HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Draft Site Dev Review Guidelines (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 13, 1992
SUBJECT: Review of Draft Site Development Review
Guidelines
REPORT PREPARED BY: David Choy, Associate Planner
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Site Development Review
Guidelines Draft #4 , dated
April 1, 1992
Attachment 1 : Minutes of the September 16 ,
1991 Planning Commission
- Meeting Regarding Site
Development Review Guidelines
Attachment 2 : Minutes of the November 4 ,
1991 Planning Commission
Meeting Regarding Site
Development Review Guidelines
Attachment 3 : Minutes of the January 6, 1992
Planning Commission Meeting
Regarding Site Development
Review Guidelines
Attachment 4 : Community Design Guidelines
for Metal Buildings, prepared
by California Building Systems
Institute, Inc.
Attachment 5 : Checklist of Submittal
Requirements for Site
Development Review
Attachment 6 : Sample Pictures
RECOMMENDATION: #-�1) Receive Staff Report
2 ) Question Staff
3) Provide input regarding Site Development
Review Guidelines
4 ) Direct Staff to bring item back to
future meeting for adoption
-------------
ITEM NO. ♦ COPIES TO: Senior Planner
Project Planner
Agenda File
Application File
CITY CLERK
FILE z o z o
i
BACKGROUND:
In response to the Management Audit recommendation prepared by Hughes,
Heiss & Associates in 1989 , the Planning Staff has prepared the
attached Site Development Review (SDR) Guidelines .
The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Site Development Review
Guidelines on September 16 , 1991 (Attachment 1) and November 4 , 1991
(Attachment 2 ) , providing comments regarding the document. On January
6 , 1992 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Draft Site
Development Review Guidelines, forwarding the document to the City
Council for review and comment (Attachment 3) .
In addition, on September 17, 1989, at a joint meeting of the Planning
Commission and City Council to review the Management Audit, the City
Council requested the development of criteria specifying when small
additions or alterations subject to Site Development Review would or
would not be routed out to other agencies and City Departments .
Council directed Staff to include this criteria within the Site
Development Review Guidelines .
Site Development Review routing criteria should include the
establishment of a maximum size (200, 300, 400 square feet) for new
construction or additions which have minimal or no effect on the
operation of the existing site (i .e. , on-site circulation, drainage or
landscaping) . Projects conforming with this criteria would not
require routing for comments .
The Zoning Ordinance currently requires Site Development Review
approval for new structures totalling 1,000 square feet or more or any
construction aggregating 1,000 square feet or more, proposed within
the Commercial or Industrial Districts, unless zoning approval is
granted through a Site Development Review Waiver.
Staff currently processes Site Development Review Waiver requests for
minor physical modifications to existing or approved projects ( i .e. ,
additions of windows or doors to existing buildings, modifications to
landscaping, installing satellite dishes, etc. ) which have little or
no impact on the existing site. Waiver requests are reviewed to
ensure that the intent and objectives of the Site Development Review
procedure are met. Waiver requests are handled administratively and
are not routed for comments .
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to include routing
criteria information as an attachment, or within the Appendix, to the
Site Development Review Guidelines, since the Guidelines do not
address procedures for processing Site Development Review
applications . Staff will prepare a list of projects which would
typically not be routed for comments, at a later date for City Council
review and approval .
Staff has included the Community Design Guidelines for Metal
Buildings, prepared by California Building Systems Institute, Inc .
(Attachment 4 ) as an example of the content and format of design
guidelines .
-2-
DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of the Site Development Review Guidelines is to assist
property owners, developers, architects, and Applicants in
understanding 1) the objectives of the City of Dublin Site Development
Review process and 2) the level of quality that the City is seeking.
The Site Development Review Guidelines are intended to provide Staff
and Applicants with general design direction for use in the review of
development proposals .
The Site Development Review Guidelines identify the intent of overall
design criteria and should be used in conjunction with the Zoning
Ordinance, which will provide specific information on minimum/maximum
sizes, dimensions and quantities of buildings, setbacks, structures
and improvements required on-site.
Comments on the Site Development Review Guidelines were received from
other City Departments and affected agencies . In addition, the
guidelines were referred for comments to approximately fifty
Developers, Architects and Designers with past or present projects in
the City of Dublin. Eight firms responded, providing comments on the
Site Development Review Guidelines . Staff has reviewed all of the
comments and, where applicable, modified the Site Development Review
Guidelines to address the comment or concern expressed. The following
is a summary of the comments received.
I . Site Planning
2-. A comment was received requesting the guideline to define
"Streetscape" . This guideline was clarified to emphasize
compatibility with adjacent uses and to identify streetscape
elevations as viewed from the public streets .
5 . This guideline was modified to state The siting and orientation
of buildings should respond to both the pedestrian and vehicular
nature of the street" and not one, or the other.
in -esponse to the comment Why not count off-street parking
toward required parking to reduce size of parking lots" this
guideline was modified to state that off-site parking is
"recognized as providing important supplemental parking" but it
is not considered required parking, which is to be provided on-
site.
6 . This guideline was modified to ensure that visual surveillance of
the parking lot by the Police Department is provided.
13 . A new guideline was added requiring water and sewer facilities to
comply with DSRSD Design Guidelines .
15 . This guideline was modified to emphasize ease of vehicular access
from the street onto the site.
-3-
17 . This guideline was modified to emphasize the importance of
balancing tenant visibility from the street frontage and
provisions for convenient parking.
18 . This guideline was modified to specify trees should be utilized
to provide dense summertime shade over parked cars .
Consideration is to be given to selecting "well behaved" trees
which will not damage cars with sap or droppings, and that
preserve visibility of tenant signage.
19 . This guideline was modified to ensure that screening/buffering of
parking lots allows visual surveillance of the site by the Police
Department, to help reduce vehicular burglaries .
21 . This guideline was not changed, however, comments included 1)
eliminate provisions for compact spaces, they' re too small, 2 )
provide one size stall sized between a compact and standard size
parking space, and provide some which are oversized, 3) agrees
with compact stalls located along front of building but disagrees
with compact spaces located along rear and side of site.
Responses to these concerns are as follows : 1) compact spaces
are valuable in providing more efficient utilization of property,
by allowing more parking spaces or landscaping in the same amount
of area; 2 ) compact stalls sizes in the City of Dublin are 8 ' x
171 , which are larger than the 7 .5 ' x 15 ' size allowed by some
other cities; 3) compact stalls should be evenly distributed
throughout the site and not all clustered in one portion of the
site.
22 . This guideline was added to address the design and placement of
handicapped parking spaces on-site.
25 . This guideline was added to address fire sprinkler valves and
backflow preventers which are required by DRFA and DSRSD to be
located at the front of the property. These items need to be
carefully screened, but not concealed, as visible and physical
access. are mandatory in emergency situations .
30 . This guideline was modified to include "utilizing landscaping and
siting, in combination with fences and walls as activity
separators . "
II . Landscape Design
1 . This guideline was moved to the front of the section to emphasize
the importance of water conservation measures within landscape
designs . Compliance with City and DSRSD regulations was also
added.
4 . This guideline was clarified to state "existing site conditions
should be evaluated on an individual basis, as part of the
environmental review process" , to identify significant trees and
natural amenities on site. In addition, flexibility was worked
-4-
into the guideline by allowing substantial tree replacement or
mitigation should the removal of a significant tree or natural
amenity become unavoidable.
8 . This guideline was modified to require consideration of the
growth pattern and maintenance requirements of landscaping
planted on property lines, to help avoid potential conflicts
between adjacent property owners resulting from the maintenance
of perimeter landscaping.
9 . _ A comment was received requesting consideration of 2 ' to 3 '
minimum growing areas in parking lots, instead of the 5 ' growing
area specified within the guideline. This topic was separated
into three guidelines (9 , 10 & 11) addressing perimeter
landscaping, landscape strips and landscape fingers,
respectively. For perimeter landscaping the growing area
remained unchanged, at a minimum of •5 ' . Guidelines 10 and 11
were added to permit a minimum growing area of 3 ' for landscape
strips and landscape fingers within parking lots .
15 . This guideline was added to provide a buffer zone between open
space areas and landscaped areas- for fire protection purposes,
also known as "Fuel Modification. Zones" .
16 . This guideline was modified to allow consideration of utilizing
one 24 inch box tree in place of two 15 gallon trees in landscape
designs .
17 . A comment was received suggesting that trees be required to be
placed as close to the street as possible. Street trees are
currently placed near the street. But, by making such placement
a requirement, the flexibility in the placement of trees within
landscape designs may be unduly restrictive. No change was made.
18 . This guideline was modified to include the installation of root
barriers/collars to prevent root damage to sidewalks, streets,
utilities, etc .
III Architecture/Building Design
4 . A comment was received stating that visual diversity is not
necessarily important in design. This guideline was modified to
state that visual diversity can be important in design.
6 . A comment was received stating that it is very tough to provide
architectural detailing or treatment on all building elevations,
especially for commercial or industrial projects . The guideline
is intended to make developers, architects and applicants think
about the visual appearance of their project from all
perspectives, not just the front. No change was made.
8 . A comment was received requesting that the project budget be
considered as a determining factor in the location of mechanical
equipment on site. Mechanical equipment should be integrated
-5-
within the design of a building, and should not be treated as a
separate, "add-on" , item. No change was made.
11 . This guideline was added to ensure that building addresses are
visible from the street and are integrated into the building
design and/or sign program.
IV. Residential Design
3 . The Police Department is concerned that if parking lots are
_ entirely screened from view, it will encourage automobile
burglaries . This guideline was modified to state "These elements
should be balanced with the need to allow visual surveillance on
site. "
7 . A comment was received requesting the guideline to define "major
ridgeline" . The Dublin General Plan contains policies addressing
development on major ridgelines . The Site Development Review
Guidelines are designed to work in conjunction with the General
Plan. No change was made.
12 . This guideline was modified to require pedestrian circulation
systems on site to provide physical or visual access for Police
Department surveillance.
V. Commercial Centers
1 . This guideline was modified to place the emphasis on enhancing
the streetscape of large commercial projects .
2 . This guideline was added to encourage the _development. of outdoor
activity plazas or courtyards within larger commercial
developments . These amenities can induce public interaction on
site.
3 . This guideline was modified to require commercial projects which
are attempting to emphasize or encourage a pedestrian environment
to integrate elements of pedestrian interest within the building
design..
4 . This auiH-Line was added to ensure visibility of all tenant
spaces and to discourage int-arior corner units within commercial
centers .
5 . This guideline was modified to emphasize safe, as well as ,
separate pedestrian walkways .
7 . This guideline was modified to encourage awareness of potential
pedestrian connections between commercial centers and adjacent
residential areas .
-6-
VI . Industrial Design
1 . A comment was received requesting Staff to consider developing a
standard chart for stepping building heights away from
residential areas ( i .e. 5 ' setback - 20 ' height limit, 10 '
setback - 30 ' height limit, etc . ) . This type of approach is very
inflexible, and would not account for architectural design
techniques which can provide buffering and screening. No change
was made to this guideline.
VII_. Signing
The introduction paragraph was modified to emphasize signs
designed and scaled to be compatible with the building, and
recognizing that effective business identification may not always
be oriented toward the business entrance.
5 . A comment was received regarding how this guideline relates to
"neon" lights . This guideline addresses signs which are
illuminated from external, or separate, light sources, typically
freestanding monument signs . This guideline is not intended to
prohibit neon lights, which the Sign Ordinance permits subject to
Site' Development Review approval . No change was made to this
guideline.
A comment was received requesting that freestanding "pad"
buildings be allowed signage on all four building elevations .
The Sign Ordinance currently permits signage on a maximum of
three building elevations (one primary and two secondary) . This
request would require an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to allow
signage on more than three building elevations . This is beyond
the scope of the Site Development Review Guidelines .
In addition to the specific comments received on the guidelines, some
general comments were also received regarding the Site Development
Review process .
A request was made to consider establishing a concept review process
with the Planning Commission to generate early feedback. Staff
consulted the City Attc ney regarding this issue. If the Planning
Commission were to consider projects at a conceptual level, they would
need to do so through an additional noticed Public Hearing, which
could increase the processing time and cost of applications . The
Planning Commission could not consider projects which they would later
vote on, outside of a public hearing forum, as it would be an
infringement of the Public Hearing Due Process . In addition, it may
be potentially prejudicial for the Planning Commission to offer an
opinion on a project at a conceptual level, without benefit of full
information.
A general comment suggested that the Planning Staff be directed to
help solve problems not create them. The Site Development Review
Guidelines are intended to provide clear direction regarding
development proposals , including the expectations of the Planning
-7-
Department. This should be useful in avoiding discrepancies during
the application review process .
Included as Attachment 5 is the Planning Department Checklist of
Submittal Requirements for Site Development Review Approval . This
checklist is utilized to indicate to Applicants the material required
by the Planning Department to process a Site Development Review
application.
Another general suggestion was made to include exhibits, in addition
to photos, within the Site Development Review Guidelines to better
illustrate design concepts on streetscapes, landscape sections, street
widths, medians, buffers, etc. Staff is preparing several typical
illustrations which will be integrated with photos within the final
document. Staff will prepare brief one line descriptions to accompany
each photo or sketch.
