Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Economic Stimulus Modify~~' ~1 J ~ ~ ~' ~V ~~ CITY CLERK File # ^~~~-~~ 430-20 Ltoo~ ~O AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 5, 2009 SUBJECT: NEW BUSINESS: Proposed Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance designed to provide a stimulus to Businesses and Property Owners in the City during the current economic climate. Report Prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) June 17, 2008 City Council Agenda Statement (without Attachments). 2) Matrix showing proposed changes. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public comment; and 3) Provide Staff with direction. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: If the proposed changes are enacted, the City would lose approximately $11,650.00 related to permit fees for Temporary Promotional Signs and Balloon Signs (approximately $5,825.00 a year for two years). However, the increased use of temporary signs could increase sales and generate additional sales tax revenue to offset the loss of permit fees for Temporary Promotional Signs and Balloon Signs. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: At the request of the City Council, Staff has been reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for ways to provide a stimulus to business community during the current economic climate. The Planning Division has identified several alternatives to streamline the entitlement process for development applications and to promote businesses in Dublin. These alternatives include modifications to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, regarding the level of review required for projects and modifications to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, to facilitate the use of banner signs and balloon signs. The proposed modifications to the sign regulations include: a temporary elimination of fees for promotional banners and balloons and other minor modifications to the Sign Ordinance. COPY TO: Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. / G: IZoning OrdISDR Update 20091 CC 4-71SR 4-7- ZO Modifications.DOC ~^ ~ ANALYSIS: The following modifications are proposed in order to provide a stimulus to businesses and property owners in the City: Site Development Review Chapter On June 17, 2008, the City Council adopted an Ordinance amending the Site Development Review Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.104) to improve the clarity of the Chapter, ensure its effectiveness and ensure that the Site Development Review Chapter is consistent with current practices (June 17, 2008 Agenda Statement included as Attachment 1). The new Site Development Review Chapter has been in effect for 8 months. The revised Chapter reduced the level of review required for several projects, but also increased the level of review for major projects. For example, under the previous Site Development Review Chapter, the Community Development Director was charged with reviewing most improvements in the City. The 2008 update requires new principal structures and major facade remodels to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, rather than by the Community Development Director. As part of the City's effort to assist business owners through the current economic climate, Staff has identified several changes that could be made in order to reduce the time and costs associated with obtaining Planning approval for minor projects. Staff is recommending that these changes be permanently made to the Site Development Review Chapter. Accessory Structures All Accessory Structures which are over 120 square feet currently require a Site Development Review which requires notification of property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site, and can take up to one month to process. Staff recommends that all multi-family, commercial and industrial accessory structures, which are less than 120 square feet in size or are not visible from the right-of--way, be reviewed pursuant to a Site Development Review Waiver which is typically processed in three days. Accessory Structures in asingle-family residential zoning district would no longer require a Site Development Review. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Additions Staff is recommending that all additions to a principal structure which are not visible from the right-of- way and all additions which are less than 1,000 square feet or 15% of the floor area of the building be reviewed at Staff level. Typically these types of additions do not have significant impacts. By allowing Staff to review these types of additions, Applicants will save time and money while trying to improve their property. Facade Modifications The current Site Development Review Chapter divides facade modifications into two categories: major and minor. Minor facade modifications are reviewed by the Community Development Director and major facade modifications are reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director determines which types of facade improvements are major and which are minor. In the previous Site Development Review Chapter, the Community Development Director was given the authority to approve all facade improvements. Prior to issuing a decision on facade modifications, tl~e Community Development Director would send out a notice to all tenants and property owners within 300 feet of the project site and would also notify the Planning Commission and City Council of the proposed project. In order to reduce the burden on the Applicant and encourage property owners to improve their properties during the current economic climate, Staff is recommending that all facade remodels once again be 2 of 6 reviewed by the Community Development Director hearing jurisdiction on a project at any time to controversial. The Community Development Director can transfer the Planning Commission, should a proposal be Residential Additions The revised Site Development Review Chapter, adopted in 2008, requires property owners to obtain a Site Development Review for all residential additions over 500 square feet in size (Section 8.104.040.A.7). Since the enactment of this Chapter, Staff has only received 3 requests for Site Development Review for