing. The followin.~ 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 required for decisions by the Zoning Administrator or
Planning Commission, with notice provided consistent with the provisions of Chapter
8.132, Notice and Hearings.
c.
Notice for Concurrent Processing. Where a Site Development Review is being
considered concurrently with another permit requiring a public hearing, the notice and
public hearing requirements ofthe other permit shall aJply.
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 that
ultimately approved the Site Development Reviewnc1uding approval on appeal. The
Community Development Director or his/her designee may grant a Site Development
Review Waiver for applications approved by anoth{:r decision-maker or body upon the
determination that the modification is a minor proj,~ct and in accordance with Section
Page 12 of 14
8.104.100
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
8.104.110
8.104.120
8.104.130
SECTION 6.
8.104.030, Waiver.
Required Findings. All of the following findings shall all be made in order to approve a
Site Development Review and shall be supported b:l substantial evidence in the public
record:
The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General Plan and
with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelinl~s.
The proposal is consistent with the provisions ofTit1e~, Zoning Ordinance.
The design of the project is appropriate to the City, th{: vicinity, surrounding properties and
the lot in which the project is proposed.
The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development.
Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed.
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.
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.
The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles.
Construction Permits. Building and Grading Permits shall not be issued except III
accordance with the terms and conditions ofthe Site Development Review approval.
Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, shall apply
except as otherwise provided in this Chapter.
Design Guidelines. Any design guidelines which 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.
Severability. In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or
unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severabk and all other sections or portions
hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
Page 13 of 14
SECTION 7.
Savings Clause. All code provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this chapter are repealed. The provisions of this chapter, insofar as they are substantially the same as
existing code provisions relating to the same subject matter shaL be construed as restatements and
continuations thereof and not as new enactments. With respect, however, to violations, rights accrued,
liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, under any chapter,
ordinance, or part of an ordinance shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose of sustaining any
proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such violation, right, liability or appeal.
SECTION 8.
Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance. This ordinance shall t2ke effect and be in force thirty (30)
days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk ofthe City of Dublin shall cause this ordinance
to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of
the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DUBLIN on this _ day of __, 2008, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\Zoning Ord\SDR Update 2007\CC Ordinance (Exhibit A to PC Reso).DOC
Page 14 of 14
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMl\HSSION STUDY SESSIO~l DATE: October 9. 2007
SUBJECT:
STUDY SESSION: ZOA 07-002 - Chapter 8.104, Site Development
Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinanel~
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Chapter 8.104
2) Review Required in Selected Cities (Table)
RECOMMEN~t\rWIf= )Receive presentation and provide comments.
PROJECT DES'bM;;N:
The City Council, as a high priority goal for Fiscal Year 2007/2008, requested that Staff and the Planning
Commission review Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (SDR), of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and
determine if any changes should be made to increase the effectivenes:; of this Chapter.
Currently, Staff is also working on the first portion of a comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance which
will be reviewed by the Planning Commission during a Study Sessior: 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 ofthis 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 been made to the Site Development
Review Chapter since 1997; these changes were made to require review of projects in the Historic
Overlay Zoning District and the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning Distrkt.
Since the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1997, the City has undergone some dramatic
changes. In the last ten years, much of the eastern portion of Dublin has been developed and a significant
number of remodels and new constl1lction have also occurred in the western portion of Dublin due to the
age of the structures.
COPIES TO: File
ITEM NO.
\ . \
Page 1 of7
G:\Zonin2 OrdlSDR Uodate 2007\PCSR Study Session 1O-9-07.doc
Attachment 2
ANALYSIS:
A Site Development Review permit in the City of Dublin is required br the following:
. All projects within the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District;
. All projects within the Historic District Overlay Zoning District;
. Additions or new construction of more than 1,000 square feet III the commercial or
industrial zoning districts;
. Agricultural accessory structures;
. Exterior modifications to existing structures or modifications 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 which require a Site Development Review.
This allows the City to review the project and determine if the propos(:d project complies with the required
Site Development Review findings which can be found in Section 8. l04.070 ofthe 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 fa~ade remodel) while major projects (such as
new construction) are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ove:-:ime, 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 Revi{w Waiver for minor projects. The
Zoning Ordinance does not specify what types of projects are considered to be minor, however, Staff has
used the Waiver to review minor improvements on non-residential buildings such as door and window
modifications, addition of a trellis, access ramps, trash enclosures and minor changes to approved projects.
The Site Development Review Waiver process allows Staff to review minor exterior improvements with
an expedited review (typically over the counter or up to a few days: and for a flat fee (the current fee is.
$250). The use of Waivers is beneficial to both Staff and the AppliC<illt 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 l:he review will not have a negative
financial burden on the Applicant. Stafftypically issues approximatelr 250 SDR Waivers per year.
Improvements Exempt from Review
As discussed above, there are several types of exterior improvements which require review by the City.
The Code, however, exempts review of the following:
. Improvements or additions on buildings which are less than 1,000 square feet in size;
. Minor exterior changes such as color changes, architectural fi:atures or other minor improvements
where a Site Development Review has not been approved;
Page 2 of7
. Residential exterior improvements (single family and attached;; and
. Landscape Modifications.
Review Required in Other Cities
Staff reviewed a variety of other cities in the area to determine what types of projects require review and
also which projects require staff level approval or Planning Commim:ion approval. A table listing Staffs
findings is included as Attachment 2.
As shown in the Attached table, most cities require review of all n:m-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 fa~ade 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 review a project and expedites revie'" for the Applicant as well as lowers
the Applicant's costs.
Recommended Staff Changes
Staff recommends that at a minimum, the following changes be made to the Site Development Review
Chapter to clarify the SDR Chapter, provide consistency on what is reviewed and to require review of
additional projects to ensure consistency with the existing development as well as the neighborhood in
which it is located.
Remove Zoning Districts.
Staff recommends the Chapter
be changed to state Residential
and Non-Residential.
Clarify Projects that can be
reviewed with a Site
Development Review Waiver.
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.
Description of Current
StandardlRe uirement
Does not state which body (Staff,
Community Development
Director or Planning
Commission) is required to
review each type of project which
has led to some confusion.