The Planning Commission expressed a concern regarding the picture
quality within the Site Development Review Guidelines . In response to
this concern, Staff proposes to have half-tone prints prepared for
each photograph. This will allow the pictures to maintain a high
degree of clarity within the final document when photocopied.
Attachment 6 demonstrates picture quality attainable with half-tone
prints .
Staff has prepared a matrix as a tool to provide quick reference
throughout the document. Each policy has been cross referenced with
the following primary topics : SF- Single Family, MF- Multiple-Family,
C- Commercial, I- Industrial, A- Architecture, P- Parking,
L- Landscaping, FS- Fencing and Screening, and S- Signs . Individuals
interested in only one or two aspects of the Site Development Review
Guidelines will be able to use the matrix to locate the applicable
guidelines . The matrix also eliminates the necessity of repeating
guidelines which may apply to more than one subject.
A list of the Primary Topic Abbreviations will be located at the
bottom of each page of text within the final version of the Site
Development Review Guidelines . This will help define the
abbreviations which are used at the end of each guideline. In
addition, the final matrix format will include page numbers next to
the guideline number, to make it easier to find the guideline within
the written text of the Site Development Review Guidelines .
Staff is seeking input and direction from the City Council regarding
the policies contained within the Draft Site Development Review
Guidelines .
After receiving the City Council comments and making any necessary
revisions or clarifications, Staff will bring this item back to the
City Council for adoption at a future date.
-8-
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
GUIDELINES
DRAFT #4
APRIL 1 , 1992
-EXHIBIT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
I. Site Planning 2
II. Landscape Design 11
III. Architecture/Building Design 17
IV. Residential Design 22
V. Commercial Centers 28
VI. Industrial Design 31
VII. Signing 32
Appendix - SDR Guideline Matrix A - 1
INTRODUCTION
Site Development Review is one of several procedures used by the
City of Dublin to protect the public welfare and environment.
The process is a comprehensive evaluation of those
characteristics of a development which have an impact on
neighboring properties and the community as a whole.
Site Development Review makes a careful examination of a
project's quality of site planning, architecture, landscape
design and important details such as signage and lighting. The
purpose is to insure that all new and remodeled development will
carefully consider the community context in which it takes place
and make a conscientious effort to develop a compatible
relationship to the natural setting, neighboring properties and
community design goals.
The design policies contained in this booklet are intended to aid
the Planning Department in the review of development proposals.
Each of the separate sections within the Site Development Review
Guidelines are intended to compliment one other. General
policies stipulated within a specific section should be followed
whenever applicable.
The Site Development Review Guidelines have the specific purpose
of aiding the implementation of the goals and objectives of the
General Plan, together with the Zoning Ordinance, and other City
Ordinances and Policies. The Guidelines will generally indicate
the intent of overall design criteria, while the Zoning Ordinance
will provide specific information regarding minimum/maximum
sizes, dimensions and quantities. Development proposals should
demonstrate compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the Site
Development Review Guidelines and other applicable codes.
A matrix is included as an Appendix to the Site Development
Review Guidelines to allow for quick reference throughout the
document. Each policy has been cross referenced with the
following primary topics: SF- Single Family, MF- Multiple-Family,
C- Commercial, I- Industrial, A- Architecture, P- Parking,
L- Landscaping, FS- Fencing and Screening, and S- Signs.
The Primary Topic Abbreviations are located at the end of each
guideline. Individuals interested in only one or two topics will
be -able to use the matrix to locate the applicable guidelines.
The Planning Commission recommended adoption on January 6. 1992.
The City Council adopted these Guidelines on
I . SITE PLANNING
Site Design and planning is important because it combines the three
major elements of physical development: buildings, parking and
circulation, and landscape and amenities . The Planning Department
will review all applications to ensure that these three aspects are
compatible, and in proper balance, with the existing or proposed area
setting. The following policies have been established to meet this
intent.
1 . Buildings should be designed and sited so as to provide a strong
functional relationship to the site. Required side and rear
yards should be utilized and should be integrated into the
overall purposeful arrangement. Inaccessible yards and similar
outdoor spaces which tend to encourage gathering of trash,
storage, and weeds should be avoided. (SF, MF, C, I, A)
2 . Site designs should address compatibility with adjacent uses and
environments . Plans should provide streetscape elevations from
the public streets, especially where uses contrast with
surrounding environments . (SF, MF, C, I, A)
3 . Natural site amenities should be recognized and integrated into
the site design. Views, trees, creeks and similar features
unique to the site should be incorporated into developmental
proposals . Such features should be considered as strong site
design determinants . Disruption of existing natural features.,
particularly older trees, should be minimized, and offset by
providing other natural amenities on-site. (See photos 1 & 2 )
( SF, MF, C, I , A, P, L)
4 . Separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems should be
provided for larger projects . Pedestrian linkages between uses
in commercial developments should be emphasized, including
distinct pedestrian access from parking areas in large commercial
developments such as shopping centers . (SF, MF, C, P)
5 . The siting and orientation of buildings should respond to both
the pedestrian and vehicular nature of the street. Buildings on
streets of high pedestrian use should face on and be directly
accessible from the sidewalk, with no interruption by driveways
or parking areas . Buildings on streets with heavy vehicular _
traffic, particularly those with no on-street parking should
provide a major entry for the off-street parking area. On-street
parking is not to be counted as required parking, but is
recognized as providing important supplemental parking. (MF, C,
I , A, P)
6 . Driveways into or out of a shopping center should not be
obstructed by parking spaces . Ingress and egress driveways
should be separated from parking spaces by pedestrian walkways or
landscaped areas, while maintaining visual surveillance of the
site. (See photo 3) (C, P, L)
K
ASS� � �- -� •'+_"�• �'
~ /' •.:
p
�y :3 k .f��1p�IF� �i � w_ .•
or
p+.. ..:. ; fir• ;r ,P�. .2i.L•vt P. 1�• \r
d r fi
. Y
ti s•` i *� 1J
7 . Common driveways which provide vehicular access to more than one
site are encouraged, if applicable. (C, I, P)
8 . Public and private street design, including but not limited to:
street width, sidewalk, curb and gutter, street lights, etc.
should meet Public Works and other department requirements . (SF,
MF, C, I , A)
9 . Adequate provisions should be made for emergency vehicle and
service vehicle access and turning radii. (SF, MF, C, I, P)
10 . Energy efficient designs are recognized as additional benefits to
the project and the community. When possible, site orientation
should give consideration to solar or energy efficiency. (SF,
MF, C, I , A)
11 . Provision should be made for bicycles . Bicycle parking in multi-
family residential developments shall be on an all-weather
surface and should be located close to dwelling unit or
residential development entrances . Bicycle parking in commercial
and employment areas should be in highly visible locations, be
well lighted and lockable. (MF, C, P)
12 . Early contact with the utility companies is encouraged so that
pad-mounted transformers and air conditioning condensers can be
integrated into the site plan and screened with landscaping or
fencing. All pad fixtures and meters should be shown on the site
plan. (SF, MF, C, I, L, FS)
13 . The design of water and sewer facilities should comply with the
Dublin San Ramon Services District Design Guidelines . (SF, MF,
C, I, L, FS)
OFF STREET PARKING
14 . Parking lots should be designed with a hierarchy of circulation:
major access drives with no parking; major circulation drives
with little or no parking; and then parking aisles for direct
access to parking spaces . Small projects may need to combine
components of the hierarchy. Parking lots should be clearly and
easily understandable, especially to the first time visitor. An
on-site Vehicular Signing Program, utilizing a combination of
signs and pavement markings, should be developed for each site. _
(MF, C, I , P, S)
15 . Parking areas should be easily accessed from the street by
providing flat flares on all driveway entrances identified by the
Public Works Department. In order to minimize conflicts created
by vehicles entering the site and vehicles exiting parking spaces
an adequate clear space behind the sidewalk, such as a setback or
landscape strip, should be provided prior to starting the first
parking space. (MF, C, I , P, L, FS)
16 . Circulation wits—n parking areas should not interfere with other
site activities . Visitor parking should be located at the
entrance of the building and clearly marked. Automobile parking
shall be separated from loading areas and truck parking areas .
(See photo 4 ) (MF, C, I, P, L)
17 . Off-street parking facilities which are located in front of
buildings should provide a balance of tenant visibility and
convenient parking. In order to improve street frontages,
parking should be developed in a clustered manner, to avoid long
expanses of parking. (C, P)
18 . Landscaping should be integrated into the design of all parking
areas . Trees should be utilized to provide a canopy of dense
summertime shade over parked cars . The canopy should be pruned
up high enough to avoid damage to both trees and vehicles . As a
general rule trees should be installed every 30 feet so that a
minimum ratio of 1 tree per 6 automobiles is achieved. In large
parking areas, or where a special design objective is desired, a
lower ratio of trees to automobiles may be permitted by the
Planning Director, if the intended canopy coverage is achieved.
Consideration should be given to selecting a tree which is well
behaved and will preserve visibility of tenant signage. (See
photos 5) (MF, C, I , P, L)
19 . In order to enhance the streetscape, planting areas ( 3 ' wide
minimum dimension interior, 5 ' wide minimum dimension perimeter)
should be utilized to break up large .expanses of paving, visually
separate masses of parked cars, and partially screen/buffer
vehicles from the street. Screening/buffering should, however,
allow visual surveillance of the site by the Police Department.
Low lying shrubs and plants ( 18 inch maximum height) should be
utilized so that the upper one-half of the vehicle remains
visible. (See photo 6) (MF, C, I , P, L)
20 . Pedestrian access from the parking areas to structures should be
integrated into the site design. (See photo 7 ) (MF, C, I , P)
21 . Compact .car spaces should be evenly distributed throughout the
main parking lot. They should not be clustered adjacent to the
building front or along the rear or sides of the site. (MF, C,
I, P)
22 . Handicap parking spaces should be located closest to the primary _
building entrance. Handicap parking spaces should be designated
by appropriate signs and pavement markings . The Building
Department should be consulted regarding the number and location
of handicap parking spaces in multi-family residential and multi-
tenant commercial and industrial centers . (MF, C, I, P, S)
S�Y
:yY;z '�`?�F.s'sahfyu� u"� '� c�>���,,,,•��aT�`£'�£�7" ..-,:.� -, t,�
::. �1.��,'�yYFi �r,)'C. r+CFe } ��i l'?tir�_•..-�i`u+t ��t��+„�-btk•••, �� `.:
,�'tirW)'��4� s`�.L�a•7•i°Y t.*ka=.�r�`�c,s:•ti��Lr n `..1i�s?X7�'L�„��'✓ cwn `� 1SY <:•
•j'• a��. .� � h: �. y T
p'i't.' '1...�... •. .• �
r
KiFf� a.•3 Ytf+ `�f .• i' Jr..C}!-iv��`.. _ � <.' .yh•'s :- �.. 1� t'��
eq
*Y„~rY
lw-
3 ..r ♦ -4 7
y. 4• Vii? rr c. c / +a. l+l,< Fs Q•�': fy . ' �, :•/ .
-x•.77.
� • .
4
V }
1,,5,.���\��;•� �+f � &y-•`Ayr�"riQS •, ;r T` • 'l � r�� yet � rt
�,CC.'�-=n U• ---':" a•.�. �;,`� �:�i��. _ _ � mil, ' ,��sy
9p:
FENCING AND SCREENINu
23 . The design of fencing, sound walls, carports, trash enclosures
storage yards and similar accessory site elements should be
compatible with the architecture of main buildings, and should
use similar materials . (See photo 8) (SF, MF, C, I, A, FS)
24 . All exterior trash and storage utility boxes, electric and gas
meters, transformers, air conditioning equipment, satellite
dishes, etc . should be screened -from view wherever possible.
Generally, all such elements should be located at the rear of the
site, and should not have direct access from the street. The
applicant should coordinate the location of these elements with
the appropriate utility company. (SF, MF, C, I, FS)
25 . The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority and the Dublin San Ramon
Services District should be consulted regarding the location and
screening of fire sprinkler valves and backflow preventers .
These items should be visibly and physically accessible in
emergency situations . (MF, C, I , L, FS)
26 . Adequate fencing and walls should be provided to preserve privacy
and security of adjacent residential uses . (SF, MF, C, I, FS)
27 . Security fences which restrict access (concrete block walls or
heavy timber fences) or maintain surveillance visibility (chain
link fences) should blend in with the site ' s architecture. (SF,
MF, C, I , A, FS)
28 . Uphill fencing in subdivisions that is irregular and visible from
collector and arterial streets should receive architectural
treatment in design or material selection to minimize its
prominence. (SF, MF, A, L, FS)
29 . Where fencing is used at property frontages, it should enhance
the entrance to the property, complement the building' s
architecture and should not impair traffic safety by obscuring
views . (SF, MF, C, I, A, L, FS)
30 . Where conflicting activities between residential and non-
residential sites are adjacent to each other, consideration
should be given to utilizing landscaping and siting, in
combination with fences and walls, as activity separators . (SF,
MF, C, I , A, L, FS) -
31 . Fencing that encompasses considerable land in highly visible
areas should be of a type that preserves security and views on-
site, as well as views from off-site. Fencing viewed from off-
site should not impact the community' s scenic view potential .