residential additions. Staff typically provided minimal comments and was able to notice the additions within 10 days of receipt of a project. A Site Development Review for a room addition allows Staff to review the proposal and notify neighbors within 300 feet of the project site of the proposed addition, and also allows them to make comments or review plans prior to the Community Development Director making a decision on the project. However, Site Development Review adds an additional step that homeowners must go through in order to improve their property and can discourage people from improving their property. Because additions did not require review under the previous Site Development Review Chapter, Staff is asking for direction from the City Council on whether or not to continue to require review of room additions over 500 square feet in size. Permit Expiration Section 8.96.O10.D of the Zoning Ordinance states that "construction or use shall commence within one (1) year of Permit approval, or the Permit shall lapse and become null and void." The Zoning Ordinance allows Applicants to apply for one 6-month extension prior to expiration of a Permit (typically this is for Conditional Use Permits and Site Development Review). Today's economic climate has made it difficult for developers to obtain financing prior to expiration of their permits. Additionally, some developers would like to begin the Planning process but have expressed concerns that the economic climate may not be right for them to begin construction prior to expiration of their permits. In order to assist developers and to encourage developers to stay in the Planning process, Staff is recommending that the City Council enact a temporary modification to Section 8.96.O10.D to allow Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permits to remain in effect for 2 years rather than the current 1 year. The permit holder would also have an option of applying for one 6-month extension at the end of the permit term. Staff recommends that this modification be retroactive to extend the approvals of existing, valid permits. The proposed modifications would be repealed automatically 2 years following the effective date of the ordinance or the City Council could choose to extend the effective period should conditions warrant it. Section 8.96.O10.D is recommended to be revised as shown below and to be enacted for a period of two years: Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence within two (2 years ~° ~" ~~°~~ of Permit approval, or the Permit shall lapse and become null and void. Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the Permit approval, or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. Where a Conditional of Approval 3 of 6 states that a permit will expire within one year this Section shall override the Condition of Approval. Temporary Promotional Signs Staff has recommended several changes to the Sign Regulations Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.84), to provide some relief from the current regulations in order to expand the advertising opportunities available to businesses. Staff is recommending that these regulations be enacted for a period of two years. The City Council can also choose to extend this period prior to the expiration if conditions warrant it. Following the two year period, the amendments would expire and the existing regulations would then apply. Staff is recommending that the City Council consider enacting the following temporary modifications to the sign regulations (each change is discussed in further detail below): • Allow temporary Promotional Banners to remain up for a maximum of 21 consecutive days with a 21 consecutive day waiting period between permits; • Allow Promotional Banners to be a maximum of 60 square feet in size; • Allow businesses to cluster a maximum of 7 balloons which are less than 15 inches in diameter; and • Allow balloons which are larger than 15 inches in diameter to be located on-site for a maximum of 30 days per calendar year. Promotional Banners Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance currently allows Promotional Banners (a banner which advertises special events, sales or promotional needs) to be displayed for a maximum period of 15 consecutive days. A business owner is then prevented from displaying another promotional banner for 30 days after a promotional banner is removed. Promotional banners are limited in size to a maximum of 30 inches tall x 24 feet long (60 square feet). In order to allow businesses to keep Promotional Banners up for ~ ~` ~ ~~ a longer period of time to maximize their advertising efforts, Typical Promotional Banner Staff is recommending that Banners be allowed to remain up for a maximum period of 21 days (an increase of one week). Staff is also recommending that the waiting period between Banners be reduced from 30 days to 21 days. By increasing the time a Banner may be installed on a property and decreasing the waiting period in between Banners, businesses will be allowed additional days throughout the year in which they can advertise special events happening at their location. Banners are currently limited in size to a maximum of 30 inches in height x 24 feet in length. All Banners must fit within these size limitations. Staff is recommending that the maximum size be changed to 60 square feet, which is the maximum overall size currently allowed; however, by utilizing a maximum overall size rather than a maximum height and length, businesses will have more flexibility to design their banner to suit their needs. 