HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Zone Ord Site Dev Review
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION: 1)
2)
/P~~~
\ 5)
\~
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
CITY CLERK
File # D~[l]~-[ID[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 17,2008
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)
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.
October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
attachments) ;
Minutes from the October 9, 2008 Planning Commission Study
Session;
May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
attachments);
Minutes from the May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Study
Session;
June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
attachments);
Draft Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Planning Commission
Meeting;
Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (as proposed); and
Chapter 8.104 showing modifications to text in strikethrough (text to
be removed) and underline (text to be added).
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
6)
Receive the Staff presentation;
Open Public Hearing;
Take testimony from the Public;
Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
Waive reading and introduce 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; and
Direct Staff regarding the application fee for residential
improvements.
For most modifications, there will be an insignificant financial
impact to the City. Costs associated with processing these
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
File
ITEM NO.
" ./
Page 1 of9
GlZoning OrdlSDR Update 20071CC Agenda Statement 6-17-08.doc
f)
improvements will be bourn by the Applicant as currently required
for Site Development Review (time and materials). However, Staff
is recommending that the processing costs associated with the
review of residential additions over 500 square feet and the
demolition and reconstruction of residential homes be a flat fee of
$500.00. Because this fee is based on an average of Staffs time to
process the improvement, there could be a slight subsidy necessary
from the General Fund for any additional time above and beyond the
anticipated four hours of Staff review time.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, as a high priority goal for Fiscal Year 2007/2008, requested that Staff and the Planning
Commission review Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (SDR), of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and
determine if any changes should be made to increase the effectiveness ofthe Chapter. The review ofthe SDR
Chapter is separate from the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance.
History
Prior to 1997, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance was similar to what was in effect when the City was a part of
Alameda County.
In 1997, the City adopted an updated and amended Zoning Ordinance. The current version of the Site
Development Review Chapter was adopted as a part of the 1997 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 District.
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 construction have also occurred in the western portion of Dublin due to the
age of the structures.
Planning Commission Review
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 2. During this
meeting, the Planning Commission discussed recommended changes to the SDR Chapter and additional
changes were requested by the Planning Commission as shown in Attachment 3 (minutes of the October
9,2008 meeting). A draft Ordinance was not presented at this meeting.
May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session
The Planning Commission reviewed a draft Chapter during a Study Session on May 27, 2008. For
background information on the changes made to the Chapter, please refer to the Study Session Agenda
Statement included as Attachment 4. The Planning Commission did not request any modifications to the
draft Chapter during this Study Session.
Page 2 of9
June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing
On June 10, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that 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.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed changes to the SDR Chapter are described in detail below. General changes include
correcting the text for clarity and relocating information within the Chapter which are not discussed in this
Agenda Statement.
Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review
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 Site Development Review, which are currently located in other Chapters of the Zoning
Ordinance, have been moved to the Site Development Review Chapter, as well as direction provided from
the Planning Commission on regulations have also been included in the Site Development Review
Chapter.
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. 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.
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 ensure a pedestrian friendly environment.
Proiects Exempt from Site Development Review (Section 8.104.020)
This section has been moved from its previous location in Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority.
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 located in one location for clarity.
Site Development Review Waiver (Section 8.104.030)
This section has been slightly modified to allow Staff to issue a Site Development Review Waiver for any
of the following improvements, regardless of whether or not a Site Development Review was approved by
the City for the site previously.
The following activities are proposed to be subject to Site Development Review Waiver:
· Minor Landscape Modifications;
· Minor modifications to an approved Site Development Review;
Page 3 of9
· 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 modifications in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development
Zoning Districts including tinting, frosting, window and door replacements, new windows or
doors.
While most of the above listed improvements currently require review, many of these types of
improvements are not clearly identified in the SDR Chapter. Site Development Review Waivers typically
only take one to three days (depending on the scope) to process. These projects tend to be non-
controversial and no conditions of approval are added to the project. If at any point during the review of a
proposed project Staff determines that additional review or conditions of approval 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 activities are proposed to require review under the Site Development Review process.
These types of projects include:
· Minor landscape modifications in the R-M, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts;
· Color modifications in the R-M, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts; and
. Window modifications.
As proposed, minor landscape modifications in the R-M, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts will
require review by Staff through a Site Development Review Waiver. Currently, the Chapter does not
require review of landscape modifications at a property. In Chapter 8.76, 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 zoned properties, Staff will be able to
ensure that adequate landscaping is provided throughout the City as well as ensuring that the proposed
changes are compatible with the site as well as the vicinity of the project site.
Color modifications of structures without an approved Site Development Review do not currently require
review. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission during the Study Session, all color changes to
buildings in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts will be
reviewed by Staff to ensure compatibility with the colors in the neighborhood and with the specific plan
(if applicable).
Page 4 of9
Currently, only new windows and doors in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned
Development Zoning Districts require review. Tinting and replacement of window glass is currently
exempt from review. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission during the Study Session, Staffis
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.
Community Development Director Review (Section 8.1 04.040.A)
The following projects will require review by the Community Development Director or his/her designee
(the improvements noted in italics are projects that do not currently require a Site Development Review):
· 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 reconstruction;
. Security gates;
. Wireless Communication Facilities; and
. Minor fa<;ade modifications.
Residential Improvements
Currently, individual residential improvements do not require a Site Development Review. Additionally,
residential additions, the demolition and reconstruction of all or part of a house, and the construction of
custom homes do not require Site Development Review. During the Study Session, the Planning
Commission discussed whether or not these types of activities should be reviewed as a part of the Site
Development Review Chapter. At the Study Session, after considerable discussion, 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.
Residential Demolition and Reconstruction
Additionally, the Planning Commission discussed whether or not to require review of the demolition and
reconstruction of residential houses. Staff researched several cities in the vicinity to determine their
definition of a demolition. Staff found that most cities define a demolition as the removal of 50 percent or
more of the exterior walls of a structure. As proposed, a demolition of 50 percent of the exterior walls and
remodel or construction of a residential dwelling would require a Site Development Review.
Custom Single Family Home
A new custom single-family home is also proposed to require a Site Development Review. Currently, the
Zoning Ordinance does not require a Site Development Review for the construction of an individual
custom home. Review of these projects will allow the City to ensure that the proposal will be compatible
with the neighborhood in which it is located. As proposed, the Zoning Ordinance allows the Community
Page 5 of9
Development Director to transfer hearing jurisdiction of these projects to the Planning Commission if the
Community Development Director determines that the circumstances of the project warrants it.
Proposed additions over 500 square feet in size, a residential tear down (of more than 50% of the house
and reconstruction) and new custom single family homes will now require that all property
owners/neighbors within 300 feet of the property will be notified of the proposed project prior to a
decision by the Community Development Director.
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. If a 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 a concerned party, 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 neighbors. Based on historical building
permits issued over the past several years, Staff has determined that there are 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) that may be subject to these regulations 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 a greater number of appeals due to greater community
involvement, which requires additional review by Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council
(please refer to page 8 for more discussion on fees).
Major landscape modifications in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and Planned Development Zoning
Districts with similar uses are also proposed to require a Site Development Review. By requiring a permit
for these types of activities, the Planning Commission will be able to ensure that landscape modifications
are compatible with the neighborhood and the project site.
Fa9ade Remodel
Minor fa<;ade remodels which do not significantly alter the character of a structure in the R-M,
Commercial, Industrial or similar Planned Development will require a Site Development Review which
will be reviewed by the Community Development Director. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows the
Community Development Director to review all fa<;ade remodels. Staff is recommending that fa<;ade
remodels be categorized as either major or minor. Major fa<;ade remodels will continue to be reviewed by
the Planning Commission.
Zoning Administrator Review (Section 8.1 04.040.B)
The following projects require review by the Zoning Administrator:
Page 6 of9
. Exception to accessory structure requirements;
. Front Yard setback encroachment for living area; and
. Height increase for principal structures in the Agriculture, R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts.
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-1 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 more consistent with the proposed review of custom single
family homes, additions and the demolition and reconstruction of single family homes and allow for a
public hearing, Staff is recommending that the reviewing body for a residential dwelling height increase
be transferred to the Zoning Administrator.
Planning Commission Review (Section 8.1 04.040.C)
The following projects will require review by the Planning Commission:
. Additions which are larger than 1,000 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 structures; 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. Staff has determined that a Site Development
Review is a more appropriate method of review because these types of activities are related to design.
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 findings clearly address
design and aesthetics for projects.
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.
Other Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance
In order to ensure consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance, various Chapters are required to be
amended in order to implement some of the changes proposed in Chapter 8.104, Site Development
Review. The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance are discussed in detail 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 activities that are appropriate to retain in
Section 8.04.070 - Exemptions from Permit Requirements including (Film and Theater Productions;
Page 7 of9
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 of the SDR Chapter as exempted activities.
Interior residential alterations and additions which are less than 500 square feet will continue to be exempt
from Site Development Review. Residential additions over 500 square feet, custom homes and the
demolition of and reconstruction of single family homes are proposed to require Site Development
Review as discussed above.
The proposed amendments are shown on Page 2-3 of Attachment 1.
Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations
This Chapter has been modified to change the level of review for residential house height exceptions
(Section 8.36.020.A) from requiring Planning Commission Review to requiring review by the Zoning
Administrator. The permit requirement for a reduced font yard setback, in the residential zoning districts
(Section 8.36.050.A.2.c.3) and for a height exception for freestanding structures (8.36.11O.C.3.b) has been
changed from a Conditional Use Permit to a Site Development Review, which is the more appropriate
type of review for this type of improvement.
Per the Planning Commission direction, the review of a residential house 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 proposed 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.
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.
Residential Permit Fee (500 square foot addition and demolition and reconstruction)
As proposed, this Chapter will now require homeowners to obtain Site Development Review approval
prior to constructing a residential addition over 500 square feet in size and for the demolition and
reconstruction of a home. Typically, Staff charges time spent on these applications on a time and materials
basis which can amount to a large sum of money. Time and materials include all Staff time associated
with a project application. For these two types of activities, the City would not want to discourage
Page 80f9
homeowners from improving their property due to a high permit cost. However, the City does not want to
fully subsidize the permit fee for these improvements because the City currently requires full cost
recovery for most permits. The City does currently subsidize the fee for large family daycares (the
application fee is $100) in order to encourage these types of facilities and the City charges a flat fee for
residential Conditional Use Permits.
Staff estimates that it would take approximately four hours to process a Site Development Review for
these types of improvements. Based on the City's fee schedule, the City currently charges approximately
$125.00 per hour for Planning staff time. This would result in a fee of $500.00. Staff acknowledges that
some permits may take longer to process, however in order to encourage homeowners to continue to
improve their property, Staff is recommending a flat fee of $500.00 for the Site Development Review for
a 500 square foot (or more) residential addition and the demolition and reconstruction of a residential
home.
If the City Council concurs with the recommended method for a flat fee for these two improvements, Staff
will include the flat fee in the upcoming Development Fee Schedule Update.
CONCLUSION:
A number of modifications are proposed to the existing Site Development Review Chapter that will
improve the clarity of the Chapter, ensure its effectiveness and ensure that the SDR Chapter is consistent
with current practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) receive the Staff presentation; 2) open Public Hearing; 3) take
testimony from the Public; 4). close Public Hearing and deliberate; 5) waive reading and introduce 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; and 6) direct Staff regarding the application fee for residential improvements.
Page 9 of9
la174
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 Fiscal 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- 10 recommending that the City Council approve
modifications to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance)ofthe Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 17,2008;
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 of the 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 independent 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 1560l(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 sets 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
1J~:il (;,./ b Inlo€
ATTACHMENT 1
c:? ~ Iq
developed. This ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change
in the environment, directly or ultimately.
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 structures, which are allowed in all
zoning districts:
A. Deeks, paths and driveways. Decks, platf{)rms, on site paths, and driveways that are not required
to have building or grading permits by the Municipal Code, are not over 30 inches above the
\.valking surface, and not over any basement or story belov/.
BA. Film and theater productions. Structures and related development required for temporary
motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery, and still photographic sessions,
provided that the development does not require alterations of the natural environment, i.e.,
removal of vegetation, grading or earthwork.
(;B. Governmental activities. Activities of the City, State or an agency of the State, or Federal
Government on leased or federally owned land.
D. Irrigation. The installation of irrigation lines.
E. Remodeling:
1. Interior ehanges. Intcrior alterations that do not result in an increase in the number of
rooms or the gross floor area within the structure, or a change in the pcrmitted usc ofthc
structure.