(SF, MF, C, I, FS)
32 . Long expanses of fence or wall surfaces should be architecturally
designed to prevent monotony through the use of pilasters,
bollards, differing materials, etc. (See photo 9) (SF, MF, C, I ,
A, L, FS)
w• f
.,...�7....,tit�`xs�rr^"''s� a��..n-� �•r.,u E j l"r b'd �'E�r�FP�f p'.rr,.
+
csr:'r , raa�� :►t I,�t
�-,z�. �{,ix �r x.,+,,, .''4.�;>�.z —.� P •tip,�_ 1, +i 'n
Va..tis•_ .y.,,.
r I.f.J} � Sri� =1 ,�l,\i j.•�' yk� .*•, 3Kx. a
J4
'S-;
,�j. p .•— ',h '', r 4 -/a+ a )0��r� n p•/a i ` fl '''t,�•f;.
i 1
•f': tt / a C1. r�'r ( +r4v '�^'a4 .. fla,�yal�,?S.w}a '�'?r`j Y' V✓� j
rFr,r (« rR r } Y• ♦c{� >iP}'�!�, T�{IS,
'�• � .�� 'f�^fd .1t'�zl{' �..(?JI C +P vl `tt °f�.,, l 7 f !' t� -x.�;-•
1.1 ` + / � trP II,`I�x y,, ♦ ji,11! fit" t `r } �7+ L1 �( �-.
' Pr{ � ." l,�x jj r` P'er ��'!xy.:, ♦� ! C j P ;�, ° -�ff� l /�
r `, �r . f� 11 r it•�'.._:. , h 1 4 w ✓!N
If-
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
33 . Exterior lighting should be an integral part of the architectural
and landscape design of a project. Overall lighting levels
should be compatible with the neighborhood ambient light level,
and comply with current building and security code requirements .
Area lighting should be predominantly down-directed, and should
be designed so that light is not directed off the site. (SF, MF,
C, I , A, L)
34 .- Area lighting for security and visibility should be provided by
fixtures which are compatible and consistent with the building
design. (MF, C, I, A)
35 . Fixture mounting height- should be appropriate to the project and
the environment, while avoiding glare and minimizing light
intrusion. (SF, MF, C, I, A)
II . LANDSCAPE DESIGN
All landscape plans should exhibit a concept or theme. Landscaping is
more than an arrangement of plant materials with irrigation.
Landscaping plans should utilize plant materials in a logical, orderly
manner, which would define spatial organization, relate to buildings
and structures, and which would incorporate various site elements .
Landscaping can define areas by helping to focus on entrances, exits,
loading areas, parking lots, define the edges of various land uses and
provide transition between neighboring properties . The following
policies have been established to meet this intent.
1 . Water conservation measures need to be incorporated into
landscape designs, in accordance with applicable City of Dublin
and Dublin San Ramon Services District regulations . (SF, MF, C,
I , L)
2 . There should be a consistency of landscape design throughout a
development. Unrelated and/or random choice or placement of
plant materials should be avoided. All areas within a
development need not be identical . Different landscape themes
may be utilized in larger developments; for example, to heighten
the distinction between spaces, and to strengthen a sense of
movement and place, but such themes should be internally
consistent. (See photos 10) (SF, . MF, C, I, L)
3 . The scale and function of landscape materials should be
appropriate to the site and/or structures . Large scale buildings
generally should be complemented by large-scale landscaping.
Where shade is desired, broad-spreading canopy type trees are
appropriate. Landscaping of sites on major streets should
include large-scale trees . (SF, MF, C, I , A, L)
4 . Existing landscape elements should be incorporated into the
landscape design. Mature existing trees and tree groupings as
well as rock outcroppings should be considered as design
determinants . Existing site conditions should be evaluated on an
individual basis, as part of the environmental review process, to
identify trees on site which are significant and would require
protection. These trees should be listed on the site plan and
landscape plans . Measures should be taken to protect the -
existing significant trees . If tree removal is unavoidable,
substantial tree replacement or mitigation will be required.
Buildings should be located outside of the dripline of major
trees, and disturbance of roots and changes in ground elevation
should be avoided. (See photo 11) (SF, MF, C, I , L)
5 . Landscape plans should incorporate various site elements .
Outdoor lighting, signing, parking, trash receptacles, fencing,
garden walls, planters, etc. , should be carefully considered as
integral elements of the landscape design and should be included
in, and shown, on, all landscape plans . (SF, MF, C, I, A, P, L,
FS, S)
tV � � I• ` { rye J�`+�'xi��t�k !J�I t. t A�S�� `
rt n'tsw �' i' +��� l�.r ��' 7����N��� r�- r3 `m I`�rt.�� #FeTTF 1 �{ ��,R•
�r
I fir,
�7► 't~. a.) � - ���� ��_r`� ,tai•�A���r��t yt ,�'��JJr`, '�.
*yti�
.y,_ '••`ya`
.. ,f F� , � � t F `• S
�• s.�. ' •w'i't F•,k- $:- ,, � '
6 . Landscaping shu--d not be utilized to scream__ out an otherwise
unacceptable building. Building architecture should stand on its
own with landscaping incorporated as an integral and
complimenting element of overall project design. (SF, MF, C, I ,
A, L, FS)
7 . Landscaping incorporated into building design is encouraged.
Trellises, arbors, and cascading type landscaping should be
considered. (See photo 12) (MF, C, I, A, L)
8 . Perimeter landscaping is encouraged. It should provide buffer,
screening and appropriate transition to adjacent properties and
should generally include trees, shrubs and groundcover.
Consideration should be given to the growth pattern and
maintenance requirements of landscaping planted adjacent to
property lines . (MF, C; I, L, FS)
9 . Where automobile bumpers overhang into perimeter landscaping
there must be adequate growing area, typically five feet wide,
outside of the two foot bumper overhang. (See photo 13) (MF, C,
I, P, L)
10 . Where automobile bumpers overhang into landscape strips there
must be adequate growing area, typically three feet wide, outside
of the two foot bumper overhang. (MF, C, I, P, L)
11 . A minimum one foot wide raised curb or equivalent should be
provided on landscape fingers adjacent to parking stalls to allow
for pedestrian access . There must be adequate growing area,
typically three feet wide, within the landscape fingers . (MF, C,
I , P, L)
12 . Generally, a limited palette of landscape materials is suggested.
The use of indigenous or native-type plant materials is
encouraged. The use of exotic or "foreign" materials is
generally discouraged. In high use areas, landscaping should be
suitable for the anticipated activity levels . (SF, MF, C, I , L)
13 . Ground cover should predominantly consist of live plant
materials . Inert materials such as gravel, bark, colored rock
may be used in conjunction with, but are not acceptable as a
substitute for, vegetation. (SF, MF, C, I, P, L)
14 . Appropriate irrigation is required for all landscaped areas; _
generally, an automatic, underground system with separate
irrigation meters is required. Said irrigation systems should be
designed so as not to overspray walks, buildings, fences,
roadways, etc. (MF, C, I, P, L)
15 . A buffer zone between open space areas and landscaped areas
should be provided for fire protection purposes . (SF, MF, C, I,
L)
gat �����nr'�'}-� .��`. • .
PHOTO 12 — GUIDELINE # II .7
ri
a ' � r �r:��� �s,y x.� a'7�' -; •�.�.� ,�.:a �,= 'xr" r .yyar .[
+? _f" t �.,er�• � 1dt,���kkrt � d � � "nf�'�+�R �K�ah i..� a�vSar"`, 4
c,
-rtk'�.' � w�.fsi'✓ '�iv' "�s.�'�.w.•k' `,�i.6,�. � �..Y�wx"r�`�dw� s Ufa�'�*� �q �?'9'' � ' �" q`"�.'�i,�+,ia.'�'' f.r�,./
a � ._ "'"' 4� yr 'S - ,b`'� �+ 'd, �f f" .•'`
i g, �
1
PHOTO 13 — GUIDELINE # II.9
STREET TREES
16 . Street trees are required for all developments, 15 gallon minimum
size. Consideration may be given to utilizing one 24 inch box
tree in place of two 15 gallon trees . (SF, MF, C, I, L)
17 . Street trees should be pruned to develop high shade canopies,
compliment the street frontage and maintain visibility of
commercial tenant signage. (SF, MF, C, I, L)
18 ." Arterial and major streets should use a tree that creates a bold
and sustained effect. On collector and residential streets the
street trees should provide summer shade, interesting structure
in the winter, and scale appropriate for the area. Adequate
growing space must be provided to accommodate both the above and
below grade characteristics of the specified tree. Where
required, root barriers/collars should be installed to prevent
root damage to sidewalks, streets, utilities, etc. (See photo
14 ) (SF, MF, C, I, L)
19 . Ornamental or flowering trees can be used as accent trees or on
certain streets where a particular dramatic effect may be
appropriate. (SF, MF, C, I, L)
20 . Street trees should represent a size relationship with the
streetscape, i .e. , the wider the street the bigger the trees .
Design consideration should be focused on space requirements of
the selected trees at all phases of their life cycle. Soils,
underground obstruction, overhead constraints, mature tree size,
and shadow patterns are examples of design consideration. (See
I photo 15) (SF, MF, C, I, L)
21 . Street trees should be properly planted in terms of soil
conditioning, and multiple staking should be maintained for an
adequate period of time to assure the healthy establishment of
the tree. (SF, MF, C, I, L)
�s 7 I t + s.
77
4�•-�' i � -1 r �t A•'.r''�4 y ,"•' 't
AA
• `�..�� '. �, c 1. `','.� t.rc 1a�'�. J���"�":6 1":. s �°k�`< #�� �� y4 Rfu,...1 k .„,�..�v,,
h
':,•fit: •'a':!�'�' •/ � '_l, �'..3.. L���i c 12 a ;.
` 10
ttzz
s*n
III . ARCHITECTURE/BUILDING DESIGN
No single architectural or building design theme is required in
Dublin. Good architectural character is based upon the suitability of
a building for its purpose, its environment and its relationship of
materials and proportion. Good architectural character is not, in
itself, more expensive than poor architectural character. Themes may
be established for selected parts of the community but they are
directed more towards standards of quality and compatibility than
achieving a uniform appearance. The following policies have been
established to meet this intent.
1 . Buildings should achieve a human scale and interest. Buildings
should exemplify a sense of proportion to the physical site and
surrounding properties . Wall insets, balconies and window
projections, etc. , are examples of building elements which may
help produce a proportionate building and reduce the scale of
larger buildings . (See photo 16) (SF, MF, C, I, A)
2 . Building entries should be protected from the elements and should
create a "sense of entry" or focal point for the structure. (See
photos 17) (SF, MF, C, I, A)
3 . Multiple buildings on the same site should be designed to create
a strong visual relationship between -the buildings . When the
first portion of a site is to be- developed, a concept plan should
be submitted for the entire site. (MF, C, I, A)
4 . A transition from low building on the street frontages to larger
and taller structures on the interior of the project is generally
encouraged. Visual diversity can be important in design. (See
photo 18) (MF, C, I, A)
5 . Each phase of a phased development should attain a visual
completeness . Temporary barriers/walls should be painted and
trimmed to integrate with the permanent construction. (SF, MF,
C, I , A, FS)
6 . All building elevations should be considered for some
architectural or sculptural treatment in order to avoid the blank
wall effect. Where long buildings are utilized, visual relief -
should be provided by changes in the building height, wall plane,
landscape integration, and spatial volumes and by varied use of
window areas, arcades, materials and roof elements . (See photo
19) (SF, MF, C, I, A, L)
7 . Parapet walls should be treated as an integral part of the
building design. Such walls should not stick out as unrelated
visual elements . (MF, C, I, A)
1 � ... ...�4"`.a �� yn,r_>,�..,,�'n� •�,e--sip J°`rp�_
•:A
wry. - .i �' . __ '_•-. -.._. < _
t 7 _
1.:
__.r:::_a»'��=p�»e� �Y4it1:^dlts „r>�t_::•� ��y�p ... .,
HOME AUTO
b sµA,'?t'..
4 j 1P,
pvr t
�• .:.+ �sl+.y.c�+� .� "•r...:�"�}i'rn r 'laT,dr�T.,� �5 �+.. A+�� .�'�-�'`r`h'/as
:1�' Y.:4,•Rr C�}`.#' �'i�� t}�,df,.� � Y .' a'i?n„��,.;. .�sa.,+F.t A =�a �,.,,
8 . Exposed rooftops should be treated as visua--y sensitive areas .
Rooftop mechanical equipment is not prohibited, but its design
and screening should be incorporated into the building design and
should not appear "cluttered" . Location of such equipment within
the building or at ground level is preferable to roof-mounting,
unless so locating it would adversely affect the streetscape
and/or pedestrian circulation or open space. (SF, MF, C, I, A,
FS)
9 . Building color should be compatible with the neighborhood and
should reinforce the visual character of the environment of the
proposed buildings . Integral coloring of concrete, stucco, and
similar materials is encouraged. Bright colors may be used to
provide an attractive and distinctive accent to the building.
(SF, MF, C, I, A)
10 . The choice of materials, colors, signs, and the level of
detailing should be thoughtfully integrated into the design of
all building elevations . Avoid "false" or "decorative" facade
treatments, where unrelated materials are placed on buildings .