SDR Chapter states that review is
required for certain zoning
districts, does not include Planned
Developments Zoning Districts.
-
Allows a Site Development
Review Waiver to be issued for
"minor projects" although does
not clearly state what types of
ro' ects are considered minor.
No planning review is currently
required. Allows Applicant to
obtain a Building Permit only.
Page 3 of?
Benefit/Impact of Change
Benefit. By clarifying the reviewing
tody it will allow Staff and the
Applicant to clearly identify who is
required to review each type of project.
Benefit. Provides better clarity. Also
erforces the fact that the City will be
review exterior modifications in the
Planned Development Zoning
D lStrictS.
Benefit. By clarifying what types of
pojects can be reviewed with a Site
Development Review Waiver, it
allows the City and the Applicant to
d{:termine the type of review reauired.
Blmefit. These types of projects tend to
h: large in scope and can impact
adjacent properties. In order to ensure
that the new house will fit in with the
neighborhood and not create any
m:gative impacts on the adjacent
roperties, Staff recommends that
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, mmor changes to
approved plans, roof screens,
trellises and similar
improvements.
Description of Current
Standard/Requirement
Benefit/Impact of Change
-
t1ese types of projects require a Site
Development Review and review by
t1e Community Development Director.
Potential Negative Impact. This will
l1crease the overall cost of permitting
for the homeowner due to an increase
11 time required to review the project
(Jver what currently exists today) as
well as additional permitting costs
related to SDR fees. Will also increase
staff workload which could result in an
ncrease in overall processing time for
pojects as well as resulting in a
reduction in the amount of time Staff
tas available to work on long-range
dannin .
Requires review of additions or Benefit. Require all modifications to be
building modifications which are reviewed which is currently practiced
on a building which is greater 1: y the City at this time. Staff
than 1,000 square feet. recommends however, that minor
acditions and fayade improvements be
reviewed by the Community
Hevelopment Director (under 500
sguare feet).
Benefit. Clearly states which projects
can be reviewed with a Site
D<evelopment Review Waiver which
aIds Staff and Applicants in clearly
Mfining the type of permit that is
re:J.uired. Additionally, by allowing
5 taff to issue a Site Development
Review Waiver, which is typically
ccmpleted 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
fnancial im acts on the A licant.
Chapter is ambiguous 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 of7
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
StandardlRequirement
SDR Chapter only reqUIres J
review of specific items. (
Improvements such as fencing or I
color changes, for example, are ~
not included in the list of items '
that require review. t
J
Benefit/Impact of Change
1enejit. Allows the City to review all
::<terior changes. By allowing these
ninor improvements to be reviewed by
ltaff with a Site Development Review
~T aiver it will not impact construction
i me lines or create a financial hardship
clr Applicants but at the same time
will ensure consistency of change with
tie existing building.
lenejit. Allows the City to review
andscape changes to all non-
f sidential projects which can result in
. significant impact if too many plant
pecies are removed or changed.
t
Currently, the Chapter does not 1
reqUIre review of landscape I
modifications at a property. In r
some cases, Staff has recently f
required that a permit be ~
obtained; however, because the
Chapter does not require a permit, 1
this has been inconsistently r
applied. There IS a reference 1
requmng a Site Development t
Review in Chapter 8.76 when a (
majority of the trees on site are I
removed, however majority is not r
defined.
J,')tential Negative Impact. Increases
eview time for Applicants who are not
lsed to applying for a permit for these
ypes of changes. Review by the
~:>mmunity Development Director will
:>wer review time, over what would be
equired by the Planning Commission.
As discussed on pages 3-6 of this Agenda Statement, there are both positive and negative impacts that can
occur as a result of increasing the number of projects that require a Site Development Review or Site
Development Review Waiver as well as requiring more projects to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The following is a summary of some of the positive and negative impacts resulting from
Staffs proposed changes.
Potential Benefits
By modifying the Zoning Ordinance to clarify what body is required to review each type of project and
clearly state when review is required, Staff will be able to consistently require permits and identify when
review by Staff or the Planning Commission is required.
Additionally, by allowing Staff to review minor improvements, Star' 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 Commif;sion, which has led some Applicants
to withdraw their requests and as a result, some of the older buildings in town have not been improved. By
determining which projects are appropriate to be reviewed at a Staff Ifvel, 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 j~.ce the potential for property owners
to decide not to improve their property so that they do not have to p> through the expense of obtaining a
Site Development Review. Additionally, by requiring more proj{cts to be reviewed at the Planning
Commission level, the City also faces the potential that property owr.ers or tenants may not want to have
to spend additional money or time on projects requiring Planning C::>mmission review. Property owners
and tenants are typically more concerned with Planning Commission reviewed projects because there is no
guarantee that even if Staff recommends approval of their project, that their project will be approved.
Additionally, any additional time required for review of their project can mean that the opening of their
business will be delayed which will increase their expenses.
The current SDR Chapter was crafted to allow Staff to make decisior.s regarding exterior improvements in
order to speed up the entitlement process to encourage commercial gJowth and improvements in the City.
By allowing Staff to render decisions on more projects, the entidement process is faster. Planning
Commission review requires the preparation of Staff Reports, r{view of Staff Reports by the City
Attorney, noticing and a hearing. All of these items can increase the number of hours spent on a project
by. By requiring Planning Commission review of more projects, tlLs increases the processing time for
projects which significantly impacts Staff time as well as creating an additional burden on Applicants due
to an increase in time as well as pemlitting costs.
Any modifications that increase the number of improvements that re~uire review by Staff or the Planning
Commission will increase the current Staff workload. By increasing ~le 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 time Staff will have available for these
types of projects.
Recently, at the request of the Planning Commission, Staffhas requin:d almost all Fa~ade 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 fa~ade because they did not want to wait the additional time required for
Planning Commission Review which would delay the opening of their business and have the potential for
increasing their costs. Most recently, the Applicants for All Video a1d Aquarium Concepts (both located
in older buildings) determined that they would not make minor tl,;:ade improvements to the building
because Staff informed them that it would require review by the Plann ing Commission.