2. Single Family and two family dwellings. The remodeling of single family and two
family d\vellings, providcd that thc proposed rcmodcling is in compliancc with all
applicable regulations of this Ordinance.
c. Retaining walls. Rctaining walls (rctaining earth only) that are not over f{)ur feet in height
measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall and are not requircd to havc a
grading permit.
He. School facilities. Certain school facilities as provided by Government Code Sections 53091 et.
Page 2 of 15
6 ;sf 74
seq.
ID. Solar collectors. The addition of solar collection systems to the 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 not including structures, shall be
permitted in any zoning district, provided that the route of any electrical transmission line(s)
having the potential of 50,000 volts or more shall be subject to City Council review and approval
prior to acquisition of rights-of-way.
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 strikethrough 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 as 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 100 feet 100 feet 100 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. I 20 ft. avg. 18 ft. 20 ft.
Page 3 of 15
18 ft minimum to . .
mmlmum
garage (1)
Side 30 feet (2) 10 feet 10 feet (3)
Street Side 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Rear 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet
If ~'74
(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 1 0 feet 20 feet 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 requirements 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 ofthis 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 ofthe lot
measured perpendicularly between the edge of the pavement or traveled way and
the proposed building, the Front Setback may be reduced by no more than 50
Page 4 of 15
~q)J7Lf
percent of the amount required for other lots in the same zoning district. Any
structure placed at the reduced setback shall satisfy the requirements of subsection
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 adj acent 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 Setback 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 institutions 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 that 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 Height
Increase
Page 5 of 15
15 percent 5 feet
22.5 percent 10 feet
30 percent or more 15 feet
~~74
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 above 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 increased 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 COrllmunication Facilities Regulations, 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 Structures
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 Usc Pcrmit Site
Development Review approval by the Zoning Administrator.
F. Permitted Residential Accessory Structures.
Page 6 of 15
SECTION 5.
1 :f7~
1. General Requirements.
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 Conditional 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
8.104.010
H.
8.104.020
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
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 neighborhoods 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.
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 permit requirements ofthis Ordinance
do not apply to the following:
Page 7 of 15
8.104.030
A.
g ''"1 I L1
Decks, Paths and Driveways. Decks, platforms, on-site paths, and driveways in the R-1or
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.
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. All landscape modifications in the R-1 and R-2
Zoning Districts, excluding Heritage Trees, are exempt from review. Landscape
modifications in Planned Developments with single family uses shall not require review,
except where review is required pursuant to Section 8.1 04.030.A.1.
E.
Interior Alterations. 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 maintenance, if the work does not result
in any change in the approved land use of the site or structure, or the addition to,
enlargement or expansion of the structure, and if any exterior repairs employ the same
materials and design as originally used.
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 below.
It is not the intent of this Chapter that a series of Site Development Review Waivers be
used to circumvent the need for a new Site Development Review.
The Community Development Director shall determine if a Site Development Review
Waiver is appropriate for the review of the proposed improvement and may transfer
hearing jurisdiction of the project at any time.
A. Site Development Review Waiver. The 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
Page 8 of 15
8.104.040
q 1r 14
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.
2. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The following
improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned
Development Zoning Districts with multi-family, commercial or industrial uses.
a. Minor Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are less than or
equal to 120 square feet in size.
b. Color Modifications. Repainting of an existing building with a color(s)
which is different from the existing or approved 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 roof type (i.e. gable to a mansard, are
considered to be a fa<;ade modification and require a Site Development
Review).
f. Minor Landscape Modifications. Minor landscape modifications in the R-
M, Industrial and Commercial Zoning Districts and Planned Developments
with multi-family, 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 Development 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 following projects are subject to Site
Development Review. When a project which typically requires a Site Development Review
Page 9 of 15
) 0 ('1 7Lt
Waiver is combined with a project subject to a Site Development Review, the review and
project type shall be the highest level. In accordance with Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures,
the Community Development Director and the Zoning Administrator may refer decision
making to the Planning Commission at any time.
A. Community Development Director. The following projects are subject to a Site
Development Review, and shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director or
his/her designee:
1. Major Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are greater than 120
square feet in size.
2. Addition. An addition which is less than 1,000 gross square feet in size or less than
15 percent of the total floor area of the structure (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 agriculture accessory structures.
4. Custom House. A new house in any Residential Zoning District or Planned
Development Zoning District with single family residential uses.
5. Flag Poles. All flag poles in any zoning district, which are over 35 feet in height.
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 residential uses.
9. Security Gates. Security gates and gate houses at project entrance(s) to a
residential or office development.
10. Sign age. 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.
Page 10 of 15
II O;f 74
12. Wireless Communications Facilities. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.92,
Wireless Communications Facilities.
13. Minor Fal;ade Modifications. Minor fa<;ade modifications in the R-M,
Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning
Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses. Minor fa<;ade modifications
include, but are not limited to, trellises, arbors, arcades, building materials,
architectural details, a combination of improvements which would typically require
a Site Development Review Waiver if constructed separately, or any other
improvements determined to be minor by the Community Development Director.
B. Zoning Administrator. The following projects are subject to a Site Development Review,
and shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator during a Public Hearing:
1. Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements. An exception to the
requirements of Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures.
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-l 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 structures, as permitted by Chapter 8.36,
Development Regulations.
2. Height Increase for Towers and Water Tanks. A height increase for towers,
poles, water tanks and similar structures, as permitted by Chapter 8.36,
Development Regulations.
3. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The following
improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned
Development Zoning Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses:
a. Additions. Additions which are 1,000 gross square feet or more, or greater
than 15 percent of the floor area of the structure.
b. Major Fal;ade Modifications. Major fa<;ade modifications include projects
where the character or design of the building will significantly change as
determined by the Community Development Director.
Page 11 of 15
8.104.050
8.104.060
8.104.070
8.104.080
B.
8.104.090
~~ 74
t I
4. New Principal Structures. All new principal structures, including principal
structures in a Planned Development, and any structure which is to be demolished
and reconstructed.
D.
Historic Overlay Zoning District. All improvements within the Historic Overlay Zoning
District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.62, Historic Overlay
Zoning District.
E.
Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. All improvements within the Scarlett Court
Overlay Zoning District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.34,
Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District.
F.
All Other Improvements. All other improvements to structures or a site, which are not
otherwise mentioned in this Chapter, shall be subject to a Site Development Review
Waiver or Site 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, accompanied 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 hislher 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.
Concurrent Consideration. When a Site Development Review is required for a project
which is also subject to a Conditional Use Permit and/or Variance, it shall be approved,
conditionally approved, or denied by the same decision-maker or body for those actions
during the same public hearing.
Notice Of Decision, Public Hearing. The following 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.
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 of the other permit shall apply.
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
Page 12 of 15
8.104.100
8.104.110
8.104.120
8.104.130
SECTION 6.
13 t~f 7~
I~ '
ultimately approved the Site Development Review including approval on appeal. The
Community Development Director or his/her designee may grant a Site Development
Review Waiver for applications approved by another decision-maker or body upon the
determination that the modification is a minor project and in accordance with Section
8.104.030, Waiver.
Required Findings. All of the following findings shall all be made in order to approve a
Site Development Review and shall be supported by substantial evidence in the public
record:
A.
The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General Plan and
with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines.
B.
The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance.
c.
The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the 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.
D.
E.
Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed.
F.
Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site
layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in
the vicinity.
G.
Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of
plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure
visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public.
H.
The site has been adequately designed to 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 of the Site Development Review approval.
Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, shall apply
except as otherwise provided in this Chapter.
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
Page 13 of 15
/tloe74
/4
unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions
hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
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 shall 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 take effect and be in force thirty (30)
days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the 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 1 ih day of June, 2008, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Page 14 of 15
15 gf14
AGENDA STATEl\1ENT ~.
PLANNING COMI\HSSION STUDY SESSIO~ DATE: October 9. 2007
SUBJECT:
STUDY SESSION: ZOA 07-002 - Chapter 8.104, Site Development
Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Chapter 8.104
2) Review Required in Selected Cities (Table)
RECOMMEN~t\~: )Receive presentation and provide comments.
PROJECT DEst~\;;N:
The City Council, as a high priority goal for Fiscal Year 200712008, 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 Commis'sion during a Study Session in a few months. The Site Development
Review Chapter, however, has been pulled out of the comprehensive: review, so that if necessary, changes can
be made more quickly to this Chapter. Adoption of the complete comprehensive update is not anticipated to
occur for at least one year.
In order to begin the review of this Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff has scheduled this Study Session so
that Staff and the Planning Commission can discuss the existing Ch:tpter. 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 lzrgely adopted in 1997 as part of the
comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update. Minor changes have b(~en made to the Site Development
Review Chapter since 1997; these changes were made to require review of projects in the Historic
Overlay Zoning District and the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning Distrid.
Since the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1997, the City has undergone some dramatic
changes. In the last ten years, much of the eastern portion of Dublin has been developed and a significant
number ofremodels and new constmction have also occurred in the western portion of Dublin due to the
age of the structures.
COPIES TO: File
Page I of7
G:\Zoninl! OrdlSDR Uodate 2007\PCSR Study Session 1O-9-07.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
ANAL YSIS:
10~Y4
A Site Development Review permit in the City of Dublin is required for the following:
. All projects within the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District;
. All projects within the Historic District Overlay Zoning District;
. Additions or new construction of more than 1,000 square feet ill the commercial or
industrial zoning distJicts;
. Agricultural accessory structures;
. Exterior modifications to existing structures or modifications to site layout ill the
commercial or industrial zoning districts;
. Height exceptions for single family residences west of Dougherty Road;
. Planned Development Permits; and
. Signage.
Site Development Review Required
As noted above, the Zoning Ordinance specifies improvements which require a Site Development Review.
This allows the City to review the project and determine if the proposed project complies with the required
Site Development Review findings which can be found in Section 8.lO4.070 of the Zoning Ordinance and
included as Attachment 1.
The SDR Chapter is ambiguous on who may review a Site Development Review. In the past, Staff has
reviewed fa9ade remodels (such as the Shamrock Village fa9ade remodel) while major projects (such as
new construction) are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ove:1ime, the Planning Commission has
begun reviewing all fa9ade remodels (such as Pool, Patio and More). Although the Chapter only requires
review be conducted for certain projects, Staff has required approval of a Site Development Review
Waiver or Site Development Review for almost all exterior proj ~cts to ensure consistency with the
existing development.
Site Development Review Waiver
Section 8.104.100 allows Staff to issue a Site Development Review Waiver for minor projects. The
Zoning Ordinance does not specify what types of projects are considered to be minor, however, Staffhas
used the Waiver to review minor improvements on non-residential buildings such as door and window
modifications, addition of a trellis, access ramps, trash enclosures and minor changes to approved projects.
The Site Development Review Waiver process allows Staff to review minor exterior improvements with
an expedited review (typically over the counter or up to a few days~ and for a flat fee (the current fee is
$250). The use of Waivers is beneficial to both Staff and the Applic ant because it allows Staff to ensure
that the proposed project is compatible with the site, impose conditlons where necessary and allows the
Applicant a quick review period with a flat fee which ensures that the review will not have a negative
financial burden on the Applicant. Stafftypically issues approximately 250 SDR Waivers per year.
Improvements Exempt from Review
As discussed above, there are several types of exterior improvements which require review by the City.
The Code, however, exempts review of the following:
. Improvements or additions on buildings which are less than 1,000 square feet in size;
· Minor exterior changes such as color changes, architectural fi~atures or other minor improvements
where a Site Development Review has not been approved;
Page 2of7
. Residential exterior improvements (single family and attached); and
. Landscape Modifications.
110j 14
Review Required in Other Cities
Staff reviewed a variety of other cities in the area to determine what types of projects require review and
also which projects require staff level approval or Planning Commi~:sion approval. A table listing Staffs
findings is included as Attachment 2.
As shown in the Attached table, most cities require review of all 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 fayade remodels and minor additions on non-
residential buildings and residential additions. By allowing Staff to review these types of permits, it cuts
down on Staff time required to review a project and expedites revieul for the Applicant as well as lowers
the Applicant's costs.
Recommended Staff Changes
Staff recommends that at a minimum, the following changes be made to the Site Development Review
Chapter to clarify the SDR Chapter, provide consistency on what is reviewed and to require review of
additional projects to ensure consistency with the existing development as well as the neighborhood in
which it is located.