All elevations need not look alike; however, a sense of overall
architectural continuity should be demonstrated. (SF, MF, C, I,
A, S)
11 . Building addresses which are clearly visible from the roadway
should be integrated into the building design and/or sign program
for the site. (SF, MF, C, I, A, S)
12 . Highly reflective materials, such as mirrored glass, should be
carefully integrated into the building design to minimize impacts
resulting from glare. These materials may be considered as
secondary or accent materials but are discouraged as the primary
or base finish material of a building. (SF, MF, C, I , A)
s
13 . Temporary buildings (portable offices and construction trailers)
should have design features similar to permanent buildings .
Landscaping is encouraged. (SF, MF, C, I , A, L)
14 . Metal buildings should be architecturally designed and compatible
with surrounding buildings . Avoid exposing the shallow pitch
eave lines, the steel box look and openings punched into the
building in a manner that does not contribute to a completed
design. (C, I , A)
15 . Attached structures such as solar heat collector panels,
antennas, satellite dishes, etc. should be integrated into the
project architecture. (SF, MF, C, I, A)
16 . The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes, etc. should
be recognized and integrated within the architectural design of
the site and/or building. (SF, MF, C, I, A)
17 . Outside vending machines and fixtures (incl_ _1ng automatic teller
machines) and other assorted mechanical fixtures or devices
should be incorporated into the architecture or design of the
building or site. They should not look as though applied or
adhered to the building, and should not unduly call attention to
themselves . Instruction and identification boxes and other
necessary items should be integrated into the design of the
fixture. (C, I , A, FS)
IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Residential development should be designed in a manner which assures
that neighborhoods are safe, pleasant and distinctive places to live.
Residential development should also maintain and improve the overall
appearance of Dublin. The following policies have been established to
meet this intent.
1 . Protect the core of residential neighborhoods from through
traffic. (SF, MF, A, L)
2 . An overall design theme should be provided to create visual
continuity. (SF, MF)
3 . Design should provide sufficient architectural diversity to avoid
monotony and provide visual interest. Designs which result in
long lines of parked cars or blank garage doors are discouraged.
Typical elements which can add architectural diversity are wing
walls, roof design, trim, floor overhangs, building or unit
offsets, window boxes, bays, balconies, porches, trellis,
chimneys, or combinations of the above. These elements should be
balanced with the need to allow visual surveillance on site.
(See photo 20 & 21) (SF, MF, A, P, L, FS)
4 . Building entries should be clearly identified and protected from
the weather. (SF, MF, A)
5 . Projects with multiple buildings should provide subtle variety in
building size and massing, while maintaining a sense of overall
architectural continuity. Buildings should relate to each other
to create positive architectural and spatial relationships . (SF,
MF, A)
6 . Design elements used at entries should consolidate the theme of
the development, and signage should be well thought-out in an
effort to communicate the development' s planned image. The main
entries to a development are an important part of its definition,
identity, and distinctiveness . They create the threshold for
change from the public thoroughfares to the more private, quiet
environment of the neighborhoods . They should be clearly
understandable to the first time visitor. (See photo 22 ) (SF, _.
MF, A, S)
7 . Surrounding ridgelines should be preserved or enhanced. The tops
of structures near major ridgelines should be below the perceived
skyline as viewed from freeways and major arterial streets . (SF,
MF, A)
8 . Roof lines that pitch or step in opposite directions to the slope
of the land are discouraged. (SF, MF, A)
rk�'y+���'lr �If`��. . f.J �� � � ', H ;. „r, � •�'L'i'ndk';,,; f.Yy;.
,CF{� t��i rty�C r�•` J `'`� `�; .' f? tf e kS r ` '
Jf
Y yi •i� t ���. y i
t7•y��)Y1-d..C:fi P,1,t�rr7oQQ. �' '�
��,�. 'tea. _ - .A • _ ;�
am
AA
v �. ^x ). i`* ,ct_•Y� ++•" `��iy,y� ti} +w h«s15„w�tN .iyS,
�.^ 1Y a �.-':•-�.�.=.-Y•.r4 �Yr�.y�-��.�'',F+>w- �:K •s•+y'�'l r�'` t�.�'j".�i741 k"'�a5,«� �•f t t 3i..x" i e
,.`a°'r-.-�v i x:.._ r.tc�z*re+.•�.:.... .�.,N.w.,°bk�,w r , r,,.al,_:>}. ^'i.i ,ti�u:• � -w --c.
9 . Design should consider all possible areas oi energy conservation.
Available sunlight for each unit should be maximized. The layout
of development, the siting of structures, and the materials
selected can influence long-term energy requirements . (SF, MF, A)
10 . Required noise attenuation measures, such as sound walls, should
be architecturally compatible with the building design and
landscaping. (SF, MF, A, L, FS)
11 . Encourage pedestrian walkways/access from residential areas to
adjacent commercial and service areas . (SF, MF, C)
12 . Pedestrian access to residential developments should not depend
solely on driveways and access roads . The pedestrian circulation
system should be safely integrated with the vehicular circulation
system or, if separated; must provide physical or visual access
for Police Department surveillance. (SF, MF, P)
13 . Satellite dishes, air conditioning equipment, trash enclosures
and mechanical and utility structures should be enclosed by
architecturally compatible elements or screened from views off-
site. (SF, MF, A, FS)
MULTIPLE-FAMILY
14 . Careful consideration should be given to the design and layout of
floor plans for adjacent units in order to minimize potential
noise impacts resulting from incompatible uses ( i .e. placing
living rooms next to, or above, bedrooms) . (MF, A)
15 . Carports, light fixtures, fences, mailboxes and trash enclosures
should be integrated into the overall project design. (See photo
23) (MF, A, FS)
16 . Carports or open parking areas should be screened in a way that
auto headlights do not shine into living areas . (MF, A, L, FS)
17 . Garages with parking aprons less than the standard length of
twenty feet should provide automatic garage door openers with
sectional roll up doors . (MF, P)
18 . If washing machines and dryers and not provided within the
individual units, then common laundry facilities should be
incorporated into the overall design of multiple-family projects . -
(MF, A)
i 19 . In addition to required parking, all multiple family residential
units should be provided with adequate (typically 120 cubic feet)
exterior enclosed storage space easily accessible to each unit,
which is lockable and water-proofed. (MF, A)
I
PHOTO 23 - GUIDELINE # IV.15
OPEN SPACE
20 . Both "Private" and "Common" usable open space should be provided
in multiple-family residential developments . (MF, L)
21 . "Private" usable open space for each dwelling unit should be
directly accessible from the unit, and should be big enough to
permit adequate outdoor living opportunities . (MF, L)
22 . "Common" open space areas should not consist solely of required
setbacks, linear strips or incidental remote areas used for
buffering, berming and screening. "Common" open space areas
should be adequate in size and configuration to provide an
environment which will encourage community activities and other
amenities . (MF, L, FS)
23 . The location of "Common" open space areas should take into
account the prevailing winds and solar orientation. "Common"
open space areas should be located for use by all the residents,
with the largest and most usable open space areas provided
closest to the portions of the development with the highest
density/intensity. (MF, L)
24 . Adequate pedestrian access to "Common" open space areas should be
provided which flows from the interior of the development and
connects with each other and the streetscape, wherever possible.
(See photo 24 ) (MF, L)
25 . Housing design should encourage the possibility of community
interaction while affording privacy between living units .
Privacy within each unit and its immediate outdoor space should
be a major design consideration, however an effort should be made
through the placement of units to allow a "Common" open space
pathway for public interaction. (See photo 25) (MF, A, L)
26 . Units should orient towards the "Common" open space areas
whenever possible. Units oriented to parking should be setback
and landscaped to sufficiently screen parked vehicles . (See
photo 26 ) (MF, A, P, L)
27 . Adequate play areas with safe and durable play equipment should
be provided in all projects likely to have children. These play
areas should be located where .surveillance is practical and noise
impacts are minimized. (MF, L)
..�� �q _ t •.�4 ,,tom. ��b�'a'�
T:1
r r 1,
rn
PPM
•� ` yl .z t Yom+���' 'z/ '� I ? '
Z +tiA. ��'Za•,� ,5 :� t < ^. .1•?..•.. ;j`'t .,..tzi. '—rtP"��i6[
`lIL . -c
_t • '
�„o� � �,��1 -•may 3
t F
re-
:• ,. III(I� !elll>
gw
t`+a• �m S`•o. lr?`..• '.-R ,,.. fiL"` cx fx` 3'1*' ,r.w m�t+..r y_..,-",..,..•c�t..,.,,�_ i
��.t,�,yy_�_ S 1�t
i
V. COMMERCIAL CENTERS
A unified architectural or building design theme should be
incorporated into each commercial center. Building materials, colors,
textures, etc. , should be consistent. Individual storefronts may vary
to reflect the character of the store, but the overall theme of the
Center must be respected. Additions and alterations must be
consistent with and enhance the design theme. The following policies
have been established to meet this intent.
1 . In order to enhance the streetscape of large commercial sites,
off-street parking areas should be clustered and carefully
screened. Screening can be achieved by utilizing landscape
treatment, which allows visual surveillance, or by locating a
portion of the building area along the perimeter of the site.
However, consideration should be given to ensure that such siting
does not "enclose" the project. (See photo 27) (C, P, A, L, FS)
2 . Encourage larger commercial developments to provide outdoor
activity plazas or courtyards to enhance public and civic
interaction and events . (See photo 28 & 29) (C, A)
3 . In commercial projects which emphasize a pedestrian environment,
the ground floor level of buildings should include display
windows, courtyard entrances and other elements of pedestrian
interest. (C, A)
4 . Commercial centers should be designed to provide visibility for
all tenant spaces, especially interior corner units . All tenant
spaces should be oriented toward the interior of the center or
toward the adjacent street. (C, A)
5 . Textured or colored paving materials should be utilized to
identify safe and separate on-site pedestrian walkways . (See
photo 30) (C, P)
6 . Service areas should be visually screened from pedestrian,
customer and vehicular circulation areas . (C, I, FS)
7 . Commercial centers abutting residential areas should be sensitive
to noise, visual, light penetration, operational impacts and _
potential pedestrian connections . (SF, MF, C, A, FS)
8 . Adequate street furniture and accessories should be provided and
should be compatible with the architectural design of the
building. (C, A)
9 . A unifying lighting concept should be incorporated into the
center, including uniform fixtures and mounting locations for
pedestrian, vehicular and architectural elements . (C, I, A, P)
i
.I
f�•t� ._ ,t♦ �Ar ` 5f�• a' ,,'fit' �Z.
r ys. _ t KCB 1 , � :'I (, N �T�• '"� A`.
._ �i�. � r,• � ' - -:i:i 3 � ,.f, �`�..fir r
• . . _ ,ter � a•
_ l
c.'a. V�V pr.
4
IN �; • f yy
MIT
r
I
�y1*�3 i... Cf.. •t ti - ..
VI . INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
A unified architectural or building design theme -should be
incorporated into each industrial center. Building materials, colors,
textures, etc. , should be consistent. Additions and alterations must
be consistent with and enhance the design theme. The following
policies have been established to meet this intent.
1 . In areas where industrial uses are near residential uses, height
and setbacks should be compatible. (SF, MF, I)
2 . To alleviate the unsightly appearance of loading facilities for
industrial uses, these facilities should not be located at the
front of structures . Backing from the street onto the site for
loading into front end docks causes traffic congestion and leads
to unsafe truck maneuvering. ( I, P, FS)
3 . When it is not possible to locate loading facilities at the rear
of- the building, loading docks and loading doors should not
dominate the frontage and should be screened from the street by
landscaping or architecturally treated and should be offset from
driveway openings . ( I, A, P, L, FS)
4 . Adequate on-site staging areas should be supplied for trucks
waiting to load and unload in order to maintain safe and
efficient on-site circulation. The use of the public street for
parking and staging of trucks awaiting loading is unsightly and
unsafe. ( I, P)
VII . SIGNING
All signing should be designed and scaled to be compatible with the
building upon which it is attached. Sign concepts and location should
be architecturally incorporated during the design of the building, in
order to provide attractive and effective business identification.
The following policies have been established to meet this intent.