4of6 Staff is also recommending that the City Council waive the normal application fee of $25.00. Last year, the Planning Division processed 153 permits for 202 Banners which resulted in application fees of $5,050.00 ($25 fee per sign x 202 signs=$5,050.00). By eliminating this fee for the next two years, it will allow the City to encourage businesses to continue to promote their businesses, while still requiring a permit to ensure that businesses are following the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and to track requests for Banners. Balloons ~, ~. ~.1 .r The Zoning Ordinance currently allows businesses to display Promotional Balloons (greater than 15 inches in diameter) for a maximum period of 21 days per year. Staff is recommending that the City Council increase the number of days Balloons may be displayed on a site for a maximum of 30 days per year (an increase of nine days). Additionally, Staff is recommending that the City Council waive the $25.00 permit fee for Promotional Balloons. Last year, the Planning Division issued 31 permits for Promotional Balloons which resulted in revenues of $775.00 ($25 permit fee x 31 permits=$775). Section 8.84.150.B of the Zoning Ordinance allows businesses to display small balloons (no more than 15" inches in diameter) at their business. Staff's interpretation of this section of the Zoning Ordinance only allows businesses to display a maximum of 1 balloon rather than a cluster of balloons because these clusters would be larger than 15" in diameter when measured together. An example of a balloon cluster is shown on the right. In order to allow businesses to cluster several balloons, rather than one, for more effective advertising, Staff is recommending that the City Council modify this section of the Zoning Ordinance to allow up to seven balloons to be clustered. No permit would be required. There would be no limitations on the number of clustered balloons that may be displayed on a site. CONCLUSION: Staff is recommending several modifications to the Zoning Ordinance in order to improve its effectiveness and to provide temporary relief from some of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance during the current economic climate. By reducing the level of review required for some projects in Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, the City will encourage continual improvement of properties by making the process easier for minor projects and will also reduce the amount of money spent by Applicants due to a reduction in Staff time spent on a project. The proposed temporary modifications to the Sign Ordinance will expand advertising options available to businesses. All of the proposed modifications are aimed at assisting property owners and businesses in the City and to help ease them through these difficult times. NEXT STEPS: Based on direction received from the City Council at tonight's hearing, Staff will prepare a Draft Ordinance which incorporates all of the modifications discussed tonight. Staff will then bring the Draft Ordinance to the Planning Commission during a Public Hearing for their recommendation to the City Council. Staff will then bring the Ordinance to the City Council during a Public Hearing for action. Staff anticipates that the Draft Ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in June 2009 and the City Council will be able to act on the Ordinance in July 2009. 5 of 6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public comment; and 3) Provide Staff with direction. 6 of 6 ~ OI, DUB ~~ 17i ~. ~~ CITY CLERK 111 File # ^©©0'©^v ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 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 ATTACHMENTS: 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. 2) October 9, 2007 PIanning Commission Agenda Statement (without attachments); 3) Minutes from the October 9, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session; 4) May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without attachments); 5) ~ Minutes from the May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session; 6) ~ June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (wYtl3out attachments); ._ 7) Draft Minutes from thy: June 10, 2008 Plannini; f,::oY~Ymission Meeting; 8) Chapter 8.l 04, Site Development Review (as proposed); and 9) Chapter 8.104 showing modifications to text in strikethrough (te,ct to be removed) and underline (text to be added). RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive the Staff presentation; 2) Open Public Hearing; //1,~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 regardin the a lication fee for reside ' g Pp nhal improvements. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: For most modifications, there will be an insignificant financial impact to the City. Costs associated with processing these ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: In House Distribution File G Zoning Ord1SDR Update 20071CC Agenda Statement 6-l 7-08.doc .~ - 5-D~1 ~, ~ z~~ ~ 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 of the Chapter. The review of the 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, thin 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 Developriient Review Chapter since 1997; these changes were made to require review of projects in the Historic Overlay Zoning District and•the Scarl'ett 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 Plarming 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. 3~ i y 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. Genera] 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 varigus 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. Projects 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; ~>~~ ~ • 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 5.04, 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 rrtodi6cations to the Plannin~.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). ~ iv 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, 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. Community Development Director Review (Section 8 104 040 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 S00 square feet; •, .Residential demolition and reconstruction; • ..Security gates; • Wireless:Communication Facilities; -and • Minor facade modifications. Residentiallmprovements 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 SO 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 ~~~Z 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 an 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 maybe 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. Facade Remodel Minor facade 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 facade remodels. Staff is recommending that facade remodels be categorized as either major or minor. Major facade remodels will continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Zoning Administrator Review (Section 8 104 040 B) The following projects require review by the Zoning Administrator: ~~iz • 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 8.104.040.