Requested Change Description of Current Benefit/Impact of Change
StandardIRequirement
General (Applies Citywide)
Clarify Reviewing Body. Does not state which body (Staff, Benefit. By clarifying the reviewing
Community Development t.ody it will allow Staff and the
Director or Planning Applicant to clearly identify who is
Commission) IS required to required to review each type of project.
review each type of project which
has led to some confusion.
Remove Zoning Districts. SDR Chapter states that review is Benefit. Provides better clarity. Also
Staff recommends the Chapter required for certain zomng enforces the fact that the City will be
be changed to state Residential districts, does not include Planned review exterior modifications in the
and Non-Residential. Developments Zoning Districts. Planned Development Zoning
Districts.
Clarify Proj ects that can be Allows a Site Development Benefit. By clarifying what types of
reviewed with a Site Review Waiver to be issued for I'rojects can be reviewed with a Site
Development Review Waiver. "minor projects" although does I)evelopment Review Waiver, it
not clearly state what types of allows the City and the Applicant to
projects are considered minor. determine the type of review required.
Residential
Require a Site Development No planning review is currently Benefit. These types of projects tend to
Review for Single Family Tear required. Allows Applicant to be large III scope and can impact
Down and Rebuild (or Custom obtain a Building Permit only. adjacent properties. In order to ensure
Home) which will be reviewed that the new house will fit in with the
by the Community neighborhood and not create any
Development Director. negative impacts on the adjacent
properties, Staff recommends that
Page 3 of7
Requested Change
Non-Residential
Require all Additions and
Exterior Modifications on
Non-Residential Buildings to
be Reviewed.
Require a Site Development
Review Waiver to be issued
for specified Minor Projects.
Minor Projects would include
color change, fencing, door
and window changes,
awmngs, mmor changes to
approved plans, roof screens,
trellises and similar
improvements.
Description of Current
Standard/Requirement
Requires review of additions or
building modifications which are
on a building which is greater
than 1,000 square feet.
Chapter is ambiguous on what
qualifies as a mmor change.
Currently, the Site Development
Review Waiver IS used for
awmngs, door and window
changes and mmor changes to
approved plans.
Page 4 0[7
Benefit/Impact of Change
~ ff74-
tlese types of projects require a Site
Development Review and review by
t le Community Development Director.
Potential Negative Impact. This will
hcrease the overall cost of permitting
br the homeowner due to an increase
i 1 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
hcrease in overall processing time for
rrojects as well as resulting m a
reduction in the amount of time Staff
l: as available to work on long-range
r lanning.
Benefit. Require all modifications to be
reviewed which is currently practiced
l: y the City at this time. Staff
recommends however, that mmor
additions and fayade improvements be
reviewed by the Community
Development Director (under 500
square feet).
Benefit. Clearly states which projects
can be reviewed with a Site
Development Review Waiver which
aids Staff and Applicants in clearly
defining the type of permit that is
required. Additionally, by allowing
5 taff to Issue a Site Development
Review Waiver, which IS typically
completed in 1 to 3 days, this will not
impact construction timelines. The
application fee for Waivers is a flat fee
which will not have significant
[nancial impacts on the Applicant.
Requested Change
Require Review of All
Exterior Changes to Non-
Residential Building
Require a Site Development
Review for Major Landscape
Modifications and a Site
Development Review Waiver,
to be reviewed by the
Community Development
Director, for minor landscape
improvements such as the
removal of five or fewer plant
species on all properties
excluding single family
residences.
Potential Impacts
Description of Current
Standard/Re uirement
SDR Chapter only reqUIres
review of specific items.
Improvements such as fencing or
color changes, for example, are
not included in the list of items
that require review.
Currently, the Chapter does not
require review of landscape
modifications at a property. In
some cases, Staff has recently
required that a permit be
obtained; however, because the
Chapter does not require a permit,
this has been inconsistently
applied. There is a reference
requiring a Site Development
Review in Chapter 8.76 when a
majority of the trees on site are
removed, however majority is not
defined.
74
Benefit/Impact of Change
Benefit. Allows the City to review all
exterior changes. By allowing these
minor improvements to be reviewed by
Staff with a Site Development Review
Waiver it will not impact construction
timelines or create a financial hardship
jor Applicants but at the same time
will ensure consistency of change with
the existing buildin .
Benefit. Allows the City to review
landscape changes to all non-
residential projects which can result in
L significant impact if too many plant
~pecies are removed or changed.
Potential Negative Impact. Increases
review time for Applicants who are not
llsed to applying for a permit for these
types of changes. Review by the
Community Development Director will
bwer review time, over what would be
required by the Planning Commission.
As discussed on pages 3-6 of this Agenda Statement, there are both ['ositive and negative impacts that can
occur as a result of increasing the number of projects that require a Site Development Review or Site
Development Review Waiver as well as requiring more projects to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The following is a summary of some of the positive and negative impacts resulting from
Staffs proposed changes.
Potential Benefits
By modifying the Zoning Ordinance to clarify what body is required to review each type of project and
clearly state when review is required, Staff will be able to consistently require permits and identify when
review by Staff or the Planning Commission is required.
Additionally, by allowing Staff to review minor improvements, Staff will be able to efficiently process
permits which will save the Applicant time and money. Applicant~; have recently expressed frustration
with the requirements to bring most projects to the Planning Commi1;sion, which has led some Applicants
to withdraw their requests and as a result, some of the older buildings in town have not been improved. By
determining which projects are appropriate to be reviewed at a Staff level, the City could see an increased
investment in older buildings in the community.
Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance does allow the Community Development Director to refer decision
making authority to the Planning Commission at any time. In the past, this type of referral has done this
when there is a Site Development Review that is controversial.
Page 5 of7
Potential Negative Impacts
C b. . . fi dd" I f :l 0 0;, 7 r;
Staff has also requested that the hapter e revIsed to reqmre permlt~ or a ItIona types 0 proJects. '
By requiring additional projects to require a permit, the City could lace the potential for property owners
to decide not to improve their property so that they do not have to fO through the expense of obtaining a
Site Development Review. Additionally, by requiring more projects to be reviewed at the Planning
Commission level, the City also faces the potential that property owners or tenants may not want to have
to spend additional money or time on projects requiring Planning Commission review. Property owners
and tenants are typically more concerned with Planning Commission reviewed projects because there is no
guarantee that even if Staff recommends approval of their project, that their project will be approved.
Additionally, any additional time required for review of their project can mean that the opening of their
business will be delayed which will increase their expenses.
The current SDR Chapter was crafted to allow Staff to make decisioLs regarding exterior improvements in
order to speed up the entitlement process to encourage commercial growth and improvements in the City.
By allowing Staff to render decisions on more projects, the entitlement process is faster. Planning
Commission review requires the preparation of Staff Reports, review of Staff Reports by the City
Attorney, noticing and a hearing. All of these items can increase the number of hours spent on a project
by. By requiring Planning Commission review of more projects, this increases the processing time for
projects which significantly impacts Staff time as well as creating an additional burden on Applicants due
to an increase in time as well as permitting costs.
Any modifications that increase the number of improvements that re~uire review by Staff or the Planning
Commission will increase the current Staff workload. By increasing the number of projects Staffreviews,
it will result in an increase in the total processing time for projects (due to an increase in the number of
projects each Staff member is working on). Long range projects (such as specific plans) will also take
longer to complete or may not be started due to the amount of time Staff will have available for these
types of projects.
Recently, at the request of the Planning Commission, Staff has required almost all Fac;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 fac;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 ald Aquarium Concepts (both located
in older buildings) determined that they would not make minor [;lc;ade improvements to the building
because Staff informed them that it would require review by the Planning Commission.
CONCLUSION:
Staff is recommending several modifications to the Site Development Review Chapter to clarify the SDR
Chapter, provide consistency on what is reviewed and to require re',iew of additional projects to ensure
consistency with the existing development as well as the neighborhood in which it is located.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is asking for feedback from the Planning Commission on the current Site Development Review
Chapter. In order to assist Staff and the Planning Commission in the discussion, Staff has crafted the
following questions:
. Should we clarify the Chapter to require review of the items ~ltaffhas identified in the table found
on pages 3-6 of this Agenda Statement?
Page 6 of7
.
Are there any additional improvements that you would like to see reviewed by Staff or ~) Dr 14
Planning Commission? ,1
What types ofprojects should require Staff level or Planning Commission review?
Are there any other changes you would like to see to the Site Development Review Chapter?
.
.
NEXT STEPS:
Following this Study Session, Staff will begin making revisions to the Site Development Review Chapter
incorporating feedback from the Plmming Commission. Staff will then bring back the modified Chapter to
the Planning Commission for review during a Public Hearing.
Page 7 of7
c/d ;74
CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 9,
2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to
order at 5:30 p.m.
ATTENDEES
Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Tomlinson;
Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner;
and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
1.1 Study Session - Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review)
Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report.
Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff
Report.
Ms. Fraser stated that exterior fac;ade remodels are brought to the Planning Commission at the
request of the Planning Commission.
Chair Schaub asked if the Shamrock Center project was brought to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Fraser answered that, at the time, it was reviewed by Staff only, as permitted by the code a
number of years ago. Chair Schaub mentioned that this is an example of a big change that did
not come before the Planning Commission.
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director stated that the reason Staff approved the
Shamrock Center at the Staff level was because the property owner stated that the only way
they would do anything to the shopping center was if it was done at the Staff level. Ms. Ram
stated that Staff weighed the possibility of not getting anything done to the property for years
or getting a partial fac;ade remodel approved at the Staff level. Ms. Ram stated that the
developer was upset about an issue that was discussed with the Mayor at a City Council
meeting after which they stated that they would not work with the City again. Therefore,
approving the project at Staff level gave the City the ability to get something done to the
shopping center.
Cm. King asked Ms. Ram why they didn't want to go in front of the Planning Commission. Ms.
Ram stated that it was because they had some history with the property owner and did not
want to repeat it. She stated that the developer was angry about what happened at the City
Council meeting previously and therefore, did not want to elevate the application at all.
1
Att9rhmpnt'l
(23 o;pi4
Cm. King stated that what he was trying to figure out was whether the reason was because of
certain personalities or events or if they thought the Planning Commission was a huge hassle.
Ms. Ram stated she didn't think it had anything to do with the Planning Commission but rather
with a previous experience relating to a super market project.
Ms. Ram stated if everything is elevated to the Planning Commission and nothing at the Staff
level then sometimes improvement projects won't happen.
Cm. Biddle asked if cost was a factor for the developer not wanting to deal with the Planning
Commission.
Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to continue with her presentation and they would revisit the
discussion later in the meeting.
Ms. Fraser continued the presentation of the Staff Report. Staff has recommended changes to
the SDR to bring the chapter into compliance with what is currently being practiced today. The
table on pages 3-7 of the Staff Report shows the reviewing body, i.e., Community Development
Director can review all Site Development Reviews. Ms. Fraser stated that this not the process
currently, some applications are reviewed by the CDD Director and some are reviewed by the
Planning Commission. She stated that when things are clear in the code then the process is
easier for the Applicant and Staff.
Cm. King commented that this Zoning Code change connects with the Community Design
Element and indicates what kind of standards the Commission prefers.
Ms. Fraser continued that the chapter specifies when a Site Development Review is required
and gives a list of every zoning district that it applies to. She stated that this section is
confusing and it leaves out Planned Development, which Staff will still review, therefore, to
make it clear Staff could remove the zoning ordinance tags and indicate either residential or
non-residential. Then it would be clear as to when an SDR is required to be brought before the
Planning Commission. She continued that it is not clear in the code for an SDR Waiver what a
minor project is and that would need to be clarified.
Cm. Biddle asked if there should be a dollar figure or square footage requirement for what
constituted a minor improvement. Ms. Fraser answered that if the project was an addition to a
non-residential building then it would be easier to use square footage not a dollar amount
because the dollar amount would be hard to verify.
Cm. King asked if there was something specific in the other cities' codes and/ or definitions that
we could use and mentioned Foster City's codes. Ms. Fraser stated that in Foster City there is a
policy that states the definition of minor and major. This document was not in the code but a
few pages written by Staff and adopted by the City Council to provide clarity.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if it worked. Ms. Fraser answered that it worked and it allowed the
director to make a determination on if a project was a minor or major improvement. She stated
that items in the code that were considered minor improvements were items such as; door and
2
. d h . 1 . Sh d h h I' h d;? II .<f;k' 74
wm ow c anges, pamt co or, or awnmgs. estate t at t ere was a po ICY t at etermll~.
when the projects would have to go to the Planning Commission.