1 . Sign Programs should be prepared for multiple occupancy
buildings . Overall design compatibility is ensured by such
programs . The program should promote the identifying name or
address of the building and should allow for conveniently located
directories to identify multiple tenants . (See photos 31 & 32)
(C, I, A, S)
2 . The design of freestanding signs should be sensitively tied to
the building design. Sign heights should be comparable with
neighboring sign heights and above all should enhance the
streetscape. (MF, C, I, A, S)
3 . Attached signs should not project over the eave, ridge or parapet
line. (C, I , A, S)
4 . The use of individual letters for signs is preferred over
"cabinet" signs . Individual letters typically provide more
effective and attractive identification. (See photo 33) (C, I,
A, S)
5 . The light source of externally illuminated signs should be
shielded or be out of the public ' s view. (MF, C, I, A, S)
6 . Original signs or reproductions of such signs in historic areas
are encouraged. (See photo 34) (C, I, A, S)
7 . Sign "letters" should be illuminated rather than the background
area, to eliminate harsh and unsafe glare created by illuminated
white backgrounds . (See photo 35) (C, I, A, S)
8 . Building design should provide areas for attractive and effective
signage. (C, I , A, S)
WI
1fi
i - —
PHOTO 31 - GUIDELINE # VII. 1
MALL LOCKS M+�..w a��i�irk� (�—a-eTRAVEL
_ f r
PHOTO 32 - GUIDELINE # VII.l
T 2',,,�Z,i'�,`k�l�'`y�l k��.� .a� '� y �~� ���� " r�^��� �� Y��•s,_i.�""S t�s ?ti 4
'S x•51 y`.\�"r�s�� � .r�-,�-� ?���..���`'�''�r�a:.° "'mac. •r �; '\ �'�',-��ti...-� a
fC'<2.�-,r ��y��.'c.1.'•� '��4 ��i.;.?'n �.-�x e-� �' .•�.� �=7Z ,s y��_�>.��=?,�"`2•4_Z
f:`y �.r;y��„'{=s `�•w�t+i':�:y{rr -., r�� -+. ,i 'y�� ''� v, s � ��+a ji 37
s•S 3 ``g. ,�,._ Y n.. �3? `i�;rw �'}� ;``�.4..,�s�:+RSa cy �, 1 ^� `St
4_. � s....'CIL_..r.L-..-...x.-.� .4�.�a>'i:.__. ..��-•:'..._...V...�.. .�,.s.1 ».�:. �•.!.. ..1�--` •'r
PHOTO 33 - GUIDELINE # VII.4
�R O
f�
r
v
O
V I A Z A
+ ... �f%R�") ,� -'lA iiy 5 p;t 4�5�'� a�j.3•'��ti� Jy � 5
M.Litt 0
APPENDIX
S.LI'E DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDh_.LNES MATRIX
(Primary Topics)
Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S
SITE PLANNING
I . 1 X X X X X
1 . 2 X X X X X
1 . 3 X X X X X X X
1 .4 X X X X
1 , 5 X X X X X
1 . 6 X X X
1 . 7 X X X
1 . 8 X X X X X
1 , 9 X X X X X
I . 10 X X X X X
I . 11 X X X
1 . 12 X X X X X X
1 . 13 X X X X X X
1 . 14 X X X X X
1 . 15 X X X X X X
1 . 16 X X X X X
1 . 17 X X
I . 18 X X X X X
1 , 19 X X X X X _
1 .20 X X X X
1 . 21 X X X X
1 .22 X X X X X
1 .23 X X X X X X
Primary Topic Abbreviations
SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking
MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping
C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening
I - Industrial S - Signs
A - Architecture
A - 1
(Primary Topics,
Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S
I . 24 X X X X X
I . 25 X X X X X
I . 26 X X X X X
I . 27 X X X X X X
I . 28 X X X X X
I . 29 X X X X X X X
I . 30 X X X X X X X
I . 31 X X X X X
I . 32 X X X X X X X
I . 33 X X X X X X
I . 34 X X X X
I . 35 X X X X X
LANDSCAPING
II . 1 X X X X X
II . 2 X X X X X
II . 3 X X X I X X X
II . 4 X X X X X
II . 5 X X X X X X X X X
II . 6 X X X X X X X
II . 7 X X X X X
II . 8 X X X X X _
II . 9 X X X X X
II . 10 X X X X X
II . 11 X X X X X
II . 12 X X X X X
Primary Topic Abbreviations
SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking
MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping
C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening
I - Industrial S - Signs
A - Architecture
A - 2
(Primary Topics
Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S
11 . 13 X X X X X X
II . 14 X X X X X
II . 15 X X X X X
II . 16 X X X X X
II . 17 X X X X X
II . 18 X X X X X
II . 19 X X X X X
II . 20 X X X X X
II . 21 X X X X X
ARCHITECTURE/
BUILDING DESIGN
III . 1 X X X X X
III . 2 X X X X X
III . 3 X X X X
III .4 X X X X
III . 5 X X X X X X
III . 6 X X X X X X
III . 7 X X X X
III . 8 X X X X X X
III . 9 X X X X X
III . 10 X X X X X X
III . 11 X X X X X X
III . 12 X X X X X
III . 13 X X X X X X
III . 14 X X X
III . 15 X X X X X
Primary Topic Abbreviations
SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking
MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping
C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening
I - Industrial S - Signs
A - Architecture
A - 3
(Primary Topics,
Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S
III . 16 X X X X X
III . 17 X X X X
RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN
IV. 1 X X
IV. 2 X X X X
IV. 3 X X X X X X
IV. 4 X X X
IV. 5 X X X
IV. 6 X X X X
IV. 7 X X X
IV. 8 X X X
IV. 9 X X X
IV. 10 X X X X X
IV. 11 X X X
IV. 12 X X X
IV. 13 X X X X
IV. 14 X X
IV. 15 X X X
IV. 16 X X X X
IV. 17 X X
IV. 18 X X
IV. 19 X X
IV. 20 X X
IV. 21 X X
IV.22 X X X
Primary Topic Abbreviations
SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking
MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping
C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening
I - Industrial S - Signs
A - Architecture
A - 4
(Primary Topics;
Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S
IV. 23 X X
IV.24 X X
IV.25 X X X
IV.26 X X X X
IV.27 X X
COMMERCIAL
DESIGN
V. 1 X X X X X
V. 2 X X
V. 3 X X
V. 4 X X
V. 5 X X
V. 6 X X X
V. 7 X X X X X
V. 8 X X
V. 9 X X X X
INDUSTRIAL
DESIGN
VI . 1 X X X
VI . 2 X X X
VI . 3 X X X X X
VI . 4 X X -
SIGNAGE
VII . 1 X X X X
VII . 2 X X X X X
VII . 3 X X X X
Primary Topic Abbreviations
SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking
MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping
C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening
I - Industrial S - Signs
A - Architecture
A - 5
(Primary Topics
Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S
VII .4 X X X X
VII .5 X X X X X
VII . 6 X X X X
VII . 7 X X X X
VII . 8 X X X X
Primary Topic Abbreviations
SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking .
MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping
C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening
I - Industrial S - Signs
A - Architecture
A - 6
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SUBJECT: Review of Draft Site Development Review Guidelines
Cm. Burnham opened the new business and asked for the staff report. -
Mr. Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. He indicated
the guidelines are procedures for the, city to protect the public
welfare and the environment. He presented a slide show of each major
component of design criteria that defined the basic principles of Site
Development Review and requested that questions be held to the end of
each presentation.
He indicated Staff was seeking input and direction from the Commission
to forward to the City Council regarding the Site Development Review
Guidelines .
Site Planning
Mr. Choy explained that the site planning policies combine the three
major elements of developments : buildings, parking & circulation, and
landscape & amenities . Applications are reviewed to ensure that they
are compatible, and in proper balance with the existing or proposed
area setting.
Cm. North questioned the use of deciduous and evergreen trees .
Mr. Tong explained that deciduous trees help provide shelter from the
sun in the summertime and allow sunlight to filter through during the
winter, whereas an evergreen tree might -also provide some protection
from the rain.
Cm. North stated there are 'certain types of oak trees that do not lose
their leaves , nor grow as tall, called a brown oak. He stated if the
purpose was to have a tree that provides a canopy of shade, then why
not restrict it to one that does not lose its leaves .
Mr. Tong explained Staff is seeking a balance between various elements
and how well a particular tree would fit into the overall landscaping.
Cm. North stated that from an economical point, most deciduous trees
are less expensive. -
Mr. Choy suggested having the deciduous trees located next to the
building, whereas you would have shade in the summer and light in the
winter.
Cm. North stated the leaves of deciduous trees need to be raked and
cti.sposed of, causing a lot of problems .
Cm. Zika disagreed with Cm. North; he liked trees with leaves on them,.
He also questioned the distribution of compact parking spaces and
asked if there was a ratio of compact parking spaces for businesses .
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-114 September 16 , 1991
[9-16 ] ATTACHMENT I
Mr. Choy stated 35% of the required parking spaces for businesses may
be designated for compact vehicles .
Ms . O' Halloran indicated the Parking Ordinance does not address
compact spaces but Staff has been allowing them at a 35% ratio; this
number comes from the condominium guidelines established by the City. -
Cm. Zika suggested that the compact parking spaces be placed further
away from the front of the building. .
Mr. Fong stated that Staff has attempted to intersperse the compact
parking spaces with the regular size spaces so that there is a mixture
throughout the parking areas .
Cm. Zika stated that the problem is people will park a regular size
car in a compact size parking space.
Mr. Tong stated that the objective is to mix the compact stalls
throughout the parking area to accommodate them and at the same time,
discourage the larger cars from parking in a smaller area.
Cm. Burnham asked what the difference in size was between a compact
and regular parking space .
Ms . O'Halloran indicated a compact parking space is 8 ' wide and 17 '
deep as compared to a regular parking space which is 9 ' wide and 20 '
deep.
Cm. Burnham asked what the advantage is for compact spaces .
Mr. Choy indicated that one more space can be squeezed into an area
that may be required for a project. He also stated that car sizes are
becoming smaller and more people are driving smaller cars .
Cms . Burnham and North inquired as to the benefit to the City of
compact parking spaces .
Mr. Tong indicated that compact parking spaces utilize an area more
efficiently such as providing for additional landscaping and
pedestrian walkways .
Cm. Barnes indicated she hopes that the City does not go above the 35%
allotment, because many compact cars currently use regular size _
parking spaces . She also expressed her preference for using deciduous
trees . She stated that many parking lots manage to clean up a lot of
other things along with raking up the leaves . She asked what the
impact would be by lowering the 35% compact car allotment, and
inquired if landscaping would be sacrificed.
Mr. Tong stated that landscaping is not necessarily sacrificed as you
would be establishing a lower threshold.
Cm. Barnes asked for clarification of double striping of parking
spaces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-115 September 16 , 1991
[9-16 ]
Mr. Tong indicated that double striping does not effect the parking
space size . However, he stated it does effectively help people park
their cars within the designated space.
Cm. Barnes expressed that the City of Dublin has very adequate
parking, and felt a lot of our parking lot problems are due to an
insufficient amount of shopping cart rack spaces .
Cm. North concurred that there should be more shopping cart rack
spaces .
Mr. Tong indicated that the space saved by utilizing the compact
parking stalls could be used for a shopping cart rack.
Cm. Barnes reiterated her request to have more shopping cart racks .
Mr. Tong indicated that shopping cart racks would be something to
consider as a Site Development Review guideline as the City does not
have a shopping cart rack ratio at this point.
Cm. North asked if there was a ratio for handicapped parking spaces .
Mr. Choy indicated that handicapped parking spaces was handled through
the State Title 24 requirements .
Mr. Tong concurred that handicapped parking spaces was handled through
State law and that there is an actual schedule put out by the State
and enforced through the Building Department, both the number as well
as the physical signage dimensions .
Cm. Rafanelli asked if grading the site -for proper drainage falls
under the Site Development Review guidelines .
Mr. Tong indicated that is something that is checked primarily by the
Building and Engineering Departments . The Building Codes require that
there is positive drainage around the house at the time it is
finalled. However, the homeowner may not account for proper drainage
in their landscaping.
Cm. North suggested that we make a grading design for spas , patios,
and swimming pools to conform to the original grading design.
Mr. Tong felt that those three items don' t necessarily affect the _
grading.
Cm. North felt that the drainage requirement should be enforced.
Mr. Tong indicated that he meant to say that the Building Inspection
Department enforces the drainage requirements . He felt the homeowner
his a responsibility to provide for positive drainage whether or not a
permit was issued.
Cm. North indicated that if the City doesn' t ensure the drainage is
adequate, then who is suppose to do this if it effects the neighbors .
The only recourse the neighbor has is to go to civil court.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-116 September 16 , 1991
[9-16 ]
Cm. North indicated he felt it was the duty of the City to protect all
of the citizens when a building permit is approved.
Cm. Burnham asked if there was a difference if you build a pool or
plant shrubs and have your water drain into three neighbor' s yards .
Mr. Tong felt the main difference is the order of magnitude. A spa or
gazebo is typically an over the counter permit which can be issued
with a minimal amount of paperwork. They are considered accessory
structures and are a matter of scale. He indicated if a homeowner is
putting in a room addition, then the City' s existing policies are that
the Building Inspection Division will require the positive drainage
because it is part of the Building Code. He felt that a large
percentage of drainage problems are created by the landscaping, with
the exception of the sprinkler permits as there are no building
permits whatsoever for 99% of the landscaping.
Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. North as to why the City is allowing
homeowners with level properties to build higher than his neighbor.
He felt the City was saying it is the homeowner' s responsibility to
have positive drainage.
Mr. Tong indicated from a practical standpoint, it gets extremely
difficult to enforce that type of detail on relatively minor permits .
The drainage on spas , gazebos, and swimming pools is looked at as an
automatic responsibility of the property owner. If the property owner
creates a problem for themselves or their neighbors , then it is the
responsibility of that property owner to take care of the problem.
Cm. Barnes indicated she felt that responsibility belongs in the
courts and not in the City.
Mr. Tong indicated the City is looking towards an educational program
through the Building Department to educate the owner/builder in terms
of the various codes ; and hopefully, the item of drainage will be
discussed during those educational sessions .
Cm. North felt that when a permit is issued, the City should attach a
notice to the permit indicating that drainage is the property owner ' s
responsibility. He felt that this was not a difficult problem when a
permit is issued and stated, at present, we assume the property owner
is aware of this . -
Mr. Tong stated that advising the property owner of his responsibility
pertaining to drainage is something that is not a standard matter.