CONCLUSION:
Staff is recommending several modifications to the Site Development Review Chapter to clarify the SDR
Chapter, provide consistency on what is reviewed and to require re'{iew of additional projects to ensure
consistency with the existing development as well as the neighborhood in which it is located.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is asking for feedback from the Planning Commission on the current Site Development Review
Chapter. In order to assist Staff and the Planning Commission in lhe discussion, Staff has crafted the
following questions:
. Should we clarify the Chapter to require review of the items ~;I:affhas identified in the table found
on pages 3-6 ofthis Agenda Statement?
Page 6 of7
. Are there any additional improvements that you would lik,;~ to see reviewed by Staff or the
Planning Commission?
. What types ofprojects should require Staff level or Planning Commission review?
. Are there any other changes you would like to see to the Site J::>evelopment Review Chapter?
NEXT STEPS:
Following this Study Session, Staff will begin making revisions to the Site Development Review Chapter
incorporating feedback from the Plmrning Commission. Staff will thel1 bring back the modified Chapter to
the Planning Commission for review during a Public Hearing.
Page 7 of7
Planning COlnln.ission Minutes.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 9,
2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chzir Schaub called the meeting to
order at 7:02 p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Tomlinson, King and Biddle;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Plannt~T; and Debra LeClair, Recording
Secretary.
Absent: None.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - Minutes of Septembw 11, 2007 meeting were
approved with modifications to page 103 and 104 by Cm. Toml,llson.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRIITEN COMMUNICATIONS - Chair Schaub read a writ:en statement as follows:
I would like to make a few comments on communication in gereral, written and otherwise.
First, this City and most government bodies make decisions in a public forum after an honest
and open discussion. The most effective way for our residents to help us make decisions on
behalf of the common good is to come to our hearings and mak2! your thoughts be known.
This is the most effective way to communicate with Commissicners and it is the most effective
way to communicate with our elected officials.
Another method is to send us a letter or an email with a signahlre and address so we know who
you are and that you are a Dublin Resident.
It does no good whatsoever to send us, the Mayor, Council Mel1bers or Staff anonymous letters
even those supposedly representing anonymous groups of residents. We cannot discuss these
letters, we cannot act on these letters, and I simply don't read them.
We all encourage our residents to help us plan and grow cur City and would encourage
everyone to do that through the public hearing process where we can have a meaningful dialog
and fully understand the context and thoughtfulness of your opinions and desires.
O({o!ie,' <J, 20m
:el~!.tillitlH ('ommissi(Jrl
'i(f:.:li:{dT' '-(('din,']
97
Attachment 3
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 P A 07-048 Conditional Use Permit for an Automobile/ Vehicle Repairs and Service
Facility (All Glass).
Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in th: Staff Report.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no COmml!nts, closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, and by a vote of 5-0-0, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 07- 49
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ALL GLASS IN THE M-l (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 6325 SIERRA COURT (APN 941-0205-014)
PA 07-048
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Respectfu1y submitted,
U~?~---
Bill SChaub
Planning Commission Chair
G:\ MINUTES \ 2007\ Planning Commission \ 1O.9.07..toc
Ot l(}[;y.r _1.1, lOOt
~>r(/n'!iti}/ ('ommissj,m_
'1'\~rd';'rr '~\-fet:ti!I,q
98
AGENDA STATEl'~[ENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STUD\~ SESSION: May 27, 2008
SUBJECT:
ZOA 07-002 (Legislative). - Ameldment to Chapter 8.104, Site
Development Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Seni(}/" Planner
A TT ACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
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 Hesidential Demolitions in Selected
Cities (Table).
RECOMMENDATION:
,'tV\ b I \
V ''(jll'-/
Receive presentation and provid{: Staff with direction/comments on
the proposed modifications to tht: 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, l1equested that Staff and the Planning
Commission review Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (SDR), <>f the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and
determine if any changes should be made to increase the effectiveness c,f the Chapter. The review of the SDR
Chapter is separate from the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinlmce.
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 befc,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 chanp:s to the SDR Chapter; additional
changes wer~ requested by the Planning Commission as shown in Al:tachment 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-. \
Attachment 4
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:
Staff's 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 Chapt{:r 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 Planning 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 compliance with other structures in the vicinity,
and to ensure a pedestrian friendly environment.
Proiects Exemnt 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 curr,~nt practices. Staff is recommending
that landscape replacements, where a species will be replaced with the same species, be exempt from
review. Additionally, Staff has modified some of the language in this Hection for clarity.
Site Develonment 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 De:velopment Review was approved by
the City for the site.
Page 2 of 6
The following activities are proposed to be subject to Site Developmfllt Review Waiver for the following:
. Minor Landscape Modifications;
. Minor modifications to an approved Site Development Revie\.;
. 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, V\'~ndow and door replacements, new
windows or doors.
Most of the above listed improvements currently require review, alth.ough these types of improvements
are not clearly identified in the SDR Chapter. Site Development Review Waivers typically only take one
to ~ee days (depending on the scope) to process. These projects lend 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 approv,.: 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 Staff to review the merits of the proposal.
As proposed, minor landscape modifications in the R-M, Commerci,.: and Industrial Zoning Districts will
require review by Staff through a Site Development Review Wai\,':lr. Currently, the Chapter does not
require review oflandscape modifications at a property. In Chapter 1l.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 :mned 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 dUling 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 th.e 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 Development Director or hislher designee:
. Additions which are 1.000 square feet in size or 15 percent of the 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 dis<:ussion. the Planning Commission
discussed if review should be required for all second story additions 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, :110St 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 d(,wn (of more than 50% of the house
and reconstruction) and new custom single family 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 iH located. As proposed, the Zoning
Ordinance allows the Community Development Director to transferllearing 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 ch,il"acter of a structure in the R-M,
Commercial, Industrial or similar Planned Development will requin: 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 8.104.040.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 Zocing 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 of the 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 existing findings have been completely
revised to be consistent with the purpose section of the Chapter. The proposed fmdings 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 w~ich will benefit the community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide Staffwith direction/comments on the proposed
modifications to the SDR Chapter and identify any additional modifications that should be made.