Chair Schaub stated that this discussion includes the entire City but there are also specific plans
within the City. He asked if the Commission would be making decisions for the entire City.
He gave the example that the Planning Commission was working on redoing the Downtown
Specific Plan which would allow the Commission to work on some of these items just for that
specific plan.
Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager added that the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance are
applicable to all of the specific plans or properties that are outside of the specific plan.
Therefore, the Commission would not be precluded from making regulation modifications even
if Staff is working on a specific plan. If there were to be a change to a specific plan it would
have to be consistent with the Zoning Codes. She stated that specific plans do not regulate the
SDR process.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she thought that the Commission had touched on the subject of
minor improvements when they worked on the Garage Conversion Ordinance and asked if this
would be- related to what is being discussed tonight. She thought that there was something
similar incorporated in the ordinance and thought that the City does not approve garage
conversions any longer.
Chair Schaub stated that garage conversions are not approved in the City.
Ms. Wilson stated that a garage conversion would not be called out as a specific item in the SDR
chapter of the Zoning Codes.
Cm. Wehrenberg continued with the question regarding the Applicant that is supposedly
converting a garage and wants to change a window and leave the door - Ms. Wilson stated that
a garage conversion is governed by the garage conversion section of the code.
Chair Schaub stated that he did not think that Applicants should have to have an SDR for
something as minor as changing windows from single to double pane, for instance.
Ms. Fraser stated that Staff has not recommended getting into the specifics with residential
projects as that would include a lot of Staff time and a great deal of expense with a lot of
regulations.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought it would be worthwhile to see the Foster City list of
minor vs. major improvements. She continued that the list, which is provided with the Staff
Report, is a broad spectrum document that provides information on cities in the area such as
Foster City, which is smaller, to San Jose which is quite a bit larger. She continued that Foster
City is a highly regulated City. For example, windows, garage doors, even skylights are
required to have design review by the City.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the requirement was for a full design review not just an application
for a permit. Cm. Tomlinson asked if some of the design reviews are over-the-counter. Ms.
IIann;~nfJ
3
;)5 oC7~
Fraser answered that a window change can usually be done over-the-counter, however, wit'll
the increase in permit applications there is a delay in getting the permits issued. She continued
that when you add the ten day appeal period a permit can take a lot longer.
Chair Schaub stated that there is a significant amount of neighborhoods with HOA CC&R's and
they are very specific about what can and cannot be done. He continued that a resident can't
change the front yard landscaping or house color or windows unless it is approved by the HOA
board. He thought that the CC&R's are a good thing that would take some of the burden off of
Staff. Ms. Fraser stated that most cities don't review to the level of detail that Foster City does.
Cm. King observed that Livermore and Pleasanton have the same kind of code and that they
must have some way of determining a minor or major fa<;ade remodel.
Chair Schaub stated that Dublin will never be very big and that our City acts like a small town
which is different than Pleasanton or Livermore. He stated that he did not like the color change
that Oil Changers made to their store and asked why landscaping is not required in some areas.
He wondered how we can stop this type of thing from happening within Dublin.
Cm. King asked about how much is the Commission willing to stand our ground if a property
owner indicates that they won't make any improvements if they have to go in front of the
Planning Commission.
Chair Schaub answered that he believes that the Commission should not be threatened by a
property owner. He stated that they still have to have a shopping center that appeals to the
public, that there is still a market that forces the property owner to make improvements. He
stated that in the past, when the Commission made it clear that the fa~ade had to be changed,
the property owner came back with some good projects.
Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Chair Schaub and the Staff Report that indicated that some
property owners were holding off on going forward with fa<;ade remodels because they don't
want to go before the Planning Commission. He stated that he didn't think the Commission
was that hard to deal with. Ms. Fraser asked if the Commission could wait to discuss this
subject until they talk about the pros and cons. She didn't think that it was because the property
owners thought they were hard to deal with. She stated that there is a different perspective
when you are the Applicant.
Ms. Wilson stated that Dublin's population at build-out is projected to be approximately 65,000
to 70,000. She stated that the balance is critical in terms of who has the role of approving
projects, Staff, City Councilor the Planning Commission.
Chair Schaub stated that his point was that there may be 78,000 people but the square miles or
footprint of the City is small compared to the other cities in the Tri-Valley area. It's a fraction of
Pleasanton or Livermore. He stated that he thought it was even more important to get it right
because the City will be denser.
Ms. Wilson said that as the existing ordinance stands, Staff has the ability to approve almost
everything that the Commission sees but they don't because it is better to have the Commission
4
. .. h' h' 1 d bl' . Sh d h .. v2(;; 0 ~ 7 L;
reVIew certam projects w IC mc u es pu IC notIce. estate t at It IS not necessafi\y
appropriate to make a huge policy shift and that the reason for this study session is to bring this
discussion to the Commission to determine the appropriate balance for review of projects.
Ms. Wilson also mentioned that the Community Development Dept. has hired a new Code
Enforcement Officer and that there will be a greater opportunity to look at landscaping and
code enforcement issues related to conditions of approval for the enforcement of those
conditions.
Cm. Tomlinson asked about the Oil Changers paint change and if they had a permit to paint the
building. Ms. Wilson answered that there are no restrictions in the code that would not allow
the use of that color. She mentioned that she was doing some research to determine what other
permits are on file but she believed that the building was approved before the City was
incorporated and was not sure if the existing permits have any condition regarding color. She is
still looking into it but mentioned that there are many buildings within the City that have
existed for a long time and do not have any regulations that would stop a color change.
Chair Schaub asked if the Commission could propose regulations that would begin to manage
all the buildings in Dublin regardless of when they were built.
Ms. Fraser answered that was the reason for the Study Session regarding the SDR changes so
that the code is clear as to what it applies to. At present the code states a color change does not
required an SDR. She continued that there are reviews required for some color changes within
an existing SDR where the color was part of the original conditions of approval.
Chair Schaub stated that the subject of paint color was brought up 2 1/2 years ago and the
Commission didn't want to get into regulating that issue. He stated that he thought it was not
fair to the rest of the residents and the property owners next to them when the paint color is too
different.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff wanted the Commission to decide at what level they want to review
a project. Color is one example of the lowest level of site development review and asked if they
want to regulate every color. She stated that this type of review is a shift from current policy
and requiring review of many more permits. She was also concerned that there would be
property owners who would not come forward, even at the Staff level because of the level of
review that would be required.
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that he spoke with Larry Stone who had worked in Sunnyvale and
stated that they did not regulate residential colors only non-residential. He asked Staff to
check on Sunnyvale's policy on regulating color. Ms. Wilson agreed to have Staff check.
Chair Schaub mentioned that most CC&R's have color restrictions. Cm. Tomlinson continued
that Sunnyvale is comparable to Dublin with a lot of old structures and that he thought a
property owner of a single family residence could paint it whatever color they choose and the
City does not get involved. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would like to start looking at multi-
family developments and then commercial and then industrial.
5
. . . . C}-<( ~~ 7'1
Cm. Kmg thought that Cm. Tomlmson was suggestmg that the CIty may want to have a more .
demanding standard for commercial and retail. Cm. Tomlinson answered that he thought the
Commission should review the color change on any large apartment complex that wanted to
paint, especially if it is in a gateway area and would be very visible.
Ms. Wilson stated that Dublin has relatively new developments and many of them have been
approved as a part of the Planned Development process. Whether they are commercial,
industrial or residential they would already have restrictions built in and SDR's approved
which would require them to paint the same or similar color that is required by the SDR. If the
developer wanted to change the color dramatically then the City would be able to review it at
the Staff level or bring it to the Commission, as needed. She stated that the ones that are not
necessarily caught in the process are the projects that were approved before Dublin became a
City and do not have SDR permits.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that at some point the developer or property owner would want to bring
the project or color change to the Planning Commission because if the building does not look
good it would affect their business. Ms. Fraser gave the example of the area where the Heritage
Center Park will be. The shopping center adjacent to it did not feel they needed to spend the
money to fix it up. She continued that in the City there are a large number of new buildings,
and a large number of 20+ year old buildings which causes a disparity between the ages of the
structures. This is also where some property owners have to make the decision on whether it
makes sense to remodel or not. She stated that the cost of remodeling and what they get in rent
now and what they can get in the future influences their decision. Ms. Fraser gave another
example of the Dublin Station shopping center. Staff recommended changes but the property
owner said that they didn't want to spend the money. She continued that they felt they were
fully occupied and didn't feel they needed to remodel. She felt that Staff will always be faced
with applicants who are asked to make changes and then decide not to because they feel it is too
expensive and there are no guarantees that it would be approved.
Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned the timeline is also a problem for the Applicant. If they want a
new roof and have to wait and it starts raining then it is a problem. Ms. Fraser stated that the
time constraints can be a problem for the Applicant.
Cm. Wehrenberg continued that if we solidify the process and make it clear as to what is
required then the code is clear.
Ms. Fraser stated if someone wants to tear down a building and build something new they
should be required to submit for design review. She continued that she thought that there is a
fine line that has to be drawn as to at what point do we send everything to Planning
Commission.
Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that she doesn't want to see everything, but thought that it should
be clear what types of projects we do want to see, i.e., major things come to us but minor things
don't.
Chair Schaub suggested a policy that says that if the applicant wants they can bring up the
exception at a meeting without a Staff Report and states what they want to do and that they
6
~<?2 p~1 t
would like to keep it at the Staff level. Then the Commission would give permission for Staff t61
approve the project and it would not come before the Commission.
Ms. Wilson explained the SDR waiver process, i.e., a slight change that could be approved at the
staff level without going to the Planning Commission, less cost is involved, less Staff time and
no public noticing is required but there is documentation in the file to show that the change is
consistent with the SDR. She stated that the next level would be a project that needs an SDR
permit but a public notice would be required, there would be more time involved in writing the
Conditions of Approval but would still be at the Staff level. She stated that it would be a project
that we would want the public to be aware of but is not that significant.
Chair Schaub stated that he thought it was an interesting at what point is it of value to the
public to have knowledge and input on a project. Ms. Wilson answered that it is based on a
threshold.
Ms. Fraser stated that, for example, The Elephant Bar project was not required to go to the
Planning Commission but Staff forwarded it to the Planning Commission because there were
concerns about the project design.
Cm. Biddle stated that he did not want the Planning Commission to have to approve every
paint color or every minor change.
Ms. Fraser indicated that in the Staff Report, on page 4, she included the items that are being
recommended to stay at staff level for SDR Waivers, minor projects would include: 1) color
change; 2) fencing; 3) door and window changes; 4) awnings; 5) minor changes to the approved
plans; 6) roof screens; 7) trellises; and 8) similar improvements. She stated that items could be
added to the list that the Planning Commission would like to remain at Staff level. She stated
that she got the impression from the Planning Commission that they want to look at the big
projects that are very visible.
Cm. Tomlinson made the example of Video Only and the painting/tinting of their windows.
He asked if they are allowed to paint their windows without an SDR. Ms. Wilson responded
that there is no restriction in the code. She mentioned that if there were an SDR that clearly
stated that the windows had to remain clear glass then they would have to keep them that way.
The problem is the older buildings have no previous SDR.
Cm. Tomlinson thought that painting/tinting windows IS something that the Planning
Commission should address.
Ms. Wilson stated that when Video Only tinted their windows she sent the Code Enforcement
Officer out to see if there are other buildings with similar painted/ tinted windows in the City.
She stated that our research found that there are a variety of businesses that paint/ tint their
windows.
Chair Schaub thought that no one should be able to make those types of changes without a
review by the City. He stated that even the businesses that are not located on major
:Piannt:uH {'DtJIWis'siun
7
thoroughfares would be impacted by those types of changes. Ms. Fraser stated that wi~Je~i 71..{
codes the City would be able to enforce them.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City has enough Staff resources to take care of these kinds of
project reviews. She added that in the City of Santa Clara they have an architectural review
committee that reviews projects before they come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser
answered that a review board would add an extra step which would add extra time to a project.
She stated that the more projects that are allowed to be approved at Staff level the less Staff is
necessary and the quicker it is for the developer or property owner.