However, he stated it could be mentioned to the Building official for
consideration.
Cm. Burnham asked if there was a minimum tree clearance"
Mr. Tong indicated the rule of thumb is to stay out of the drip line .
When there is encroachment into that drip line, the City tries to
minimize the effects .
----------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting pCM-1991-117 September 16 , 1991
[9-16]
Cm. Burnham commented on the 'Good Guys ' parking lot in the Enea Plaza
Center which looks nice but you don't know where to drive in or out .
Cm. Burnham asked if there was a way to not allow landscaping on the
end of a parking strip.
Mr. Tong indicated that an effective way to deal with this is to add
an additional one-foot wide stepping plate and minimize the
landscaping at the end stall , instead of the standard 6" curb; this
gives an additional all weather surface area. He indicated the
landscaping in those parking areas should account for the door swings
and the height of overhangs .
Landscape Design
Mr. Choy stated that landscape design should exhibit a theme or
concept throughout the landscaping, rather than just randomly placing
trees and shrubs around the site.
Cm. Rafanelli felt there should be something in the guidelines about
using drought resistant shrubs and trees where appropriate .
Mr. Choy expressed that the Planning Staff now has an Intern who has a
degree in landscape architecture and Staff might be able to call upon
some of his expertise to develop an appropriate tree and plant list
for the City of Dublin.
Mr. Tong commented that a recently passed State law indicates that by
1993 every land use jurisdiction will be required to have an ordinance
which provides for water conservation through landscaping. He stated
that the Planning Staff and the Dublin San Ramon Services District
Staff have met to begin looking at what type of ordinance would be
appropriate for water efficient landscaping purposes for the City.
Cm. Barnes indicated her preference of predominantly live ground cover
as indicated in Item #10 .
Cm. Burnham asked if the City has a rule about cutting trees that have
reached a certain size.
Mr. Tong stated that there was no such rule . He indicated that some
cities do have what is called a ' heritage tree ' ordinance, whereby, if
a tree reaches a particular size or is of a particular species , it -
then is given some significance to the City and there are permits
established for removal of that tree and what type of replacement
would be necessary, if any.
Cm. Burnham felt that the City needs something like that for future
development on the hills .
;l
Mr. Tong stated that when an Applicant comes in for Site Development
Review, they must indicate the existing trees on their site but there
is no ordinance which would prevent them from removing some of those
trees prior to filing an application for Site Development Review.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-118 September 16 , 1991
[9-16]
Cm. Burnham asked if the City could do anything about removal of a
tree prior to filing for Site Development Review.
Mr. Tong indicated there was nothing the City could do under the
existing ordinances .
Cm. Burnham asked if the City could look into a proposal for a
heritage tree ordinance .
Mr. Tong responded that Staff would look into it.
Architecture and Building Design
Mr. Choy indicated the intent of architecture/building design policies
are to provide a sense of entry or focal point and are more directed
towards standards of quality and compatibility of the design than
achieving a uniform appearance.
Cm. North questioned #12 , page 24 , if permanent landscaping is
required for a building that may only exist three months .
Mr. Tong indicated that if the structure will remain for any length of
time, then the City would require some permanent landscaping; if the
structure will remain for a short duration, i .e . construction office,
then permanent landscaping is not needed. It is just a matter of
degree.
Cm. Barnes commented on item 9 , page 24 regarding building color. She
felt, at times , the City needs to accept certain ' signing ' of the
building and noted Red Lobster and Circuit City as examples . She
would like to see a little more imaginative use of color in buildings .
Cm. Burnham asked for an example of a "signing" of a building.
Mr. Choy stated that this policy was intended to develop some sense of
balance of landscaping and architecture, rather than having the
building stand out by itself .
Cm. Burnham asked if what Mr. Choy was indicating was something like
Casper's hot dog, designing the building to look like a hot dog and a
bun.
Mr. Choy concurred.
Cm. Burnham commended Staff for what they have and have not passed
with regard to architectural design.
"Residential Design
Mr. Choy explained the primary theme in the residential design section
includes maintaining and improving the appearance and safety of
neighborhoods .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-119 September 16 , 1991
[9-16]
Cm. Zika questioned item 12 , page 29 regarding automatic garage door
openers .
Mr. Choy explained that the intent was to discourage residents from
parking in areas that have insufficient parking space and to encourage
residents to utilize their garages . -
Cm. North suggested posting ' no parking signs ' because patrons utilize
their garages for storage and park in the driveways anyway.
Mr. -Choy stated that would depend on the design of the project.
Mr. Tong explained that if the drive way request is for less than 20
feet, Staff typically asks for a roll-up garage door and automatic
opener as a condition of approval .
Cm. Barnes asked if the City can designate how wide carports are in
multiple living dwellings since she felt that the carports were a
little narrow.
Cm. North asked if carports have the same 8 foot requirements as
garages .
Mr. Tong stated that carports are standard size stalls . The City does
not allow compact size carports .
Cm. Barnes commented about the lack of vehicle accessibility presently
experienced in existing two-car garages .
Mr. Tong stated the City has implemented the two-car parking
requirement on single-family dwelling units and that residents are not
required to park their car in the garage.
Cm. Burnham asked if a State law exists whereby one cannot legally
park their car in their driveway overnight.
Mr. Tong commented that he was unaware of any such law; however, he
did indicate a law whereby cars cannot be parked on the street longer
than 72 hours without being moved.
Cm. North questioned if the law states anything about the adequacy of
on-site laundry facilities in multiple family residential units , as
stated on page 31, item 20 .
Mr. Tong stated that is more of a Planned Development guideline .
Cm. Burnham asked if these are the guidelines that are presently in
effect.
-Mr. Tong stated that these are draft site development review
guidelines brought to the Commission for discussion purposes and
input . After the various concerns of the Commissioners are addressed,
they will be formally brought back to the Commission.
Cm. Burnham asked if the City had any current guidelines .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-120 September 16 , 1991
[9-16 ]
Mr. Tong stated no; current site development review guidelines do not
_ exist; however the City does have informal planned development review
guidelines that it has been using for planned development projects .
Cm. North requested that the Commission have at least two weeks to _.
review substantial amounts of reading materials . Three days is
insufficient to read over a hundred pages of text.
Cm. Barnes asked if residential/commercial lighting comes into the
guidelines . She felt that adequate lighting was an item the City
lacks in their residential areas .
Industrial Design
Mr. Choy stated the industrial design policies are for areas where
industrial uses are interspersed with residential uses, whereby height
and setbacks shall be compatible .
There were no questions or comments, from the Commissioners .
Signing
Mr. Choy explained that Signing policies should be designed and scaled
to relate to the building upon which it is attached and oriented to
the entrance . He stated Staff is encouraging the use of original
signs and reproductions of signs in historic areas .
Cm. Burnham stated obviously these guidelines tie in with our sign
ordinance .
Cm. Zika commented he felt Staff was on the right track and liked the
idea of encouraging the original signs . He commended Mr. Choy on his
presentation.
Cm. Barnes emphasized benches in shopping centers adds so much to the
community.
Cm. Rafanelli agreed with Cm. Barnes that our commercial places should
be gathering places for the community. He also felt that the whole
proposal was very well presented. -
Cm. Burnham agreed with everyone and felt Staff was on the right
track. He also commended Mr. Choy on his presentation. He did
indicate, however, that he wished he had had more time to read each
section more thoroughly.
-M�r. Tong stated he felt the Commission has given Staff a lot of good
insights and a number of concerns in areas that Staff needs to do more
research on. He indicated that when the item is brought back to the
Commission, more time will be given for its review.
-----------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-121 September 16 , 1991
[9-16 ]
Cm. North requested a minimum of two weeks for review of a document of
substantial reading material .
Mr. Tong stated California Building Systems has offered to make a
slide presentation to the Planning Commission on community design
guidelines for metal buildings . If the Commission is interested, _
Staff will make arrangements for a review at a future date .
Cm. Barnes commented that she would be interested in the slide
presentation for metal buildings .
SUBJECT: PA 91-067 Ordinance Amendment Management Audit related to
the Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review process and establishina
a Zoning Clearance Process
Cms . Zika and North began discussing the item without Staff
presentation, indicating their concern that there was insufficient
time to discuss some major significant concerns .
Cm. Burnham asked if there were any outstanding concerns to clear up.
Cm. Zika stated his major concern was the public ' s interest as to
neighborhood proposals . He brought up Regional Ambulance . He has
long been an advocate of notifying every resident within 300 feet of a
planned item.
Cm. North commented he would like to see as a requirement that a
Conditional Use Permit and public hearing be required anytime a 24-
hour business is allowed within 300 feet of a residential area . He
stated that there are items that are decided by the Zoning
Administrator and/or Planning Director which have no appeal process
and felt that there should not be any action taken by a city official
that cannot be appealed, excluding the City Council .
Mr. Tong explained that those particular items are at the direction of
the Council . The Council has indicated that they would like to see
certain permits streamlined as an over-the-counter type application.
These applications do not have an appeal . This is the direction that
was given by the City Council regarding the Management Audit items .
Cm. North stated he felt that there were several items that should or
should not be appealable .
Cm. Zika questioned why the items were being brought to the Commission
if this is what the City Council wants .
Mr. Tong explained that the Ordinance Amendment Management Audit
"i,s presented to the Commission in order for the Commissioners to
indicate their concerns and comments which are then presented as a
recommendation to the City Council . Whether the Council follows the
recommendation or not is the Council ' s prerogative .
-----------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-122 September 16 , 1991
[9-161
Cm. Barnes asked if this item was on a special time requirement .
Mr. Tong indicated there was no specific time constraint.
Cm. Barnes requested that this item be continued in order to give the
Commission more time to thoroughly read and comment on the Draft _
Amendments .
At the request of the Commission, Item 9 . 2 was continued to the
November 4 , 1991 Planning Commission.
Cm. Burnham questioned nonappealable decisions by city officials .
Mr. Tong explained this was discussed at the study sessions regarding
the Management Audit .
Mr. Tong explained that certain decisions by city officials occur
every day. However, he stated that someone can request the Council to
change the Council ' s ordinances/resolution. The main focus of the
management audit study was to streamline operations , making it more
efficient, while maintaining the effectiveness of good decision
making.
Cm. Burnham agreed but stated he felt there exists a gray area in
regards to the ambulance operation in a residential area. He felt
that the ambulance operation was legally in there but was also
breaking the law by exceeding the noise level within a residential
establishment .
Cm. Zika stated that emergency vehicles were exempt from the noise
level ordinance by the State of California and therefore, none of the
above applies to them.
Cm. Burnham asked if all of the underlined reading matter are changes
or additions to the ordinance .
Ms . O'Halloran stated they are the major changes .
Mr. Tong reiterated that this item will be brought back to the
Commission as a study session item.
Commission concurred .
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Tong stated that at the September 23, 1991 City Council meeting,
the City Council will consider the housing related ordinances that the
Planning Commission had recommended for action. This would include
the second readings of the Rental Availability Ordinance, the JL
-Construction planned development rezoning, the Density Bonus
Ordinance, and Chevron Conditional Use Permit .
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-123 September 16 , 1991
[9-16 ]
Mr. Carrington stated that it could be. In the eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, the ultimate Dublin Boulevard could go by another
route; however, the western location is fixed.
Cm. North asked if there was an intent to build this road right now or
was this just to dedicate the land.
Mr. Carrington stated there was intent to build the two-lane road now
and we could see a completed two-lane road within a year.
Cm. Zika stated that since Alameda County doesn't want to deal with
the hospital located in the road' s path, the road alignment is not up
to par.
Cm. Zika said if the Commission approved the resolution, is the
Commission adopting the alignment as shown in Exhibit A.
Mr. Carrington indicated that all the resolution says is that the
proposed alignment is consistent with the plan.
Cm. Zika was concerned that if the road was built and eventually into
a six-lane road, it may cost more to fix the road alignment at a
future date .
On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote
of 5-0, the Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 91 = 57
REPORT BY. THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AS TO CONFORMITY OF
LOCATION, PURPOSE AND EXTENT OF THE LANDS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF
DUBLIN FOR THE TWO LANE ACCESS ROAD AND THE HACIENDA DRIVE EXTENSION
WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
SUBJECT: Review of Draft Site Development Review Guidelines
Cm. Burnham opened the unfinished business and asked for the staff
report.
Mr. Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. He stated
after receiving the Planning Commissioner' s comments and making any
necessary revisions or clarifications, Staff will bring this item back
to the Planning Commission at a future date.
Mr. Bill Golden, Executive Director of California Building Systems
Institute, presented a brief slide presentation on metal buildings .
He stated that not all planning commissioners and planners are always
pleased with metal buildings .
Mr. Golden commented that metal buildings do not impair the use and
development of neighboring properties : Secondly, the buildings follow
basic principles of good design, harmony, continuity, proportions,
simplicity and balance . Thirdly, they provide variety and create
--------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-137 November 4 , 1991
[ 11-4]
ATTACK, 7.
interest; and finally, metal buildings make good use of building
sites . They take advantage of the natural topography. Some
guidelines that are basic to metal building systems are those things
that contribute to a pleasant environment and maintain property
values, important details and insure orderly, harmonious development.