Page 6 of6
DRAFT
DRAFT
Plafl11il1g COlnrnissioJIMillutes
Tuesday, fWay 27, 2008
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 27,
2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting
to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioner;; King, Wehrenberg, and Biddle;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Plann~r; and Debra LeClair, Recording
Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson, seconded by Chair
Schaub the minutes of the April 22, 2008 meeting were approved with a minor modification.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -
7.1 ZOA 07-002 (Legislative) - Amendment to Chapter 8.104, Site Development
Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Study Session).
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Ms. Fraser stated some SDR Waivers are approved by staff, some over the counter and some
take several days to approve. She continued that if Staff feels uncomfortable with a project they
can change the reviewing body. Ms. Fraser mentioned the projects that would need an SDR
waiver.
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager added the updated code for SDR Waivers would apply to
all projects that either have an approved SDR or not, making tl1e code clear.
Ms. Fraser mentioned that not everyone in the City works urder a Site Development Review,
they could be older and may have been approved under AlamE:da County.
Chair Schaub asked if Oil Changers would still be requirEd to come before the Planning
Commission if they did not have an SDR and if are there ary color changes in the City that
would require an SDR Waiver. Ms. Fraser answered yes and the code has been changed so that
it is the same for everyone. Cm. Tomlinson stated that, before the code change, if they had not
had an SDR and been approved under Alameda County they could change the color to
whatever they want. Ms. Fraser agreed.
Commissiun
.: 7, 200S
47
Attachment 5
DRAFT
DRAFT
Cm. Biddle mentioned that the new code states that they "may have the waiver" not "shall have
the waiver." Ms. Fraser stated that if the project is controversial, Staff has the option of
changing the level of review.
Chair Schaub stated if someone changed their paint color it would take a complaint or code
enforcement would have to notice it in order for it to come to Staff for approval. Ms. Wilson
mentioned it has become easier to spot color changes with the extra Code Enforcement officer
on Staff.
Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report.
Cm. Wehrenberg joined the meeting. Chair Schaub and Cm. Tomlinson gave an update of the
study session project and what had been discussed so forth.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked for a recap of the color modification section. Ms. Fraser answered that
currently the application would be approved at Staff level. She continued with the updated
code, at any point, if anyone is uncomfortable with the project, then Staff can refer the decision
making to the Planning Commission and that would be the process that Staff will continue to
follow which makes the code more clear.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if it would be necessary to go into more detail when defining "minor".
Ms. Fraser answered that Staff, after much discussion, decidej to make the decision when the
impact of the project is known.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the code would cover window mcdifications, i.e. frosting, window
tinting, etc. Ms. Wilson answered from this point forward any Applicant that comes to the City
must adhere to the new code but we cannot go back.
Chair Schaub commented there is a code that prohibits covering a percentage of windows with
signage. He continued that there are a number of businesses that have covered their windows
with ads. Ms. Wilson suggested that if the Planning Commissioners noticed windows covered
by signs to let Staff know so that Code Enforcement could investigate. She stated that window
tinting is different from the signage code and indicated that code enforcement conducted a
survey to ascertain the extent of the problem and found that there have been many businesses
operating within the City for many years with tinted windows. She stated that we cannot go
back, but there are now standards to address these problems and if there is a request for a
change then they would have to adhere to the standards.
Cm. King asked if the existing businesses would be grandfathered-in. Ms. Wilson answered yes
and that changes happen all the time and Staff will address changes as they occur.
Ms. Fraser continued with the staff report.
Chair Schaub asked if the City can require an SDR for accessory structures in agriculture. Ms.
Fraser answered that the requirement is in the code currently. She stated that there was an
?'I;vming Commissiun
~Meetinfd
:;11ay 27; 200S
48
DRAFT DRAFT
agricultural accessory structure that was built a few years ago and caused controversy with the
neighbors. Chair Schaub mentioned a property that built some accessory structures and the
neighbors were told they could not interfere with a farm. Ms. Fraser commented the County
has a "right-to-farm" ordinance but the City of Dublin does not, but that would not prohibit the
City from reviewing accessory structures and requiring noticing and permits.
Chair Schaub was concerned that the land was altered wilhout the benefit of a structural
engineer's input.
Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report.
Ms. Wilson reminded the Commission that these permit;; (additions and minor fa<;ade
modifications, etc.) are done through a notification process, not a hearing. The City must notice
all the property owners within a certain distance from the project site so that they are aware of
the project. Ms. Fraser explained the notification process to thE Commissioners.
Cm. King asked if a major modification, such as the Shamrock Center, would come before the
Commission. Ms. Wilson answered yes; it would be considered a major fa<;ade improvement
and would come before the Commission. Cm. King commented that the Kentucky Fried
Chicken was not considered a major fa<;ade improvement therdore it would not.
Ms. Fraser commented the way the code is set up now Staff reviews all fa<;ade modifications
and some are referred to the Commission. She continued, although Kentucky Fried Chicken is
re-facing the entire building, they met the Specific Plan requirements; therefore there was no
reason to bring the project to the Commission.
Chair Schaub stated that he would like to discuss the Design Element and Specific Plans as well
as an email that was sent to Ms. Wilson regarding commercial areas that are not subjeCt to any
Specific Plans. He wanted to discuss the Sierra Court to Village Parkway area.
Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report regarding the projects that are reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator. She mentioned that height increase of the principle structure, which is
currently approved by the Planning Commission, Staff is now recommending it be a Zoning
Administrator level approval.
Chair Schaub suggested that any time a property owner warts to increase the height of their
home to more than what is in the development currently; it should be considered a significant
change and brought to the Planning Commission. Ms. Wilson mentioned that Staff would look
at the setting and the character of the neighborhood before making a determination. Ms. Fraser
mentioned that the Zoning Administrator offers noticing and a public hearing so that residents
can comment on the project.
Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report stating the project;; that would be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Fraser stated Staff has changed the findings to better meet the intent of the Chapter.
(Pi~1'J1nillfj Commisxiu?1
1\<fJiilar (Hefting
~1"ay 2 7, ZOOS
49
DRAFT
DRAFT
Cm. Wehrenberg felt that Item D is ambiguous which states: "The subject site is physically suitable
for the type and intensity of the approved development". She was concerned this statement could be
argued in multiple ways. Ms. Wilson answered findings need to be flexible so that they can be
written either in the negative or positive depending on the project.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Item E must be clarified which states: "Impacts to existing slopes and
topographic features are addressed". Ms. Wilson answered the item could be either significant or
insignificant depending on the point of view so further clarification is not necessary.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked how the heritage trees issue is addre:;sed in the findings section. Ms.