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; ~' ~12 Governmental Activities; School Facilities; Solar Collectors; and Utilities). The other activities (Decks, Paths and Walkways; Irrigation; Repairs and Maintenance; anal 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.OSO.A2.e.3) and for a height exception for freestanding structures (8.36.1 I0.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 •I~evelopment 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.OSO.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 Perniit, 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 q~f_I2 U 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 tl-e 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 theStaff presentation; 2) open Public; Bearing; 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. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Zoning Ordinance Regulations y y x z y N Proposed Regulation Existing Regulation Benefit Site Development Review Accessory Structures:All All Accessory Structures over 120 Square Reduces the level of review for minor Accessory Structures which are Feet require a Site Development Review. improvements. Can save property owners and not visible from the right-of-way Under the previous Site Development businesses time and money do to application and all Accessory Structures Review Chapter, a Site Development costs and plan preparation which are under 120 square feet in Review was required size require a Site Development Review Waiver. All other Accessory Structures require a Site Development Review. Facade Remodels: All Facade Facade Remodels require a Site Reduces the level of review required. Reduces Remodels require a Site Development Review. Minor Facade costs by eliminating additional staff time for Development Review which will be Remodels are reviewed by the Community meetings and preparation of resolutions and reviewed by the Community Development Director and Major Facade reports. Staff level review is faster than Development Director. Remodels are reviewed by the Planning Planning Commission level review of projects, Commission. Under the previous Site thereby saving Applicants valuable time. Development Review Chapter, these improvements were reviewed by the Community Development Director pursuant to a Site Development Review. Multi-Family, Commerical and All additions larger than 1,000 square feet Reduces the level of review required. Reduces Industrial Additions: Multi- or 15% of the floor area of the building and costs by eliminating additional staff time for Family, Commercial and Industrial visible from the right-of-way require review meetings and preparation of resolutions and building additions which are not by the Planning Commission. Under the reports. Staff level review is faster than visible from the right-of-way or are previous Site Development Review Planning Commission level review of projects, less than 1,000 square feet or Chapter, the Community Development thereby saving Applicants valuable time. 15% of the floor area of the Director reviewed all additions pursuant to a building (whichever is greater) will Site Development Review. be reviewed by the Community Development Director. O N Comparison of Existing and Proposed Zoning Ordinance Regulations Proposed Regulation Existing Regulation Benefit Residential Additions: Resdiential additions over 500 square feet No change is proposed at this time, Staff is Residential additions over 500 in size require approval from the asking for direction from the City Council on square feet in size require a Site Community Development Director pursuant whether or not to continue to require a Site Development Review (no change to a Site Development Review. Under the Development Review for reisdnetial additions. currently proposed). previous Site Development Review Chapter, a Site Development Review was not required for residential room additions. Permit Ex iration Permit Expiration: Extend the Permits (typically Site Development Revie Allows developers construct project or approval period for Site and Conditional Use Permits) expire after commence use. Development Review and one year. Conditional Use Permits to two years (temporary two year modification . Promotional Si ns Temporary Promotional Temporary Promotional Banners are Allows additional advertising opportunities by Banners: Allow Temporary allowed to remain up for a maximum of 15 allowing businesses to leave signs up for a Promotional Banners to remain up consecutive days with a 30 consecutive day longer period of time and increases the total for a period of 21 consecutive waiting period between permits. number of days temporary signs may be days with a 21 consecutive day installed on a property during a calendar year. waiting period between permits (for a period of two years). Temporary Promotional Limited in size to a maximum of 30" tall x Allows businesses flexibility regarding the Banners: Promotional Banners 24' long. dimensions of banners to meet their needs as may be up to 60 square feet in long as the banner does not exceed the size maximum size. Balloons (less than 15 inches in One balloon which is less than 15 inches in Allows additional advertising opportunities. diameter): Allow businesses to diameter is permitted. cluster a maximum of 7 balloons which are less than 15 inches in diameter ~~ Comparison of Existing and Proposed Zoning Ordinance Regulations Proposed Regulation Existing Regulation Benefit Balloons (greater than 15 Balloons which are larger than 15 inches in Allows additional advertising opportunities. inches in diameter): Balloons diameter may be located on-site for a which are larger than 15 inches in maximum of 21 calendar days per year diameter may be located on-site (subject to permit approval). for a maximum of 30 calendar days per year (subject to permit a royal. Permit Fees: Eliminate permit $25.00 application fee per sign. Provides assistance to businesses and fees for Temporary Promotional encourages the use of signs for advertising Banner Signs and Balloon Signs. purposes. N t~