Ms. Wilson commented that, as Ms. Fraser stated, the more regulations you have the more staff
you need to implement them. If the Commission implemented an architectural review board it
would have to be staffed. Ms. Wilson continued that Staff was not recommending an
architectural review board. She stated that the Commission now has the opportunity to review
land use changes, legislative actions, policy and codes, and SDRs but if there were an
architectural review board such a body would review design and the Planning Commission
would only review land use regulations.
Ms. Fraser stated that it would depend on what the Commission will allow the staff to review
and what has to go to Planning Commission. She stated that SDR waivers typically take a small
amount of time to review. If you require projects to have a full site development review then
there are more steps to be taken, i.e. noticing, staff reports, conditions of approval and
appealable action letters which would increase staff's time.
Cm. Tomlinson liked the concept of Staff reviewing as much as possible. He felt it is more
efficient for the Applicant and the Staff. He said his problem with the projects that were
discussed earlier was that nobody was reviewing them. He felt it would not be necessary to
bring those projects to the Commission but thought the Staff should at least take a look at those
types of non-residential painting projects.
Ms. Fraser suggested that it would be helpful if the Commission gave staff an idea of what they
consider minor improvements that could be reviewed by Staff.
Chair Schaub asked how the discussion tonight would impact the Design Element that the
Commission has been working on. He felt that it would clarify what the Commission expects
the vision to be.
Ms. Wilson answered that the General Plan is a policy document and that the Community
Design Element will be part of that General Plan. She stated that the Design Element will be
policy based and not at the detailed level as a Zoning Ordinance.
Cm. King asked if it will dictate design standards. Ms. Wilson answered that it will give policy
for design standards but will not be detailed, i.e., slope of roof or architectural detail standard.
She continued that the general plan is meant to be a broad document that would not be as
detailed as a specific plan or an ordinance such as the SDR Chapter.
8
30 (J..t 1 4
Chair Schaub mentioned that the Commission had talked about "form based" code as opposed
to zoning.
Ms. Wilson stated that a "form based" code is anticipated to be a part of the new downtown
specific plan because it looks at the detailed level of how the land uses are laid out, as well as
what the form of buildings will look like.
Chair Schaub thought that color must be a part of form. Ms. Wilson answered that if color is a
concern, neither the Community Design Element nor any of the Specific Plans would get to the
level that would require review by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Fraser stated that the Community Design Element and the Specific Plan would have
statements to the effect that projects must be compatible with the community or other buildings
in the vicinity.
Chair Schaub stated that Staff should have the ability to take an exception to the Planning
Commission. He continued that things change and colors are updated and slowly the colors in
the neighborhoods change.
Ms. Wilson stated that if all houses are white, then one purple, intuitively we know that it
doesn't make sense to allow that one purple house.
Ms. Fraser stated that the important thing to remember is that any good general plan or specific
plan will acknowledge that communities change over time. She stated that if the colors are
compatible with each other, the problem is when there is someone who wants a totally different
color .
Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser when the change will be made. Ms. Wilson mentioned that it
will depend on what the outcome of the meeting is. Chair Schaub was concerned about
whether the Planning Commission should be working on a Zoning Change at the same time the
Community Design Element is finalized. Ms. Wilson stated that they are both different and one
does not drive the other. Chair Schaub was satisfied that the Planning Commission could work
on the SDR Ordinance changes and the work on the Community Design Element and they
would not be duplicating efforts.
Ms. Fraser asked the Planning Commission to indicate where Staff should go from here. Input
and suggestions from the Planning Commission tonight, will be incorporated as a part of the
rewrite of the SDR chapter. This project will be totally separate from everything else, separate
of the Community Design Element and separate from the other Zoning Ordinance
Amendments.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were any businesses that know about this change and are trying
to slip something through before the ordinance is passed. Ms. Wilson answered that there were
no applications at this time. Ms. Fraser stated that aside from this chapter, Staff is currently
working on an update to the entire Zoning Ordinance but started with this chapter because it is
a high priority goal for the City Council.
'P[fJnning {'omnfissiiT/t
9
3/ o/f l4
Cm. King was concerned whether the Planning Commission can expect large projects to b~
required to come before them.
Ms. Fraser continued that in the Residential section of the Ordinance it states that as of now
when a resident proposes modifications to their house they are not required to get any level of
review from Staff or Planning Commission. Staff is suggesting that if a property owner wants
to do a complete tear-down and rebuild that Staff would recommend a Site Development
Review (SDR) reviewed by the Community Development Director.
Chair Schaub asked what was meant by a complete tear-down. He mentioned a house on
Silvergate where the owners left the front part of the garage up and rebuilt the house and it
didn't look like any other house in the neighborhood. Ms. Fraser asked the Commission to
discuss with Staff what they felt was a complete tear-down. She stated that if the code does not
define a tear-down a property owner could leave up the garage and not be required to process
an SDR.
Cm. Wehrenberg answered that she thought 50% of the exterior walls could be considered a
tear-down.
Chair Schaub stated that he thought it also means building up. He thought that if the option of
a second floor was not available when the house was built then it should be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Wilson stated that if the Commission wanted to set a specific percentage of the home that
was to be rebuilt it could be done but is implementation of such regulations become very
complex.
Ms. Fraser suggested that they separate the issues, one is an addition, and the other is a tear-
down. She stated that usually when an Applicant is doing a tear-down the project a large and
could include a second story. She asked the Commission at what point would they consider the
project a tear-down.
Ms. Wilson suggested that Staff could do more research on the subject. She stated that her
experience was that 50% is an appropriate number that is used frequently.
Ms. Fraser stated that in some cities a full wall must be left up but the garage would not count
as part of the project. Some cities require that two full exterior walls must be left intact.
Chair Schaub stated that he thought requiring the Applicant to leave two full exterior walls is
appropriate and that the most important are the walls that face the street.
Ms. Fraser suggested that would be a difficult requirement because an Applicant could leave
the front, teardown the back of the house and build up two stories.
Chair Schaub stated that changing a house from a single story to a two story needs to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
10
October 9,
. ~') (,:~~ 14
There was a discussion regarding the size of an addition that must be brought to the Planning
Commission for review.
Ms. Wilson stated that Staff will do more research on the subject of residential development for
SDR. -
Ms. Fraser stated she thought the Commission is in support of now requiring a review of SDR's
for residential development and that the review could be done at the Staff level and not brought
before the Commission.
Chair Schaub and the other Commissioners agreed.
Chair Schaub reiterated that the Commission agrees that substantial residential changes need to
have an SDR and be reviewed by Planning Commission.
Ms. Fraser commented that this change to the SDR process could potentially affect a lot of
people; this is a shift from existing policy. She stated that the older houses are, for the most
part, in the west part of Dublin, are attractive as a remodel type of house because of their yard
size and they are more affordable. She indicated that is a potential that more people will be
doing a teardown and rebuild in the future.
Ms. Fraser stated that Staff is recommending that all additions and exterior modifications on
non-residential buildings should be reviewed.
She stated that in the Staff Report she recommended that a minor addition should be reviewed
by the Director. She stated that a minor improvement of less than 500 square feet is suggested
to be reviewed by Staff.
Chair Schaub stated that a minor improvement, less than 1,000 square feet can be reviewed by
Staff.
Ms. Fraser asked the Commission to determine at what point an addition would be large
enough for the Commission to review.
Chair Schaub answered that if it is 1,000 square feet or larger or more than 50% of a change to
the front fa<;ade.
Ms. Wilson stated that some buildings face into a parking lot, not necessarily onto Dublin Blvd
so they may not want to restrict it to the front fa<;ade.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that if the project was controversial enough it would be brought to the
Commission.
Ms. Fraser stated that the restriction could be 1,000 square feet and under or not visible from the
public right-of-way.
11
330f74
Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would support 1,000 square feet or 2,500 square feet and under cfri
not visible from the public right-of way.
Ms. Wilson shared the example of a building of over 100,000 square feet that could propose an
addition of 3,000 to 4,000 square feet which would be a small addition relative to the size of the
building, but would have to come to the Commission for review. She continued that the Staff
would review the overall size of the building in relation to the size of the proposed addition and
determine if it should go to the Commission for review. She stated that it could cause a
problem in the development community if the code stated that 2,500 square feet of minor
improvement/ addition can be reviewed at Staff level and then Staff brings the project to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
There was a discussion about what size addition can be reviewed at Staff level and what should
be brought to the Commission. They discussed the fact that sometimes there will be a building
where the regulations don't make sense. Ms. Fraser suggested that the Commission needs to be
comfortable with whatever level is selected as an average. It was suggested that the code read
the level would be at 1,000 square feet or over 5% of the building area.
Cm. King asked if it was agreed that at a certain level, there are projects that need to be
reviewed by the Commission. He gave the example of the Shamrock Center that the fac;ade
was remodeled and was never brought before the Commission and asked if something that
large should be brought before the Commission.
Ms. Wilson discussed the Shamrock Center project stating that there was no change to the
project square footage. She stated that unless the overall building size is taken into
consideration then it would trigger the SDR process or the code could be interpreted that any
change to the building must be reviewed.
Ms. Fraser suggested that they go over each item, point by point and indicate whether it should
be reviewed at the Staff level or brought to the Planning Commission.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that almost all of the items could be reviewed by Staff as much as
possible with the option to bring the item to the Planning Commission if needed. Ms. Wilson
stated that was the way the code was written at present.
Ms. Wilson stated that the code is written with a lot of flexibility. She stated that the
Commission is reviewing more items than the code requires, however, there are certain types of
modifications that are not regulated, which has become a big concern of the Commission. She
thought that the Planning team had learned from the Commission and working as a team had
learned what the Commission wants to see and what they don't feel they need to see. She
asked the Commissioners if they thought we were going too far or maybe trying to modify the
chapter to a degree that is not necessary. She stated that we need to add some items into the
code that will catch items that are not currently be regulated and with the understanding that
Staff still has the discretion to send items that were not historically sent to the Planning
Commission. Additionally, Staff does believe that there are some of dean-up issues that need to
be addressed from an implementation standpoint.
12
C T 1. d h h d'd 't h'nk h h .. t' b k d h.21{ rrf-;4
m. om mson state t at e 1 n tIt at t e eXIstmg sys em IS ro en an e SUpPorLS
the idea of Staff having more flexibility. He felt that flexibility makes Staff, as well as the
Commission, more efficient. Ms. Praser stated that, as the code is currently written, everything
has the ability to be reviewed by Staff.
Cm. King asked if the code will indicate that certain things must come before the Planning
Commission or will it always be at Staff's discretion. He stated that the reason he is asking the
question is because the Commission never reviewed Shamrock Village and he did not like the
colors and that there are two large buildings that were never reviewed.
Chair Schaub stated that the Commission did not review Bassett Purniture either and there are
items on that building the Commission would have required the Applicant to change.
Ms. Praser stated that there could be a balance. A project that is a significant change, such as
Bassett Furniture, where the remodeled building looked nothing like the old building, could be
required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Praser suggested that if the
Applicant wants to make a slight change but the form of the building is the same, but there is a
new element or material on the building then Staff can review it. She stated that she understood
the Commission wants to see the "big picture items" .
Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Ms. Fraser and stated that he wanted to make sure that items which
are exempt or not regulated in the process, whether they are reviewed by Staff or at the
Planning Commission level, are included.
Chair Schaub stated that if a change makes a significant impact on the public then the
Commission should review the project.
Cm. Biddle stated that the examples that have been given are examples of projects that were
submitted before the current process was in place and his recommendation was to have Staff
review according to the current process and then close the holes that need to be closed with
those items that were missed.
Cm. King stated he would like Staff to write an ordinance that will show when a minor
improvement would become significant enough that the Commission would want to hear it. He
stated that he didn't feel comfortable listing all the possibilities of minor and major projects.
Ms. Praser thought that Staff had received good direction from the Commission and that she
had wanted to speak in very broad terms to see if there was anything that was glaring enough
that the Commission would definitely point it out as something that should come before the
Commission. She asked the Commission if there was anything aside from residential additions
that was not mentioned that they would like to see reviewed under the SDR process when the
chapter is updated.
Chair Schaub asked how the Commission can ensure that buildings are regulated that were
built before there were processes in place. He didn't think it was reasonable that since a
building was approved 20+ years ago they don't have to submit an SDR application.
13
Ms. Fraser stated that Staff would determine an appropriate method to address the issd5 ~ 1 Lf
Cm. King asked the city attorney if the City can go back and add conditions to a permit that was
approved under Alameda County.