Fraser answered there is an ordinance specifically for the Heritage Trees with a separate permit.
Cm. Wehrenberg suggested referring to the Heritage Tree Ordinance in the SDR Chapter to
ensure that it would not be missed.
Cm. King asked if there were other items, such as the Heritage Tree Ordinance, that could have
the same issues. He suggested adding the phrase "subject to..." then sight the section of the
SDR Chapter that refers to that subject. Ms. Wilson mentioned "Finding A. The proposal is
consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General Pl,m and with any applicable Specific
Plans and design guidelines." She stated that this finding covers everything and Staff does not
want to restate information in another chapter because it might conflict with the chapter that is
regulating it. She also mentioned that if there was a heritage lree on a project there would be a
separate permit to remove it.
Chair Schaub wanted to ensure that some of the items discussed would be included in the
Design Element so that developers would know what is expected of them.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff works with all different team members, some who are savvy to the
development community and ordinances and others that are not. She stated that there is so
much information sometimes the developer does not hear what is being told to them.
Cm. King asked if Item A of the "Required Findings" is clear that it includes the Heritage Tree
Ordinance. Ms. Fraser answered it does because not only is there the Heritage Tree Ordinance,
but there also is the Landscaping Regulations Chapter where Heritage Trees are discuss again,
and refer back to the Heritage Tree Ordinance. She mentioned that when someone is doing a
landscape modification they would hopefully check the land:,caping ordinance or at least call
Staff for questions.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the "Ugly Ordinance". Chair Schaub mentioned this was
introduced when Guy Houston was Mayor. The ordinance prohibited ugly things in residential
neighborhoods. There was a discussion regarding this ordinance and it was decided Cm.
Wehrenberg was referring to a property maintenance ordinance which includes maintenance
and other issues to keep the City looking nice.
Cm. Biddle asked if most Applicants know they will need an 5DR at the time of submittal. Ms.
Fraser answered that any conscientious Applicant will call tre City to find out if they need a
(P[mmil1g CommLIsiun
(~qiliE:lr ~Met'tirtg
~11ay :: /, 2008
50
DRAFT DRAFT
permit for their project. She stated that Staff is always hone~;t with the Applicant about what
they need. She continued that, if an Applicant came in with 1 color change, for instance, Staff
would let them know that their project could be approved at th.e Staff level, but the code allows
Staff to change the reviewing body if there is an issue.
Cm. King asked if the definition of a Site Development Review is something that comes before
the Commission. Ms. Fraser answered SDR is just the name of a permit type.
Cm. Biddle mentioned that a project may need both an SDR and a CUP. Ms. Fraser agreed and
mentioned that if an application is submitted with more than one type of permit required Staff
would take the entire project to the highest reviewing body.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked how Staff determines which cities they will use to review. Ms. Fraser
answered they choose Livermore and Pleasanton because they are close by, and Foster City
because she worked there and could answer questions and also which cities responded. She
stated Staff tried to pick cities with characteristics that are similar to Dublin.
The Planning Commission all agreed Ms. Fraser and Staff did a great job in writing the updated
SDR Chapter.
Ms. Fraser mentioned that the Chapter will be adopted at a Public Hearing at the next Planning
Commission meeting and recommend to the City Council to adopt the Chapter after the 2nd
reading and then put into effect. Ms. Wilson reminded the Commission that they will see some
minor modifications to other Chapters that affect the SDR chapter along with the SDR Chapter.
Chair Schaub was concerned about mentioning "stabilizing" property values in the SDR
Chapter. Ms. Fraser stated the wording was changed to SClY; "enhance the residential and
business property values" .
Ms. Wilson stated that the City cannot control property values but by having an SDR Chapter in
the Zoning Ordinance, Dublin is doing something above and beyond what some cities do. She
mentioned that some cities don't review to the detail that Dublin does. She stated that the City
Attorney was comfortable with the wording regarding property values and didn't feel it would
hurt the City.
Cm. Tomlinson felt using the word "enhance" is better than "stabilize" because a resident could
ask that a project be denied because it would provide competition for their project and that
could be a destabilizing factor.
Chair Schaub stated there are many housing developments in the City that have an approved
SDR for color that was approved at least 10 years ago. He asked if every house that has an SDR
must come to the City for approval of a color change. Ms. Fraser answered the City would only
regulate multifamily developments, apartments, industrial, commercial complexes, but not
individual houses.
(p[;mnin,q Commissi(ili
'h:mutar r.Wectin,q
~}fay 27,2008
51
DRAFT DRAFT
Ms. Wilson referred to Page 104-3, A) Site Development R~view Waiver, subsection III, A
through H only refers to multifamily, commercial and indusbial complexes. Ms. Praser stated
the City would leave that decision to the HOA's. Chair Schaub was concerned there would be
colors that would not fit well with the neighborhood. Ms. 'Nilson agreed there could be that
risk and if the community was concerned enough the ordinano~ could be modified.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned his concern about color regula:ions was directed towards the
multifamily and industrialj commercial projects, not the single family home.
Chair Schaub was concerned about the Design Element and how far will it reach. He was
concerned about the different specific plans and if that minimum/ standard could apply to those
areas that are not covered by a specific plan.
Ms. Wilson stated that the City could share the documents and show the Applicant what has
been built in the area, but can't regulate those areas just becaus'~ we have other documents.
Chair Schaub was most concerned with the area along Dublin Blvd from Village Parkway to
Arnold Road. Ms. Wilson suggested the Commission could place design guidelines in the area
and commented there are things that can be done to regulate that area without creating a new
document. Also, with the SDR Chapter minor to major improvements or new buildings could
be controlled by the City to achieve good products.
Chair Schaub stated there are some very good examples of de:velopments to refer to that were
not there a few years ago.