The metal building' s materials and finishes include factory applied
coatings for wall and roofs that protect against cracking, chipping,
fading, and peeling for at least 20 years . Mr. Golden thanked the
Commission, Staff and Mr. Choy for allowing him to make his
presentation.
Cm. North commented that Mr. Golden had some nice looking buildings .
Mr. Golden stated that there were several metal buildings located
right here in the Valley.
Mr. Choy asked for comments within the first section of the Site
Development Review Guidelines titled Site Planning.
Cm. North suggested underling the changes instead of bolding them as
it is easier to read. He requested a definition of ' adequate ' as per
No. 8 on page 30 .
Mr. Choy stated that staff ' s intention was to attempt to keep the
guidelines general in nature; staff did not want to specify a set
ratio; the guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the zoning
ordinance and planned development guidelines . Adequate would depend
on what was being proposed and how large an area it was serving; it
would be up to the developer to demonstrate that what he has proposed
is adequate to serve the needs of the future residents .
Cm. North felt that ' adequate' does not tell you anything and gives no
guidance; he felt staff should be more specific .
Cm. Burnham indicated that the whole report was meant to be a
guideline.
Mr. Choy commented that along these lines, all the "shall ' s" have been
changed to "should" as these are only guidelines or recommendations .
Cm. Burnham felt the guidelines were very informative and points you
in the right direction.
Cm. Barnes commented that she really liked the pictures .
Cm. Zika liked the illustrations and stated he felt Mr. Choy did a
very good job.
Cm. Rafanelli 'agreed and stated the whole document was very well done .
Mr. Choy asked for comments regarding the inclusion of the routing
criteria within the guidelines . He stated that it would be more
appropriate to include the routing criteria within the "Layperson' s
Guide to Applying for Site Development Review" Handout.
--------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-138 November 4 , 1991
[ 11-4]
Ms . O'Halloran stated the handout describes what site development
review process is and what the necessary steps are; and that it could
also be included as an Appendix to the guidelines which would be
included when the guidelines are purchased.
Mr. Choy stated staff will bring this item back to the Planning
Commission at a future date.
Cm. Burnham complimented Mr. Choy on his presentation.
Cm. -Rafanelli reiterated that it was very well done.
SUBJECT: PA 91-067 Ordinance Amendment Management Audit related to
the Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review process and establishing
a Zoning Clearance Process
Cm. Burnham presented the unfinished business and asked for the staff
report.
Ms . O' Halloran presented the staff report to the Commission. She
stated this item was continued from the September 16 , 1991 Planning
Commission meeting in order to allow the Commission additional time to
adequately review and discuss the proposed Ordinance Amendment . Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission provide Staff direction
concerning the Draft Management Audit related Ordinance Amendment and
continue to a future Planning Commission meeting.
Cm. Burnham asked if there was any type of recourse for uses which
could be subject to Zoning Administrator approval as shown on
Attachment 4 .
Ms . O'Halloran stated the Applicant could appeal any action taken.
She stated the Conditional Use Permit process would be similar in
terms of noticing and holding a public hearing. However, some uses
would be acted upon by the Zoning Administrator and others by the
Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator meetings are held
during the day on week days . Just as the Planning Commission' s
actions are appealable to the City Council, the Zoning Administrator ' s
actions are appealable to the Planning Commission.
Cm. Rafanelli commented about the lack of public input with the Zoning
Administrator/Planning Director making decisions . :
Ms . O'Halloran stated the Conditional Use Permit items that are
proposed for the Zoning Administrator to take action on would still
need a public -hearing so there would be an opportunity for public
input. The only items that would not be subject to appeal or have the
public input would be Zoning Clearances . The Commission may want to
take a look at the items in the Zoning Clearance and Zoning
Administrator categories and provide input.
--------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1991-139 November 4 , 1991
[ 11-4]
Mr. Tong indicated th— on December 2, 1991 the C—aission continued
the election of officers and recommended that the Commission elect a
Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
Cm. Barnes nominated Commissioner George Zika to be the Chairperson.
Commissioner North seconded the motion. By a vote of 4-0,
Commissioner Zika was appointed Chairperson.
Cm. Barnes nominated Commissioner Ralph Rafanelli to be the Vice-
Chairperson. Commissioner North seconded the motion. By a vote of
4-0, Commissioner Rafanelli was appointed Vice-Chairperson.
The meeting was turned over to Commissioner Zika.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: PA 91-099 Hansen Ranch/Bren Company Development Agreement
(to be continued to the January 21 , 1992 Planning Commission
meeting)
Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was recommending continuance of this
item to allow Staff to complete the analysis for the Staff Report.
Since the Negative Declaration has been prepared and noticed for this
project, Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing
and continue the item to the January 21, 1992 meeting.
Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked if there was any public
comment. Being none, the item was continued to the January 21st
Planning Commission meeting.
SUBJECT: PA 91-067 Dublin Municipal Ordinance Amendment Management
Audit (to be continued to the January 21 , 1992 Planning
Commission meeting)
Mr. Tong indicated that the Commission had continued this item from
the January 6 , 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Staff was
recommending continuance of this item to the January 21st meeting in -
order to review and incorporate the City Attorney' s comments into the
Draft Ordinance Amendment.
The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 21, 1992
Planning Commission meeting.
SUBJECT: Review of Draft Site Development Review Guidelines
(continued from the November 4 , 1991 Planning Commission
meeting)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-2 January 6, 1992
[ 1-6min]
__'ARACHW '3
Mr. David Choy presenL,=!d the staff report to the �,.,,nmission. He
indicated' that this item had been continued from the November 4, 1991
Planning Commission meeting. He indicated that the guidelines were
created to provide Staff and Applicants with general design direction.
They are to be used in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance . Staff
recommended that the Commission approve the Site Development Review
Guidelines .
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Draft Site
Development Review Guidelines .
SUBJECT: PA 88-144 Western Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific
Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , Prezoninq,
Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the
City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(Continued from the' December 16, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting For this public hearing, discussion is limited to
Chapters 4 through 7 of the Specific Plan)
Ms . Brenda Gillarde gave a brief review of the previous meeting as
well as Chapters 4 through 7 of the Specific Plan. An adjournment
time of 10 : 30 p.m. was discussed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission indicated that the January 6th meeting would
be continued to January 14th to continue the discussion of the West
Dublin Specific Plan.
Ms . Gillarde indicated that if there was sufficient time left, there
would be discussion on the General Plan Amendment at the January 14th
meeting as well .
The Planning Commission reviewed possible meeting dates after the
January 14th meeting. It was decided to. continue the January 14th
meeting to January 29th.
The Planning Commission and Staff discussed the letter regarding the
Morris property. Ms . Silver, City Attorney, had reviewed the letter.
She indicated that a bike path was considered a public right-of-way
and therefore the property could be taken for that purpose. A
General Plan Amendment was the appropriate exercise to follow for
planning purposes .
Ms . Gillarde gave a brief overview of the planning process for the -
project. The first meeting involved land use and traffic circulation.
She indicated that there was a concern regarding the Brittany Lane
road extension. Possible alternatives were also mentioned.
Ms . Gillarde emphasized that the West Dublin project would go through
many public hearings . There would be no decisions made at this
meeting. The City Council would need to review the Specific Plan,
General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report before any
final decisions were made. There would be plenty of opportunities
for the public to voice their comments and/or concerns .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-3 January 6, 1992
[ 1-6min]
J i h y
ie .p�:7 q Y•y�pt ;^.
S4 _if•� y +� _
.r
l t
t. »s
• r/ ,.
.M 1.
,.• ./ ia+
lit
Ka
7 '.t f�: � µJi,•. r ly'• tr`'��k�.t�lSl ql��••
r�
��• ,rte .xr ���', iti���; •+p+"� � � t 4°ty+�� '7•*'� �sa^ ::r- }:?
1cx ��Sn
>`,�'•,y
.�r,rz t^Lh1 a• 'y+ x "tY ^fr1r'\ ,yy �t f.- °' °''
1 a p S J/'yZ.n xk'r..yN.tt+7s 14 s rCFhadt.•r @0 t t rlr,
1„j�'�.=dry F a y,a �Y t.y, ns-
—�iO 7
°�'Syyb C`1r ytr�L -r Y`' ii rltp fiA•�t 7 t � °
mi r" .
r uJS1 `S s s r •. � k R:s a f j r y< ( ° r- 4+ �' C �� ,
164 l i r ;@ t 1 f !Y ♦FS'z tltt {
fir] 5�t�p, ,tl ,.t i1 \ky 1 t;1�dr�t�4 r�.,�3 �'
dI•F Fy�idY�<C\.�iEL`i
i z, "'v,W ik
z °i �a"yi2t •�C
?. riC-`(�. s+,, S'• ..t
'{,,r d• X t�rti-a 4'
-N
�""'ii>��it rrta,�d;• V ry..� y i +'I'1p+�a1Ss./1"K ait��. tf�' '}.,.rr ,�yA�(�tyl'�zr{ t,,r�•�,, tt�`� st, .;
Ttr,ta lF 11,
Tt ,(•f ljlt?a ^4'\ l�ttpr'P /+ Y/11��r { 1�b�y •R+.� `,3t? I4t.�.a} }}� i.t�3.tCy +";
Tf M �Vc r,>^ ,.,` �jY as�yyttl�S�r, kF kti r4 i, q� t �tbj''st{h \ } 7+.f). rtSi.
i . 4dT , t`�t ra r d)µ- `� t t•j�, f, i+ T (�. Y, 't. t
1•.r
�r yl}.. t+•�t,i'f,t{i .�1 1.< i r1a( .t � � �� rF , }•�Y 4`
N- r"n :Z r Ftr,. J4•ta,i{{�, e f 1. {^ xr rF n t r
�
1'}a j J t) + 1 ''� ht r ti v ri P 1` 1 •i�'} Z' 2 ;
�{q(za't�}ti i. .1°t>�nr`+iv\t�Y 4-\r`• 1 �.rr��� y p,Fk�R�,�tY �°1£�'r�*c �`yr }�h\4
I1 l i" t i J J1 t 4•.j ltf - ; tl'1 t, ,ji4^;,y ys.>.4 N*y -
i
+ ,� � '�ry f a -� r ;�.3•n4.d aS�y L t •�'ct \ o t�! tt.; i� r "'y 1,I,
�t� < r 4+ t:r �5 � 4e \`-� 1G?�, pr jZr tE j f?z.s••�tSb{i]� 't{�r• f{p\ 7'tx
All
'� • l.!f ( �, �� es t�l lr V,{+"Fvv a �i L�a s,; ,f't {r ivy v�jT a �' t h i a✓,
PP ()'1t�W`� ` � I ' t�i fr i4 /\ ] 'y 1°✓TIhL 4 � y�� �r J
a f� r./it♦ a ltF.r`���"'}Iht /tP�� , .Vty}�iti ♦�.,..��,�! PFD' { -.'ta �� tt, a 1 Wi1� u64.
+ ��•a. Y t t 13 ,� K C' k��r Iv +1 tr�6"t Yy 1 r��
'tt 0 a 1r4;'+. •t f;�� � �,,�+ �Skrj,k ty rt`af�t`?..� ,�.w M-,�� ,31 �itii-�S.+r 4`�V.,'•
r� � Y i �, l r Mee 4 it •rf rf`( +� i -T:'',,
.r .I ♦.l-�•.�_.U_.,-r..� ,',. . ..`.{?,a# 3•. S:S z}i s.L.,_.Tr.`.3 �ti.:�t�.ye.'t:' --`r
These guidelines are about architectural review 2. Is the building suitable for its use?Does it relate
and aesthetics—about buildings that are good to its surroundings?Are materials appropriate to the
neighbors. building site?
Although all buildings are evaluated under the 3. Has the project met other city requirements?
same criteria, metal buildings are given special. 4.Will it contribute to the quality of life in the
attention. community?
These guidelines examine building design, the 5. If it is a stock building—even with colors
relationship of buildings to the neighborhood, and design that have a national marketing theme—
parking, landscaping,signs and other features that does it fit the city's desire to enhance community
make buildings good neighbors. image?
They are from recognized principals of design, 6. Does it minimize interference with the
planning and aesthetics: harmony, continuity, privacy,quiet and views of its neighbors?
proportion, simplicity and balance. Building and site design should also minimize
We encourage creativity, new ideas in the use of traffic problems and provide for the safety and
building materials and innovative construction security of users and the public alike.
methods which add richness and harmony; we expect 7. Is it interesting to look at? Monotony in form,
creativity from metal's exceptional flexibility. detail and siting should be avoided.
Design Guidelines For Metal Buildings is about . Buildings should avoid large expanses of blank
helping to assure projects that strike a balance
between the developer's preference and public metal walls, for example.
9 i
interests. . If the project s large, complex and on a
The following are some considerations that will sensitive site, does it use design teams that include
influence this city's architectural review of building and landscape architects and engineers?
individual projects: 10. Does the project recognize
1. Has the developer METAL IN the relationship of land
used sensitivity and values to aesthetics j
that will strengthen
a functional
common sense to design ARCHITECTURE. he city's
and attractive DESIGNING FOR PUBLIC economic
project? base?
ACCEPTANCE
}7+
j
t -y
.