Ms. Faubion, City Attorney's Office, answered that the City cannot tell a property owner to do
something by itself but must have an application. Once the application is submitted then the
City can regulate in a reasonable manner. If there are regulations that cover design or scale then
to the extent that the project has design or scale to it then regulations would apply. For
example, the City could not make a homeowner take off a corner of their house that is legal but
isn't very nice, but, if they submit an application for a project that the City has determined
should be regulated, then the City can regulate from that time forward.
Cm. King asked if there was a commercial building that wanted to change the paint color they
must submit an application for a permit to Staff first. Ms. Fraser answered that the code could
clarify regulations regarding color modifications.
Cm. Biddle stated he thought that the new chapter should be consistent with other codes. He
thought that the City would not allow a home owner to change their electrical panel and not
require them to bring the panel up to the current electrical code and it should be the same with
the SDR code.
Ms. Faubion stated that as a legal matter the City should explain to the public, in the findings
and purpose statements, and as a regulator of the public good, why it is important to regulate
large projects as well small projects.
Chair Schaub stated that he thought the process was working well and that anything that the
Commission can do to make Staff's job easier he would support. He thought that Staff has done
well in determining what comes before the Commission.
Cm. King agreed with Cm. Biddle that the SDR ordinance should remain the same.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there should be a provision in the ordinance that states if there is a
questionable item that Staff could invite a Commissioner to review the item.
Ms. Wilson answered that typically Staff would not do that because the Planning Commission is
considered a "body" and would not look at an application individually. She stated that the
code should be understood well enough that Staff can make such a determination.
Ms. Wilson stated that the next step would be for Staff to go back and do more research and
bring that research back to the Commission in another study session.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
14
30 ~ 74
AGENDA STATEIVIENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION: May 27, 2008
SUBJECT:
ZOA 07-002 (Legislative) - Amendment to Chapter 8.104, Site
Development Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senic.r Planner
A TT ACHMENTS:
1)
October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without
attachments);
Minutes from the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Study
Session;
Existing Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review;
Draft Chapter 8.104; and
Level of review required for Residential Demolitions in Selected
Cities (Table).
2)
3)
4)
5)
RECOMMENDATION:
.'..~
..
V
Receive presentation and provide Staff with direction/comments on
the proposed modifications to the SDR Chapter and identify any
additional modifications that should be made.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, as a high priority goal for Fiscal Year 2007/2008, requested that Staff and the Planning
Commission review Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (SDR), of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and
determine if any changes should be made to increase the effectiveness cof the Chapter. The review of the SDR
Chapter is separate from the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance.
Following this Study Session, Staff will incorporate suggested changei 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 chanfes to the SDR Chapter; additional
changes were requested by the Planning Commission as shown in Attachment 2. A draft Ordinance was
not presented at this meeting.
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
File
Page 1 of6
G:\Zoning OrdlSDR Update 2007IPCSR Study Session 5-27-08.doc
-.................. -.T.,..,..
Attachment 4
:37~74
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of tonight's Study Session is to review the proposed changes to the SDR Chapter, discuss the
proposed changes and determine if any additional changes should be ~nade to the SDR Chapter.
ANALYSIS:
Staffs discussion of the proposed changes to the SDR Chapter i~ described in detail below. General
changes include correcting the text for clarity, relocating information within the Chapter and other minor
changes which are not di'scussed in this Agenda Statement.
A significant number of modifications are proposed to the existing Site Development Review Chapter that
will improve the clarity of the Chapter, ensure its effectiveness, ensure that the SDR Chapter is consistent
with current practices and to create a more user friendly Ordinance which will benefit the community.
Requirements for permits have been taken from the existing Chapte: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 PlaIming Commission during the Public
Hearing.
Purpose Statements (Section 8.1 04.010)
The purpose statements in the existing (adopted) Ordinance have been revised. The revisions were made
to ensure that projects meet a high level of design, ensure compliancl~ with other structures in the vicinity,
and to ensure a pedestrian friendly environment.
Proiects Exempt from Site Development Review (Section 8.104.020)
This section has been moved from its previous location in Chapter 8.04,' Title, Purpose, Authority and
Administration (the same section will also appear in Chapter 8.04 until the comprehensive update is
adopted). Staff recommends that this section be relocated to the SDR Chapter to ensure that all projects
that require or are exempt from Site Development Review are locatec- in one location for clarity.
A few modifications have been made to this section to reflect 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 ofthe language in this section for clarity.
Site Development Review Waiver (Section 8.1 04.030)
This section has been slightly modified to allow Staff to issue a Site Development Review Waiver for any
of the following improvements, regardless of whether or not a Site Development Review was approved by
the City for the site.
Page 2 of 6
3gD;f 74
The following activities are proposed to be subject to Site Developmwt Review Waiver for the following:
. Minor Landscape Modifications;
. Minor modifications to an approved Site Development Review;
. Accessory Structures in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development
Zoning Districts;
. Color Modifications (changes to the color of a structure) in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and
similar Planned Development Zoning Districts;
. Modifications, replacements or construction of fences and walls in the R-M, Commercial,
Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts;
. Parking lot restriping;
. Modifications to the roof materials, parapet or roof screen in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and
similar Planned Development Zoning Districts;
. Modifications to the site layout including new paving areas, sidewalks or similar improvements in
the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts; and
. Window and door modifications in the R-M, Commerc:al, Industrial and similar Planned
Development Zoning Districts including tinting, frosting, window and door replacements, new
windows or doors.
Most of the above listed improvements currently require review, although these types of improvements
are not clearly identified in the SDR Chapter. Site Development Review Waivers typically only take one
to ~ee days (depending on the scope) to process. These projects tend to be non-controversial and no
conditions of approval are added to the project. If at any point during the review of a proposed project
Staff determines that additional review or conditions of approvd are warranted for a project, this
Ordinance allows Staff to change the level of review required for a project. Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose
and Authority also allows Staff to change the decision making body for a project (i.e. to refer to the
Planning Commission) at any time. This process was recently followed when Staff brought the Oil
Changers color modifications to the Planning Commission.
Three new types of projects have been added to this list to allow StafYto review the merits of the proposal.
As proposed, minor landscape modifications in the R-M, Commercid and Industrial Zoning Districts will
require review by Staff through a Site Development Review Waiver. Currently, the Chapter does not
require review of landscape modifications at a property. In Chapter IL76, 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 during the Study Session, Staff has
recommended that these changes require a Site Development Review Waiver which would be reviewed by
Staff. By including this in the SDR Chapter, it will allow Staff and the City to provide clearer direction
that review by Staff is required for all color changes to buildings in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and
similar Planned Development Zoning Districts.
Currently, only new windows and doors in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned
Development Zoning Districts require review. Tinting and replacement glass are currently exempt from
Page 3 of6
31 o,f 1LJ
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.
Communitv Development Director Review (Section 8.1 04.040.A)
The following projects will require review by the Community Develcpment Director or his/her 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 thf: 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, ane: custom homes do not require Site
Development Review. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission discussed whether or not to
require review additions. At the meeting, after considerable discussion, the Planning Commission
discussed if review should be required for all second story additiom; or additions of a particular size. At
the meeting, the Planning Commission determined that additions which are over 500 square feet could
have significant impacts on a neighborhood and, therefore, determined that review of these additions, by
Staff, should be required.
Additionally, the Planning Commission discussed whether or not to require review of the demolition of
residential houses and the reconstruction of a new house. The Planning Commission requested Staff to
conduct further research on what cities in the area determine a demolition to be. The table included as
Attachment 5 provides information on Staffs research. As shown, :nost cities define a tear down as the
demolition of 50 percent or more of the exterior walls of a structure. As proposed, the tear down of 50
percent of the exterior walls and remodel or construction of a residential dwelling would require a Site
Development Review.
A new custom single-family home is also proposed to require a Site Development Review. Currently, the
code does not require a Site Development Review for the construction of a custom home.
Page 4 of6
40 11A/4
Proposed additions over 500 square feet in size, a residential tear down (of more than 50% of the house
and reconstruction) and new custom single 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 is located. As proposed, the Zoning
Ordinance allows the Community Development Director to transfer hearing jurisdiction of these projects
to the Planning Commission if the Community Development Director determines that the circumstances
of the project warrants it.
Minor fa<;:ade remodels which do not significantly alter the character of a structure in the R-M,
Commercial, Industrial or similar Planned Development will require a Site Development Review which
will be reviewed by the Community Development Director. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows the
Community Development Director to review all f~ade remodels. Staff is recommending that fa<;:ade
remodels be categorized as either major or minor. Each project will have a different reviewing body which
will reflect the impact (major or minor) of the project.
The typical maximum height of residential dwellings west of Dougherty Road is two stories and 25 feet.
The Zoning Ordinance allows an increase in height for residential dwellings in the Agriculture, R-l and
R-2 Zoning Districts to a maximum of 35 feet with a Site Development Review which requires review by
the Planning Commission. In order to be consistent with the proposed review of custom single family
homes, additions and tear downs, Staff is recommending that the reviewing body for a residential dwelling
height increase be transferred to the Community Development Director.
Zoning Administrator Review (Section 8.1 04.040.B)
The following projects require review by the Zoning Administrator:
. Exception to accessory structure requirements;
. Front Yard setback encroachment for living area; and
. Height increase for principal structures in the Agriculture, R-., and R-2 Zoning Districts.
No changes are proposed to what currently requires review by the Zoning Administrator.
Planning Commission Review (Section 8. 1 04.040.C)
The following projects will require review by the Planning Commission:
. Additions which are larger than 1,001 square feet or 15 percent 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 5tructures; 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
It' ,+~? -, Lt
(/ ;
Findings (Section 8.104.090)
The findings section of this Chapter has been modified. The exi:;ting findings have been completely
revised to be consistent with the purpose section of the Chapter. The proposed findings clearly address
design and aesthetics to site planning issues..
Overlay Zoning Districts
The reviewing body and level of review required for projects in the Scarlett Court (Chapter 8.34) and
Historic District Overlay Zoning Districts (Chapter 8.62) will remain unchanged.
NEXT STEPS:
Following tonight's Study Session, Staff will incorporate recomme:lded changes into the SDR Chapter.
As previously discussed, Staff will then bring this Chapter before the Planning Commission during a
Public Hearing.
CONCLUSION:
A significant number of modifications are proposed to the existing Site Development Review Chapter that
will improve the clarity of the Chapter, ensure its effectiveness, ensure that the SDR Chapter is consistent
with current practices and to create a more user friendly Ordinance wlich will benefit the community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide Staff with direction/comments on the proposed
modifications to the SDR Chapter and identify any additional modifications that should be made.
Page 6 0[6
Lf,) ~ 7 Y
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; Commissioners King, Wehrenberg, and Biddle;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; 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 the code clear.
Ms. Fraser mentioned that not everyone in the City works under a Site Development Review,
they could be older and may have been approved under Alameda 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 any 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.
(j>[}nniv.{j
47
Attachment 5
!f3O;f 7LI
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, decided to make the decision when the
impact of the project is known.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the code would cover window modifications, 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 codethat 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
agricultural accessory structure that was built a few years ago and caused controversy with the
7;;/,}nni ip (, "{FnmrSS'lON
48
neighbors. Chair Schaub mentioned a property that built some accessory structure~~ ~ 14
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 without the benefit of a structural
engineer's input.
Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report.
Ms. Wilson reminded the Commission that these permits (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 therefore 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 wants 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 projects 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(f-r;:-'~' Ci'f
49
Cm. Wehrenberg felt that Item D is ambiguous which states: "The subject site is PhYSiCal~~it~bC 74
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 addressed 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 Plan 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 tree 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 landscaping 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 SDR at the time of submittal. Ms.
Fraser answered that any conscientious Applicant will call the City to find out if they need a
permit for their project. She stated that Staff is always honest with the Applicant about what
they need. She continued that, if an Applicant came in with a color change, for instance, Staff
(;'/tdnnVNtj
50
/..f C gl' l u
would let them know that their project could be approved at the Staff level, but the code all~s -I
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 say; "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.
Ms. Wilson referred to Page 104-3, A) Site Development Review Waiver, subsection III, A
through H only refers to multifamily, commercial and industrial complexes. Ms. Fraser stated
the City would leave that decision to the HOA's. Chair Schaub was concerned there would be
j>(;:-:O'7i iI\q
51
Lt7 Ol7LI
colors that would not fit well with the neighborhood. Ms. Wilson agreed there could -l!,e th9'f .
risk and if the community was concerned enough the ordinance could be modified. J
Cm. Tomlinson mentioned his concern about color regulations was directed towards the
multifamily and industrial! 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 because 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 developments 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).