Ms. Fraser stated the purpose statements in the SDR Chapter will help with design guidelines.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
CommLSsiun
27, 2008
52
DRAFT
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Respectf.111y submitted,
Bill Schaub
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Erica Fraser
Senior Planner
G: \ MINUTES \2008 \ PLANNING COMMISSION\5.27.08.doc
DRAFT
1{fH II.wr
53
~}fay 2/, 20IJR
(Pi~lnnifiB ('ommissicft
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
CHAPTER 8.104
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
8.104.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to est3blish a procedure for approving,
conditionally approving, or denying Site Development Review permits and to
ensure the followinq:
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 Gonstraints and compatible with
surrounding properties and neighborhoods. To preserve the architectural
character and scale of neiohborhoods and the community.
B. To resolve major project related issues including, but not limited to, building
location, architectural and landscape design and theme; vehicular and pedestrian
access and on site circulation, parking and o:raffic impacts. To ensure that
development is well desiqned in relation to surroundino properties. includino that
the desion. character. heioht. facade lenoth. roof forms. colors. materials. roof
mounted equipment and architectural details of a proposed structure or remodeled
structure are compatible with the desiqn. charclCter, heiqht. facade lenqth. roof
form. colors. materials and architectural details of structures in the vicinity.
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 signage. To ensure that
projects enhance their sites and are harmonious with hiqh standards of
improvements in the surroundino area.
D. To stabilize property values. To enhance the residential and business property
values within the City.
E. To promote the general welfare. To ensure compliance with development
requlations and the requirements of zonino districts, includino but not limited to.
setbacks. heioht. parkinq, landscapino. public art, fences. accessory structures
and sionaqe.
F. To ensure that each project is desiqned to comply with the intent and purpose of
the zoninq district in which it is located and with the General Plan and applicable
Specific Plan.
G. To promote the health. safety and qeneral welfam.
H. To ensure that projects provide adequate circulation for automobiles as well as
pedestrians and bicyclists to create a pedestrian friendly environment.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-1
Month Year
Attachment 6
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
8.104.020 Exemptions From Site Development Review. The permit requirements of this
Ordinance do not apply to the followinq:
A. Decks. Paths and Drivewavs. Decks, platformB, on-site paths, and driveways in
the R-1or R-2 Zoninq Districts or any Planned DE~velopment Zoninq Districts which
allow similar residential uses, are not over 30 ir ches above the walkinq surface.
and are not over any basement or stOry below.
B. Fences. Fences in the R-1 or R-2 Zoninq DistriGts or any Planned Development
Zoninq Districts which allow similar residential USI3S.
C. Irriaation. The installation of irriqation lines.
D. Landscapina. The replacement of landscape species with the same species in
the R-M. Commercial or Industrial Zoninq Districts. or Planned Development
Zoninq Districts that allow multi-familv or non-residential uses shall not require Site
Development Review. All landscape modifications in the R-1 and R-2 Zoninq
Districts. excludinq Heritaqe Trees. are eXt3mpt from review. Landscape
modifications in the Planned Development Zoninq District with sinqle family uses
shall not require review. except where review is required pursuant to Section
8.104.030.A.1.
E. Interior Alterations. Interior alterations that do not result in an increase in the
qross floor area within the structure. a chanqe in ':he permitted use of the structure
or the modification of the existinq confiqurations and uses of each room.
F. Repairs and Maintenance. Ordinary repairs and maintenance are exempt if the
work does not result in any chanqe in the a(lProved land use of the site or
structure. or the addition to, enlarqement or expansion of the structure. and if any
exterior repairs employ the same materials and desiqn as oriqinally used.
G. Retainina Walls. Retaininq walls (retaininq eal1h only) that do not exceed four
feet in heiqht measured from the bottom of the footinq to the top of the wall and
are not required to obtain a qradinq permit.
8.104.030 Projects subject to Site De'.~lopmcnt Re...icw:
A. Addition. An addition to an existing structure, where tho 3ddition inyolves 1,000 gross
square foet or more, loc3ted within 3 C 0, C N, C 1, C ~~, M P, M 1 or M 2 Zoning
District.
B. Agricultural structures. All structures in the Agricultural Zoning District sh311 be subject
to Site Development Review with the exception of 3 sinple f3mily home.
c. Exterior Modification Of Existing Structure. Any extE:rior modific3tion of 3n existing
structure with 3 gross floor 3re3 of 1,000 squ3re f-oet or more loc3ted within 3 C 0, C N,
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-2
Month Year
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
C 1, C 2, M P, M 1 or M 2 Zoning District, including but not limited to, facade renov3tion,
ne'.... 3nd/or 3dditional windO'....s and doors ('Nith frames), and roof or ground mounted
mechanical equipment. This does not include painting, window gl3ss repbcement or
tinting, replacement of sign copy, and similar minor modific3tions.
D. Modification To Site layout. Any modific3tion to site 1.3yout or improvements in a C 0,
C N, C 1, C 2, M P, M 1 or M 2 Zoning District, includin~) but not limited to, parking,
f-oncing, circulation, bndscaping, accessory structures, or trash enclosures.
E. New Construction. Any new construction with a gross floor area of 1,000 square feet or
more located within 3 C 0, C N, C 1, C 2, M P, M 1 or M 2 Zoning District.
F. Planned De':elopments. Pursu3nt to Development PI3ns apprO'.'ed for a PI3nned
Development district.
G. Signage. Pursuant to the Sign Ordinance ,..,here applic:~
H. '.'Vhere Site Development Reyie'..: Is Otherwise Required By This Title. Examples
include farm buildings, signage, enclosed accessory structuros in multi family districts,
security gatos, commercial accessory structures, encroachment of living spaces on Front
Lot Line, tree removal/repbcement, vehicle stacking, non residential p3rking lot, parking
in Front Y3rd Setbacks of a non residenti3110t, and perimeter bndsc3ping.
8.104.030 Waiver. The Community Development Director :>r his/her desiqnee may approve
a Site Development Review Waiver to allow a minor physical chanoe to a site or
structure, with or without a previously approved Site Development Review, or
minor modifications to approved Site DevEllopment Reviews, where the
improvement is Cateoorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act and as specified below.
It is not the intent of this Chapter that a seriBs of Site Development Review
Waivers be used to circumvent the need for a new Site Development Review.
The Community Development Director shall dBtermine if a Site Development
Review Waiver is appropriate for the review of the proposed improvement and
may transfer hearinq iurisdiction of the proiect at any time.
A. Site Development Review Waiver. The followil1o proiects are subiect to a Site
Development Review Waiver:
1. Sinale Familv Residential LandscaPE! Modification. In a Planned
Development Zonino District with residential uses, the removal of a tree
which is part of the streetscape of a development or is required by the
conditions of approval, but which is proposed to be replaced or is proposed
to be replaced with a different species.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-3
Month Year
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
2. Multi-Family. Commercial and Industri;al Improvements. The followinq
improvements in the R-M. Commercial or Industrial Zoninq Districts. or
Planned Development Zoninq 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. Repaintinq of an existinq buildinq with a
color(s) which is different from the existinq or approved color(s).
c. Fences and Walls. The replaceme nt. reconstruction or construction
of fences and walls.
d. Parkina Lot Restripina. The restripinq of a parkinq lot.
e. Roof. A modification to the roof of :I structure. includinq new roofinq
materials. modifications to the parapet or the roof screen or a new
parapet or roof screen. Chanqes to the style or roof type (i.e. qable
to a mansard). are considered to be a facade modification and
require a Site Development Review
f. Minor Landscape Modifications. Minor landscape modifications.
g. Minor Site Layout Modification. A minor modification of the layout
of the site includinq new pavinq areas. sidewalks or other similar
improvements as determined by the Community Development
Director.
h. Window Modifications. Window modifications which include new
and replacement windows, frostinCl. tintinq or the addition of other
materials which may obscure a window as determined by the
Community Development Director.
3. Minor Modifications to Approved Situ Development Review. Minor
modifications to an approved Site Development Review (other than what is
listed in this section). where the modification is in substantial conformance
with the approved Site Development I~eview. is consistent with the
conditions of approval for the Site Development Review. and is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act.
4. Other Improvements. All other improvements determined by the
Community Development Director to be minor in nature and requirinq
review.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-4
Month Year
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
8.104.040 Proiects Subiect to Site Development Review. The followina proiects are
subiect to Site Development Review. When a I)roiect which typically reauires a
Site Development Review Waiver is combined with a proiect subiect to a Site
Development Review. the review and proiect tvpe shall be the hiQhest level. In
accordance with Chapter 8.96. Permit Procedures. the Community Development
Director and the ZoninQ Administrator may refer decision makinQ to the PlanninQ
Commission at any time.
A. Community Development Director. The followina proiects are subiect to a Site
Development Review. and shall be reviewed bv the Community Development
Director or his/her desianee:
1. Maior Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are Qreater than
120 sauare feet in size.
2. Addition. An addition which is less than ~ .000 aross sauare feet in size or
less than 15 percent of the total floor arl3a of the structure (whichever is
Qreater) to an existinQ structure in the R-M. Commercial. or Industrial
ZoninQ Districts. or Planned Development ZoninQ Districts with multi-familv
or non-residential uses.
3. Aaricultural Accessory Structures. All a::!riculture accessory structures.
4. Custom House. A new house in any Residential ZoninQ District or Planned
Development Zonina District with sinQle family residential uses.
5. Flaa Poles. All flaQ poles in any zoninQ district. which are over 35 feet in
heiaht.
6. Maior Landscape Modifications. Maior landscape modifications in the R-
M. Industrial and Commercial ZoninQ Districts and Planned Development
ZoninQ Districts with multi-familv. industrial or commercial uses.
7. Residential Additions. Residential additions which are over 500 sauare
feet in size in the R-1 or R-2 Zonina Distr cts or any Planned Development
Zonina 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
existina exterior walls of the principal structure and the reconstruction.
remodel or construction of a new house in the R-1 or R-2 ZoninQ Districts
or any Planned Development Zonina Districts with residential uses.
9. Security Gates. Security aates and aate house at the proiect entrance(s)
to a residential or office development.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-5
Month Year
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
10. Sianaae. Siqns which require a Site Development Review pursuant to
Chapter 8.84. Siqn Reoulations.
11. Maior Site Lavout Modification. A major modification of the layout of the
site includinq but not limited to a siqni"Ficant increase in pavino areas.
circulation. Iiqht fixtures. parkino or other similar improvements as
determined by the Community Development Director.
12. Wireless Communications Facilities. Subject to the provisions of Chapter
8.92. Wireless Communications Facilities.
13. Minor Facade Modifications. Minor facade modifications in the R-M.
Commercial or Industrial Zoninq Districts. or Planned Development Zoninq
Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses. Minor facade
modifications include. but are not limitE~d to. trellises. arbors. arcades.
buildinq 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. Zonina Administrator. The followinq projects are subiect to a Site Development
Review. and shall be reviewed by the Zoninq Administrator durinq a Public
Hearinq:
1. Exception to Accessory Structure ReQluirements. An exception to the
requirements of Chapter 8.40. Accessory Structures.
2. Front Yard Setback Encroachment for Livina Area. As permitted by
Chapter 8.36. Development Reoulations. an encroachment for livinq area
above the qaraqe or for any structure within the Front Yard Setback area.
3. Heiaht Increase. An increase in the heiqht of the principal structure. as
permitted by the requlations for the A(lricultural. R-1 and R-2 Zoninq
Districts.
C. Plannina Commission. The followinq projects are subiect to a Site Development
Review and shall be reviewed by the Plannillq Commission durino a Public
Hearino:
1. Heiaht Increase for Public and Semi Public Structures. A heiqht
increase for public and semi public principal structures. as permitted by
Chapter 8.36. Development Requlations.
2. Heiaht Increase for Towers and WatE~r Tanks. A heiqht increase for
towers. poles. water tanks and similar str Jctures. as permitted by Chapter
8.36. Development Requlations.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-6
Month Year
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
3. Multi-Family. Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The followinQ
improvements in the R-M. Commercial or Industrial Zoninq Districts. or
Planned Development Zoninq Districts with multi-familv or non-residential
uses:
a. Additions. Additions which are 1.000 Qross square feet or more. or
Qreater than 15 percent of the floor area of the structure.
b. Maior Facade Modifications. Maior facade modifications include
proiects where the character or desiqn of the buildinq will
siqnificantlv chanQe as determined bv the Community Development
Director.