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
'PLinn;~n;;
52
Respectfully submitted,
Lf~ ~~ 74
Bill Schaub
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Mary Jo Wilson, AICP
Planning Manager
G: \ MINUTES \2008 \ PLANNING COMMIssION\5.27.08.doc
<\i"'
53
ijCj o~ 74
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 10,2008
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS: 1.
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
2.
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)
3.
4.
5.
6.
Receive the Staff presentation;
Open Public Hearing;
Take testimony from the Public;
Close Public Hearing and deliberate;
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 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 of the 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 OrdlSDR Update 2007\PCSR 6-IO-08.doc
Page 1 of5
ITEM NO.
Attachment 6
Planning Commission 151 Study Session
5D el' 74
("1
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 Ordinance, 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 Commission 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 ofthe 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 Commission review and consideration. The
proposed Ordinance (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) includes the following:
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 activities 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 of the SDR Chapter as exempted activities.
Page 2 of 5
G/ {If 74
\
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 from 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 neighbors. 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 to 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
13.2 04 74
Per the Planning Commission direction, the review of a residential house 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 (8.36.110.C.3.b - Height Limits and Exceptions) is proposed 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-locating applicable standards/regulations related to SDR from other Chapters of the Zoning
Ordinance to the SDR Chapter (as described above) as well modifications 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 community.
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 40[5
~Q;:f7q
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) warrants 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 300-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 Regulations and Chapter 8.104, Site
Development Review.
Page 5 of 5
DRAFT
DRAFT
5 LjiJ 7~
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 10,
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; Commissioners Wehrenberg, King, and Biddle;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent:
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson, seconded by Cm.
Biddle the minutes of the May 27, 2008 meeting were unanimously approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 ZOA 07-002 (Legislative) - Amendment to Chapter 8.104, Site Development
Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub felt the Commission had received enough information and had discussed the item
at previous meetings and therefore waived the presentation.
Chair Schaub then opened the public hearing and hearing no comments, closed the public
hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by CM. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. King
absent at the time of the vote, the Planning Commission approved the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
-.PDrnnt"n{j ('u:m:ruissiun
54
A tt~rhmpnt 7
DRAFT DRAFT
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMEN!5,
INCLUDING CHAPTER 8.04, TITLE, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORITY, CHAPTER 8.36, 5! d74
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 8.40, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES ~\
REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER 8.104, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
ZOA 07-002
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).
Ms. Wilson updated the Commission on the Community Design Element and Downtown
Specific Plan.
Ms. Wilson reminded the Commission that at the next Planning Commission meeting there will
be a study session from 5:00pm to 7:00pm for the Blake Hunt project, The Green on Park Place,
for the architecture of the buildings.
Cm. King joined the meeting.
There was a discussion regarding projects in the communities nearby and Ms. Wilson stated
that the Community Development Department reviews projects within surrounding
communities, as necessary.
Cm. King asked what Dublin's responsibility is for development in the 1-580/1-680 corridor
regarding traffic and density in the area. Chair Schaub commented that if there is enough
infrastructure and amenities within the community the traffic would decrease because
everything the residents needed would be within walking distance.
Ms. Wilson also updated the Commission regarding the construction of Fireplaces and More
and the Veterinary office on Amador Plaza Road. She also mentioned that the property owner
of the shopping center next door will be making improvements to that property.
Ms. Wilson also updated the Commission on the progress of the Elephant Bar which is close to
opening. They also discussed the garbage bins behind Dublin Place and Ms. Wilson agreed to
look into the problem.
Cm. Tomlinson asked about the disposition of Oil Changers. Ms. Wilson answered they decided
not to go forward with an appeal to the City Council, and they would be modifying the paint
colors consistent with the site's SDR. She mentioned Midas Muffler and Shangri La who both
had painted their buildings and will be repainting them a color consistent with their approved
SDRs.
OY;:innt"U,q
55
~:::~hrenberg asked if the Palo Alto Medical Group was going forward with the 3,d ~1t 74
Ms. Wilson stated that the property had been sold, and the new owners would be required to
adhere to the approved plans for the site, or if modifications are requested, the appropriate
permits would need to be processed.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Schaub
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Mary}o Wilson, AICP
Planning Manager
G: \ MINUTES \2008 \ PLANNING COMMISSION \ 6.10.08.doc
(PLAnning {'o:mmiss:i{P1
10
56
31o"f 7l.J
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
CHAPTER 8.104
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
8.104.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure for approving,
conditionally approving, or denying Site Development Review permits and to
ensure the following:
A. To preserve the architectural character and scale of neighborhoods and the
community.
B. To ensure that development is well designed in relation to surrounding properties,
including that the design, character, height, fac;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,
fac;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.
8.104.020 Exemptions From Site Development Review. The permit requirements of this
Ordinance do not apply to the following:
A. Decks, Paths and Driveways. Decks, platforms, on-site paths, and driveways in
the R-10r R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts which
allow similar residential uses, are not over 30 inches above the walking surface,
and are not over any basement or story below.
B. Fences. Fences in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development
Zoning Districts which allow similar residential uses.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-1
Month Year
Attachment 8
~8 0:A 713
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVlfw -,
Chapter 8.104
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 shall not require Site
Development Review. All landscape modifications in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning
Districts, excluding Heritage Trees, are exempt from review. Landscape
modifications in the Planned Development Zoning District with single family uses
shall not require review, except where review is required pursuant to Section
8.104.030.A.1.
G. Interior Alterations. 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.
H. Repairs and Maintenance. Ordinary repairs and maintenance are exempt if the
work does not result in any change in the approved land use of the site or
structure, or the addition to, enlargement or expansion of the structure, and if any
exterior repairs employ the same materials and design as originally used.
I. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls (retaining earth only) that do not exceed four
feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall and
are not required to obtain a grading permit.
8.104.030 Waiver. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may approve
a Site Development Review Waiver to allow a minor physical change to a site or
structure, with or without a previously approved Site Development Review, or
minor modifications to approved Site Development Reviews, where the
improvement is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act and as specified below.
It is not the intent of this Chapter that a series of Site Development Review
Waivers be used to circumvent the need for a new Site Development Review.
The Community Development Director shall determine if a Site Development
Review Waiver is appropriate for the review of the proposed improvement and
may transfer hearing jurisdiction of the project at any time.
A. Site Development Review Waiver. The following projects are subject to a Site
Development Review Waiver:
1. Single Family Residential Landscape Modification. In a Planned
Development Zoning 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
1 04-2
Month Year
If''-J
/ f)"
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVI wr 7'-1
Chapter 8.104
2. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The following
improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or
Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family, commercial or
industrial uses.
a. Minor Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are less
than or equal to 120 square feet in size.
b. Color Modifications. Repainting of an existing building with a
color(s) which is different from the existing or approved 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 roof type (i.e. gable
to a mansard), are considered to be a fayade 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 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 Development Review (other than what is
listed in this section), 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.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-3
Month Year
(p 00-( 74
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW} .
Chapter 8.104
8.104.040 Projects Subject to Site Development Review. The following projects are
subject to Site Development Review. When a project which typically requires a
Site Development Review Waiver is combined with a project subject to a Site
Development Review, the review and project type shall be the highest level. In
accordance with Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, the Community Development
Director and the Zoning Administrator may refer decision making to the Planning
Commission at any time.
A. Community Development Director. The following projects are subject to a Site
Development Review, and shall be reviewed by the Community Development
Director or his/her designee:
1. Major Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are greater than
120 square feet in size.
2. Addition. An addition which is less than 1,000 square feet in size or less
than 15 percent of the total floor area of the structure (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 agriculture accessory structures.
4. Custom House. A new house in any Residential Zoning District or Planned
Development Zoning District with single family residential uses.
5. Flag Poles. All flag poles in any zoning district, which are over 35 feet in
height.
6. Major Landscape Modifications. Major landscape modifications in the R-
M, Industrial and Commercial Zoning Districts and Planned Development
Zoning Districts 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 residential uses.
9. Security Gates. Security gates at the entrance(s) to a residential or office
development.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-4
Month Year
0/ ~e /LI
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW .
Chapter 8.104
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.
13. Minor Fac;ade Modifications. Minor fac;ade modifications in the R-M,
Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning
Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses. Minor fac;ade
modifications include, but are not limited to, trellises, arbors, arcades,
building materials, architectural details, a combination of improvements
which would typically require a Site Development Review Waiver if
constructed separately, or any other improvements determined to be minor
by the Community Development Director.
B. Zoning Administrator. The following projects are subject to a Site Development
Review, and shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator during a Public
Hearing:
1. Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements. An exception to the
requirements of Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures.
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 structures, as permitted by
Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations.
2. Height Increase for Towers and Water Tanks. A height increase for
towers, poles, water tanks and similar structures, as permitted by Chapter
8.36, Development Regulations.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-5
Month Year
h2 (J.f' '14
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVI~
Chapter 8.104
3. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Improvements. The following
improvements in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or
Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family or non-residential
uses:
a. Additions. Additions which are 1,000 square feet or more, or greater
than 15 percent of the floor area of the structure.
b. Major Fac;ade Modifications. Major fa<;ade modifications include
projects where the character or design of the building will
significantly change as determined by the Community Development
Director.
4. New Principal Structures. All new principal structures, including principal
structures in a Planned Development Zoning District, and any structure
which is to be demolished and reconstructed.
D. Historic Overlay Zoning District. All improvements within the Historic Overlay
Zoning District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.62,
Historic Overlay Zoning District.
E. Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. All improvements within the Scarlett
Court Overlay Zoning District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to
Chapter 8.34, Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District.
F. All Other Improvements. All other improvements to structures or a site, which
are not otherwise mentioned in this Chapter, shall be subject to a Site
Development Review Waiver or Site Development Review, as determined by the
Community Development Director.
8.104.050 Application. The Applicant shall submit a complete application pursuant to
Chapter 8.124, Applications, Fees and Deposits, accompanied by a fee and such
materials as are required by the Community Development Director.
8.104.060 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 8.104.090.
8.104.070 Concurrent Consideration. When a Site Development Review is required for a
project which is also subject to a Conditional Use Permit and/or Variance, it shall
be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the same decision-maker or
body for those actions during the same public hearing.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-6
Month Year
l ''''1
it) ..:.". t;;,>,r 1 Lf
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVI~
Chapter 8.104
8.104.080 Notice Of Decision, Public Hearing. The following 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 of the other permit shall apply.
8.104.090 Required Findings. All of the following findings shall all be made in order to
approve a Site Development Review and shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the public record:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General
Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties and the lot in which the project is proposed.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the
design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings,
screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar
elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and
compatible with other development in the vicinity.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment
for the public.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-7
Month Year
~ 11 Q.f 74
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEVV .
Chapter 8.104
8.104.100 Construction Permits. Building and Grading Permits shall not be issued except
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Site Development Review
approval.
8.104.110 Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, shall
apply except as otherwise provided in this Chapter.
8.104.120 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.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-8
Month Year
0!: 9t 74
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIBN
Chapter 8.104
CHAPTER 8.104
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
8.104.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure for approving,
conditionally approving, or denying Site Development Review permits and to
ensure the followinq:
8.104.020 Intent. Tho intent of this Ch3pter is:
A. To promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site 3nd structural development
comp3tible with individual site environmental constr3ints 3nd compatible with
surrounding properties and neighborhoods. To preserve the architectural
character and scale of neiqhborhoods and the community.
B. To resolve m3jor project related issues including, but not limited to, building
location, 3rchitectur31 and landsc3pe design 3nd theme; vehicul3r 3nd pedestrian
access and on site circulation, p3rking 3nd traffic impacts. To ensure that
development is well desiqned in relation to surroundinq properties, includinq that
the desiqn, character, heiqht, facade lenqth, roof forms, colors, materials, roof
mounted equipment and architectural details of a proposed structure or remodeled
structure are compatible with the desiqn, character, heiqht, facade lenqth, roof
form, colors, materials and architectural details of structures in the vicinity.
C. To ensure compliance v:ith development regulations and the requirements of
zoning districts, including but not limited to, setbacks, heights, parking,
13ndscaping and fences, 3ccessory structures, 3nd signage. To ensure that
proiects enhance their sites and are harmonious with hiqh standards of
improvements in the surroundinq area.
D. To st3bilize property values. To enhance the residential and business property
values within the City.