4. New Principal Structures. All new principal structures. includinQ principal
structures in a Planned Development ZoninQ District. and any structure
which is to be demolished and reconstruct'3d.
D. Historic Overlay Zonina District. All improvements within the Historic Overlav
ZoninQ District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subiect to Chapter 8.62.
Historic Overlav Zoninq District.
E. Scarlett Court Overlay Zonina District. All improvements within the Scarlett
Court Overlav ZoninQ District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subiect to
Chapter 8.34. Scarlett Court Overlav ZoninQ District.
F. All Other Improvements. All other improvements to structures or a site. which
are not otherwise mentioned in this ChaptE!r, shall be subiect to a Site
Development Review Waiver or Site Development Review. as determined bv the
Community Development Director.
8.104.04~0 Application. The Applicant shall submit a c:>mplete 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 Director.
8.104.060 Notice Of Decision. ^ Notice of Decision shall be given consistent with Chapter
8.132, Notice ~:md He3rings. No public hearing if: required for 3 Site Development
Review unless the applic3tion is being considered concurrently with another
permit requiring 3 public hearing. Action. The decision maker for Site
Development Reviews shall be the Community Development Director (or his/her
desiQnee). the Zoninq Administrator (or his/her desiQnee) or the PlanninQ
Commission as set forth in this Chapter. Thl3 decision maker may approve.
conditionallv approve. or deny a Site Development Review based on the required
findinQs in Section 8.104.090.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-7
Month Year
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
8.104.06IO Concurrent Consideration. When a Site Development Review is required for a
project which is also subject to a Conditional USl3 Permit and/or Variance, it shall
be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the same decision-maker or
body for those actions durinQ the same public hearinq.
8.104.080 Notice Of Decision, Public Hearing. The fol owinq notice requirements shall
apply to decision makers for Site Development Rl3view:
A. Notice of Decision. The Community Development Director shall provide notice
that a Site Development Review decision is beinq considered. consistent with the
Notice of Decision provisions of Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearinqs.
B. Public Hearing. A public hearinq is required for decisions by the Zoninq
Administrator or PlanninQ Commission, with notice provided consistent with the
provisions of Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearinqs.:.
C. Notice for Concurrent Processing. Where a Site Development Review is beinq
considered concurrently with another permit reQuirinq a public hearinq, the notice
and public hearinq requirements of the other permit shall apply.
8.104.0+100 Required Findings. All of the following findin!Js shall all be made in order to
approve a Site Development Review and shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the public record:
A. Approval of this application is consistent with the purpose and intent of this
Chapter. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the
General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and desiqn Quidelines.
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 ,..:ith all other
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the
provisions of Title 8, Zoninq Ordinance.
C. The approval will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare. The desiqn of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity,
surroundinq properties and the lot in which the project is proposed.
D. The approved site development, including site layout, structures, vehicular access,
circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements,
has been designed to provide a desirable envirc nment for the development. The
subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-8
Month Year
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
8.104.080
8.104.090
E.
The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development. Impacts to existinq slopes and topcqraphic features are addressed.
F.
Impacts to views are addressed. Architectural considerations includinq the
character. scale and qualitv of the desiqn, site lavout, the architectural relationship
with the site and other buildinqs, screeninq of unsiqhtlv uses. liqhtinq, buildinq
materials and colors and similar elements result in a proiect that is harmonious
with its surroundinqs and compatible with other development in the vicinity.
G.
Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed. Landscape
considerations, includinq the location, type, SiZE, color. texture and coveraqe of
plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the proiect to
ensure visual relief, adequate screeninq and an attractive environment for the
public.
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! character of ad:iacent buildings,
neighborhoods, and uses. The site has been adequatelv desiqned to ensure
proper circulation for bicvclists, pedestrians and clutomobiles.
I.
Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, provisions and simila r elements have been
considered to ensure visual relief and an attractive environment for the public.
J.
The approval of the Site Development Review is consistent 'Nith the Dublin
General Plan and with any applicable Specific Pklf\&;-
K.
Approval of this application complies with Chaptor 8.58 relating to the Public ART
Program Contributi(ffi;-
l\etioB. The decision maker f{)r Site Deyelopment Re"liews shall be the Director of
Community Development (and his/her designee). The Director ofComnuH1ity
De'lelopment may, based on eyidence in the public record, and the findings above, make an
administrative decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Site Development
Revie'l: .
Amendment. The process for amending a Site Development Review shall be the same as
the process for approving a Site Development Review except that the decision-maker for
such Site Development Review shall be the same decision-maker that ultimately approved
the Site Development Review including approval on aJpeal. The Community
Development Director or his/her designee may grant a Site Development Review Waiver
104-9
Month Year
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
for applications approved by another decision maker o~ body upon the determination that
the modification is a minor project and in accordance "lith Section 8.104.100, Wai'Ier.
8.104.100 Waiver. The Community Development Director or hi.;/her designee may allo....: a minor
physical change to an approved Site Development Revie....: as a Waiver upon determining
that a Site Deyelopmcnt Re':iew Waiver is in substantial conf-ormance with the Site
Development Review is a minor project, is Categorically Exempt from the Calif-ornia
Environmental Quality .^.ct, and is consisteflt with the conditions of approval for the Site
Development Review. It is not the intent of this Chapter that a series of Site De'lelopment
Review '}faiyers be 1:1:;ed to circumvent the need for a Hew Site Development RevievI.
8.104.110 Cuidelines. Site Development Review Guidelines adopted by the City Cooocil on May
11, 1992 shall be 1:1Ged to gaide the revi0'lI of Site Development Review applications.
8.104.120 Building Permits. Building Permits shall not be issued except in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the Site Deyelopment Review appr-oval.
8.104.110 Construction Permits. Buildinq and Gradino Permits shall not be issued except
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Site Development Review
approval.
8.104.120 Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, shall
apply except as otherwise provided in this ChaptElr.
8.104.130 Desian Guidelines. Anv desion ouidelines whiGh are approved for a particular
site or area shall applv to all Site Development Review Waivers and Site
Development Review applications for that site or 3rea.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104.10
Month Year