E. To promote the general welbre. To ensure compliance with development
requlations and the requirements of zoninq districts, includinq but not limited to,
setbacks, heiqht. parkinq, landscapinq, public art, fences, accessory structures
and siqnaqe.
F. To ensure that each proiect 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 welfare.
H. To ensure that proiects 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
A. tt~l'hml)nt Q
SITE DEVELOPMENf ;E~w7~
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 Driveways. Decks, platforms, on-site paths, and driveways in
the R-10r R-2 Zoninq Districts or any Planned Development Zoninq Districts which
allow similar residential uses, are not over 30 inches above the walkinq surface,
and are not over any basement or stOry below.
B. Fences. Fences in the R-1 or R-2 Zoninq Districts or any Planned Development
Zoninq Districts which allow similar residential uses.
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-family 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 exempt 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 the .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 approved 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 earth 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 Development Re,:iew:
A Addition. An 3ddition to 3n existing structure, 'I.'horo the 3ddition involvos 1,000 gross
squ3ro foet or more, located 'Nithin a C 0, C N, C 1, C 2, M P, M 1 or M 2 Zoning
District.
B. Agricultural structures. All structures in tho Agricultur31 Zoning District shall be subject
to Site Dovolopment Roviow with tho exception of a single family homo.
c. Exterior Modification Of Existing Structure. Any exterior modification of 3n existing
structure with 3 gross floor area of 1,000 squ3ro feet or more loc3ted '#ithin 3 C 0, C N,
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-2
Month Year
0/ aJ 74-
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 renov:Jtion,
ne\v and/or :Jddition:J1 'Nindo'lls and doors (with fr:Jmes), :Jnd roof or ground mounted
mech:Jnical equipment. This does not include painting, 'Nindow gl:Jss repl:Jcement or
tinting, repl:Jcement of sign copy, and simil:Jr minor modifications.
D. Modification To Site Layout. ,~ny modification to sitel:Jyout or improvements in a C 0,
C N, C 1, C 2, M P, M 1 or M 2 Zoning District, including but not limited to, parking,
fencing, circulation, I:Jndscaping, :Jccessory structures, or trash enclosures.
E. New Construction. Any new construction '.\'ith :J gross floor area of 1,000 squ:Jre feet or
more located \Nithin :J C 0, C N, C 1, C 2, M P, M 1 or M 2 Zoning District.
F. Planned Developments. Pursu:Jnt to Development Plans approved f{)r:J Planned
Development district.
G. Signage. Pursuant to the Sign Ordinance where :Jpplic:Jble.
H. 'Nhere Site Development Revio'N Is Otherwise Required By This Title. Examples
include f:Jrm buildings, signage, enclosed :Jccessory structures in multi family districts,
security gates, commercial accessory structures, encroachment of living spaces on Front
Lot Line, tree removal/repl:Jcement, vehicle stacking, non residential parking lot, parking
in Front Y:Jrd Setbacks of a non residential lot, :Jnd perimeter I:Jndsc:Jping.
8.104.030 Waiver. The Community Development Director or his/her desiqnee may approve
a Site Development Review Waiver to allow a minor physical chanqe to a site or
structure, with or without a previously approved Site Development Review. or
minor modifications to approved Site Development Reviews, where the
improvement is Cateqorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act and as specified below.
It is not the intent of this Chapter that a series of Site Development Review
Waivers be used to circumvent the need for a new Site Development Review.
The Community Development Director shall determine if a Site Development
Review Waiver is appropriate for the review of the proposed improvement and
may transfer hearinq iurisdiction of the proiect at any time.
A. Site Development Review Waiver. The followinq proiects are subiect to a Site
Development Review Waiver:
1. Sin~le Familv Residential Landscape Modification. In a Planned
Development Zoninq 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
1 04-3
Month Year
? tbq;-t 14
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
2. Multi-Familv. Commercial and Industrial 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 replacement, reconstruction or construction
of fences and walls.
d. Parking Lot Restriping. The restripinq of a parkinq lot.
e. Roof. A modification to the roof of a 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 Lavout 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, frostinq, tintinq 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 Development Review (other than what is
listed in this section). 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 requirinq
review.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-4
Month Year
01 ~ 1~
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVI~W
Chapter 8.104
8.104.040 Proiects Subiect to Site Development Review. The followinq proiects are
subiect to Site Development Review. When a proiect which typically requires a
Site Development Review Waiver is combined with a project subject to a Site
Development Review, the review and proiect type 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 followinq projects are subject to a Site
Development Review, and shall be reviewed by the Community Development
Director or his/her desiqnee:
1. Maior Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are qreater than
120 square feet in size.
2. Addition. An addition which is less than 1,000 qross square feet in size or
less than 15 percent of the total floor area 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-family
or non-residential uses.
3. Aaricultural Accessory Structures. All aqriculture accessory structures.
4. Custom House. A new house in any Residential Zoninq District or Planned
Development Zoninq District with sinqle family residential uses.
5. Flaa Poles. All flaq poles in any zoninq district, which are over 35 feet in
heiqht.
6. Maior Landscape Modifications. Major landscape modifications in the R-
M, Industrial and Commercial Zoninq Districts and Planned Development
Zoninq Districts 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 Zoninq Districts or any Planned Development
Zoninq 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
existinq 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 Zoninq Districts with residential uses.
9. Security Gates. Security qates and qate house at the project entrance(s)
to a residential or office development.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-5
Month Year
10 01 74
SITE DEVELOPMENT REV\EW
Chapter 8.104
10. SiQnaQe. Siqns which require a Site Development Review pursuant to
Chapter 8.84, Siqn Requlations.
11. Maior Site Lavout Modification. A maior modification of the layout of the
site includinq but not limited to a siqnificant increase in pavinq areas,
circulation, liqht fixtures, parkinq or other similar improvements as
determined by the Community Development Director.
12. Wireless Communications Facilities. Subiect 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 fac;:ade
modifications include, but are not limited 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. ZoninQ Administrator. The followinq projects are subject to a Site Development
Review, and shall be reviewed by the Zoninq Administrator durinq a Public
Hearinq:
1. Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements. An exception to the
requirements of Chapter 8.40. Accessory Structures.
2. Front Yard Setback Encroachment for LivinQ Area. As permitted by
Chapter 8.36. Development Requlations. an encroachment for livinq area
above the qaraqe or for any structure within the Front Yard Setback area.
3. HeiQht Increase. An increase in the heiqht of the principal structure, as
permitted by the requlations for the Aqricultural. R-1 and R-2 Zoninq
Districts.
C. PlanninQ Commission. The followinq proiects are subject to a Site Development
Review and shall be reviewed by the Planninq Commission durinq a Public
Hearinq:
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 Water Tanks. A heiqht increase for
towers, poles. water tanks and similar structures. as permitted by Chapter
8.36. Development Requlations.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-6
Month Year
7) 9;f~ 74
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-family 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
projects where the character or desiqn of the buildinq will
siqnificantly chanqe as determined by 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 reconstructed.
D. Historic Overlay Zonina District. All improvements within the Historic Overlay
Zoninq District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.62,
Historic Overlay Zoninq District.
E. Scarlett Court Overlay Zonina District. All improvements within the Scarlett
Court Overlay Zoninq District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to
Chapter 8.34, Scarlett Court Overlay Zoninq District.
F. All Other Improvements. All other improvements to structures or a site. which
are not otherwise mentioned in this Chapter. shall be subiect to a Site
Development Review Waiver or Site Development Review. as determined by the
Community Development Director.
8.1 04.04~0 Application. The Applicant shall submit a complete application pursuant to
Chapter 8.124, Applications, Fees and Deposits, accompanied by a fee and such
materials as are required by the Director of Community Development Director.
8.104.060 Notice Of Decision. 1\ Notice of Decision sh311 be given consistent with Ch3pter
8.132, Notice 3nd He3rings. No public he3ring is required fer 3 Site Development
Revie'.... unless the 3pplication is being considered concurrently with 3nother
permit requiring 3 public he3ring. 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. The decision maker may approve.
conditionally approve. or deny a Site Development Review based on the required
findinqs in Section 8.104.090.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-7
Month Year
-~r r,." 7 4
..,' iT.'
t? \:~{
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Chapter 8.104
8.104.0670 Concurrent Consideration. When a Site Development Review is required for a
project which is also subject to a Conditional Use Permit and/or Variance, it shall
be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the same decision-maker or
body for those actions durinq the same public hearinQ.
8.104.080 Notice Of Decision. Public HearinQ. The followinq 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 beinq considered, consistent with the
Notice of Decision provisions of Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearinqs.
B. Public HearinQ. 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 ProcessinQ. 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.
8.104.07100 Required Findings. All of the following findings shall all be made in order to
approve a Site Development Review and shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the public record:
A. ^pproval of this application is consistent 'Nith 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, '.'Vith any applicable
Specific Plans, \,vith the development regulations or perf{)rmance standards
established f{)r the zoning district in which it is located, and with all other
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the
provisions of Title 8. Zoninq Ordinance.
C. The approval "viII not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
'Norking in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general
'Nelfare. The desiqn of the proiect is appropriate to the City, the vicinity,
surroundinq properties and the lot in which the proiect 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 environment for the development. The
subiect site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-8
Month Year
~13 if) 1'1
SITE DEVELOPMENT RE~W '
Chapter 8.104
8.104.080
8.104.090
E.
Tho subjoct sito is physically suitablo for the type and intensity of tho approved
development. Impacts to existinq slopes and topoqraphic features are addressed.
F.
Impacts to viows 3re addrossed. Architectural considerations includinq the
character, scale and quality of the desiqn, site layout. the architectural relationship
with the site and other buildinqs, screeninq of unsiqhtly uses, Iiqhtinq, buildinq
materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious
with its surroundinqs and compatible with other development in the vicinity.
G.
Imp30ts to oxisting slopos and topographic features aro 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.
^rchitectural consider3tions, including the charactor, sc310 and quality of the
design, the 3rchitoctural relationship 't..ith the sito and other buildings, building
m3teri31s and colors, screoning of exterior appurtonancos, exterior lighting, and
similar elemonts have boen incorporatod into the project 3nd as conditions of
appro'.'31 in ordor to insure compatibility of this devolopmont '1.'ith tho
development's design concopt or themo 3nd tho char3cter of 3djacont buildings,
neighborhoods, 3nd usos. The site has been adequately desiqned to ensure
proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles.
I.
Landscape considorations, including the loc3tion, type, sizo, color, texture and
covorago of plant matorials, provisions and simil3r elements h3ve boon
considored to ensure visual reliof and 3n attr3ctivo onvironment for tho public.
J.
Tho 3pprov31 of tho Sito Devolopmont Reviow is consistont v:ith the Dublin
Goneral Plan 3nd \Nith any applic3ble Specific Plans.
K.
Appro'.'31 of this application complies with Chapter 8.58 relating to the Public /\RT
Program Contribution.
.,"...etiao. The decision maker for Site Development Reyiews shall be the Director of
Community Development (and his/her designee). The Director of Community
Development may, based on e'lidence in the public record, and the findings above, make an
administrative decision to appro'.'e, conditionally approve, or deny a Site Development
Reviev.'.
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 appeal. The Community
Development Director or his/her designee may grant a Site Development Review Waiver
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
1 04-9
Month Year
7L1 ~f 74
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVI~W
Chapter 8.104
for applications approved by another decision maker or body upon the determination that
the modification is a minor project and in accordance with Section 8.104.100, Waiver.
8.104.100 "laiver. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may allo','l a minor
physical change to an approved Site De'lelopment Revie,>,,' as a Wai','er upon determining
that a Site Development Re'lie','l \Vai'ler is in substantial conformance '.'lith the Site
Development Revie\'l is a minor proj ect , is Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality.^..ct, and is consistent ","ith the conditions of approval for the Site
Development Re'liev,'. It is not the intent of this Chapter that a series of Site Development
Re'liew \Vaivers be used to circumvent the need for a ne'N Site Development Revie\'l.
8.104.110 Cuidelines. Site Development Revie'N Guidelines adopted by the City Council on May
11, 1992 shall be used to guide the re'lievl of Site Development Revie\-v applications.
8.104.120 Building Permits. Building Permits shall not be issued except in accordance '.'lith the
terms and conditions of the Site Development Review approval.
8.104.110 Construction Permits. Buildinq and Gradinq 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 Chapter.
8.104.130 DesiQn Guidelines. Any desiqn quidelines 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.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
104-10
Month Year