3
It is the intention of these guidelines to provide a This city is changing its ideas about the
clear idea of the city's design criteria without architectural characteristics of its buildings.
dictating design. Although other standards of design have been
Sometimes, however, the importance of the permitted in the past, they may not be accepted today
city's standards has not always been understood or in the future.
by builders and owners. This is particularly true of A meeting with our planners before completing
metal building projects, which often present difficult project plans can help you understand these new
problems with appearance. concerns and perceptions about our built
Some of these problems that occur frequently are environment.
illustrated in the pages that follow.
-Many of them can be elimi-
nated if the developer is sensitive to
the area surrounding the site.
Developers should recognize that
the city is not only concerned about
architecture and landscaping, but also ,
about the effect of the project on the `
appearance and economic base of the
neighborhood.
ti
Contents
Designing for Public Acceptance . . . . . . . . 2 Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fundamental Design Guidelines . . . . . . . . . 4 Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Site and Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Windows and Doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
j
4 ;
C. Improve appearance with steeper roof slopes
LMATERIALS AND FINISHES
A. New buildings with metal siding or metal and integrated fascias, darker colors, concealed
fasteners, parapet walls and other treatments.
roofs should have factory-painted finishes.
D. Screen unsightly mechanical equipment
B. Metal building components for renovations
with parapet walls, mechanical recesses,or other
or additions should be coated with materials that
conform to industry standards for such uses. means. Roof vent color should match that of the
roof.
C. Untreated metal siding or roofing should not
be Used. 3.WALLS
D. Panels without color should not be used. An A.Use factory applied paint finishes on exterior
exception is Galvalume/Zincalume roofs if these metal walls.
light colored surfaces enhance the project and do not
have an unfavorable effect when viewed from public B. Reduce visual prominence of fasteners by
streets or from other surrounding areas. using architectural panels, wall systems with con-
E. Material of less than 26-gauge should not be cealed or color-coded fasteners or other types of
used. metal wall panels.
F. Architectural panels should be considered in C. Note that exposed fasteners may actually add
design-sensitive areas. to the attractiveness of structures.
D. Use wall colors that are compatible with the
neighborhood.
2.ROOFS E. Protect outside and inside metal walls from
A. Reduce negative visual effects of roofs with aggressive manufacturing,vehicles, corrosion and
regular maintenance. abuse. Use bollards, land-
B. High-visibility roofs FUNDAMENTAL scapKe wainscoting.
can be a pleasing Keep stored things
part building DESIGN GUIDELINES f inside an
design.n. d out.
FOR METAL BUILDING
�.
Lr.::� =
J_
�' �� .�yr. •�'�;�,.. „ti.,� r.:,;,; ' _ `"_� � -
I
The quality of your 3/Make the presentation
drawings can help your attractive with photographs,
1/ Ke Steps Project be understood. perspective drawings, color
1/Submit professional renderings or color-keyed
To roj ect drawings that are clear and blueprints.
atrtractive. 4/It is helpful to submit a
Approval 2/Note all materials sample board of the materials
and colors on the original and colors that will be used
drawings. in the project
5
E. Use architectural detailing to reduce the landscape materials that reduce the apparent size of
massy appearance of long uninterrupted wall surfaces walls that are unusually high, or that provide relief
and excessively high walls. Horizontal color bands, for long and uninteresting walls.
varied wall planes, and landscaped areas with plant-
ings of correct scale are other ways to overcome &SPECIAL ASSISTANCE
these problems. Technical assistance in the use of metal in
F. Downspouts should complement or match architecture is available from the California
wall colors or be concealed within the walls, unless Building Systems Institute, Inc., 1531 Argonne
they are used as a legitimate architectural detail. Drive,Stockton, CA 95203. (209) 948-9333.
Included are sources for coating 4.ARCHITECTURAL PANELS roof and wall panels, insulated wall panels,seismic
A. Site-sensitive metal building projects may properties and architects with special expertise in the
require metal walls with more attractive panel design of metal buildings.
profiles than are available ��
44
with standard s E
industrial metal panels. '
B. Most have con- i l i Wr r �'i�x ;; 4 3i.
cealed fasteners
and coatings with 20-year
warranties.
C. Other recommenda-
tions to ensure wall and ( lI
roof panel appearance and
longevity are available
through the planning staff.
Your own ideas about panel
options are also welcome. is
5.ENTRYWAYS
A. Main entryways
should be clearly defined
and smoothly integrated ,
with building and land- ;
scape designs.They should
be designed to serve as
focal points and pleasant
invitations to visitors.
B. Pleasing effects can be achieved with
canopies,roof overhangs, recessed areas and frame-
line extensions.
6.WINDOWS
A. Windows should be considered as design and
as functional elements of the building.B. The use of store front window systems is a
simple way to improve metal building appearance.
7.OTHER
IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATIONS
A. The use of architects is strongly urged.Their
contribution can make the difference between an
unacceptable project and one that adds to the
owner's investment and that of the community.
B. The use of professional landscape designers
is equally important to insure the selection and
placement of the right trees and shrubs, the use of
6 "
2/Site and
Environment
THIS. . .
...............
u
t .
1
Y
t A •
i
t Jd
_ d x ��' •-� � I .__._._.:...._ .may �a� �:•_
�41-1
����tit � �,>; a�• �`�`r. ry{ry�'i -�4�i, f»:.vti� —l.` _
��•l'lr� u. d � 4 V�.�i����"•e'.
T .��.��}-:.. °' �G...•.e+•..
�^s7 7�5'�`A"'�`�.y`t-� f3 s�' 'w- .�, �.,�v�is' q�,'�`•s $r� �'
� 1 �
� 1
S, !n
•
iY � �� ` T s-� � � t � S i L' I •
1 _ 1
•�� � -�.� d �y x sft.. .�y� „! to t/`.tip, `��� � • �
����yvw��g11y'Q�JG.'9�z-U�' `h�' '3.o•L. �
5. w s♦ t .pwcr.�4C
r;. �jy�'1„�, j S •,+ 't L� ..rnrg+'. ,4.dFr_'cx � r
� + fs rG,t " t ...n sssya✓n. a,.h�7 "-?'wn'
•.�'{'r3�_��..�{�• yi`� -rte- �
t:}��£r�'�',F1f�t c .a J-_ •-a, 1✓{ j ���S{�y�w,..{�1dGl t- �`�
Ip fy.
Nqi 4;
�t
t y -tr 1 1 W�tr 44444 MM�`� '
y�,�, " .yg77 L Yf[' �Si Pi t xf/£�'� >, �!•�'�'j,Y �t 3 y1 7 h�'�(11�(G. .(,1��Pp''1��({.'
+.� �r�y�ti m, ��R�"§'kF�t,�n ..�7 ..qT '�{`a'u..r r>�3"`°�`1�}r 6�-l•».��X 4i,,���a�F F�".
'kg'ckF d first J�`F 7K � ya§"wx' �r��i,�y+��t,�-•�y �tR�� L�.�;oe�'�'�r,•*ki,�
ty tk ,i•. }it� t. f -y.J:fir'•. �S�W.atr +-�..,*'+n.*�•1^ .:k.:� #.,_ y°°aw'.'v.; '::n..a�`'^.-'�.�
1� :'
} i
♦�"+`Z�1 r .r U' > r��tr z "'hi�r 71�.�. 4'�.t'svtz "� �.; .._:s �,�-. �r+lt°� s -c
j�, �srx a�7�°3�su"� �*rt+ r y�.�M'i a•-war+'�i+�5.,�•'!f s�"��4i'V�,t'i Fy r i v 4jY t 1 tr � 3• as°����=��;
$,y, t•tta�i tai�3 e�w�+ s `� }{.yin� ._...,� c-.+� t ! z
8
The building exterior can be softened with curved
includes walls,roofs,windows, corners;a strategy that also
• doors,outdoor signs and graphics adds character and dynamism.
3/ Building and equipment placed on or near Blend compatible colors in a
the building. single facade to add character
FormStark and monotonous and variety and to reduce
rectangular forms are seldom building scale.
appropriate for any but the most
utilitarian buildings and sites, The direction and interval
-- and those without high public of joints and ribs and
visibility. roughened exterior finishes of
architectural metal wall panels
Break up the monotony of are ways to establish rhythm
single,uninterrupted wall and produce character and
planes by staggering vertical relief.
Qvalls and using roof overhangs.
When a large building is
Staggering planes along an introduced into a setting of
f -- exterior wall creates attractive
�. smaller buildings,smaller forms
1:Y n
y , ,. ' �A• pockets of light and shadow. and elements can be arranged
Surface variety for exterior harmoniously to reduce its scale.
Y— aualls can be achieved with
The use of contrasting colors
pilasters and deep reveals at in varying wall planes can also
construction joints add variety and interest to
Large rectangular forms large,dull structures.
THIS. . .
! S G or-
i
i m, 4 �` i- t 1
i` r E r
J;
I M
r��2Ti t tt • ^^I^'.r � r
.I°-}r�~ � ` -' �° ....�� �..1 , + _';,tea a3c•'
KY� i •Y ®_.___.^ I I l 1 Oi's`;'s✓t,,
: I �
r _
yMY4•I�— _ is..
_F
9
Exterior wall and roof other materials—masonry,brick, combination is not appropriate
surfaces should harmonize with concrete,wood,etc.—can be to the building.
one another and with their combined attractively with metal Bollards,traffic barriers,
surroundings. Choose colors, walls to add variety and define landscaping,coatings and other
patterns,textures and finishes scale. protection are also available for
that enhance the design. Free-standing outbuildings exterior metal walls.
Ribbed metal panels can should use forms,shapes and Interior walls should also be
create distinctive patterns that materials that blend with the protected from stacked
emphasize and counterpoise to main structure. merchandise,forklifts and other
create variety and define scale busive operations.
without a change of materials. Leaning materials against a
metal walls can be discouraged
The use of residential by bollards, curbs,and
4 details and materials on com- landscaping. Paved surfaces
mercial or industrial buildings is and laivns running right up to
usually not appropriate,as is the metal avalls are not aesthetically
mixing of unrelated styles and pleasing.
features—a colonial front on a
large industrial building,for While contrast between
example. materials can create visual
Curved corners can soften interest and define scale,avoid
n
material changes simply for their
and add dynamism.Varying
colors and wall surface textures own sake. Some materials
combine well,either because
not
can produce diversity. they differ too much in color,
In design-sensitive hands, pattern or texture,or because the
. "NOT THIS
VA RM
` -
I ,
,1�y ,,r ' �t ty�+Y..r_Tear 4 t.'rg •.�� sr^�_- `
I al }Y44
hlillllil� ���i' liil;ii ► llil
_d
SOLUTION:
1 ; ` 'I �� 1 :iii AVOID STARK
AND MONTONOUS
FORMS
I 1 I
1
• a y?t� .'� ,1,7��9� a- i:' t. , h r. � � t T ;i 's �y �yi t-j3
�'` '"�;��-`�"'�-A•'*^-�"-:s�=`�"'`w..�.r'r+c�.4�ey�K `� � is � L } � f ! t �ff,' sa�t i 't� �S - .
�� !�rt Z y•r�', c v s�fl f t r r ti i�� G� {. i i�'!�''f Z,1` '!
,m, r �,,•skt.� ♦ i'-ti i t(�'�j{�'�ii*�s"L� { �7{ 't t�. j 3�. � ' � z�l�•
, � t � �:} �� rx aLcs{,t$' ��.3- � ! r �,.�! ti t_ �• �3
�"� d rF:lf... �� �, � +f � ,� -��rf�4�f�+. cam: tifi.�•,�+, r,,
-
rn.a�� sr��.+{r .�•�'R"", \\ 1 t i� ��j°��h.'},= Vii. t x t+-•X11 r.'�
�:Yt'f::±:4::.� t, �,i}::. ryw.'r�^`; \.; ,f..+S. .:,F �r:f:3K E•_A:. :A }•...C,If>s,.. F+L _
v
c iw 2` z r 1
Y "•'' �t t'
.r:C .. :. s1 -
i
11
Avoid long walls small windows into horizontal composition—exterior appear- emphasize main entry doors.
monotonously punctuated with bands. For contrast and shade, ante,proportion,harmony and Clearly define paths to the
windows and doors, or create recessed window open- scale. main entry door.
openings dwarfed by walls. ings under overhangs. Give entrys a sense of
Glazed areas should be pro- Windows and doors should shelter by using overhangs and
portioned to the scale of the not be located for interior simple recesses.Protected
will or elevation. To add requirements only,but treated doorways also create a sense of
interest in large walls,group as part of the architectural entry. Use a wall or eave to
. . .NOT THIS
Run
l ;nl�' dill
I�I'� liil:i
; li Ili
SOLUTION.
TREAT
WINDOWS
AS PART OF
THE BUILDING'S
elements in exterior walls. The shape and slope of roof DESIGN
Roof colors should also be forms can enhance character COMPOSITION
coordinated with other colors and scale. And they can be
on surrounding facades. used to blend with the appear-
Variety in roof shapes and ante of surrounding buildings.
forms can add character and
diversity—and still be
':ompariblewith the neighbors.
•ti 1. / ' iJ— � � � #{$• .
rvE�!
. a 4s tt t
S -
� '. r�� ��r nE�?,la. �,i'r," �tR? ftiF�k+� ��.�,y`�/G- �.•.
.S: tc ` �''"' �t i�f i r t.4t { s� ?"''4') n5 •ryy� t'M
r _
�.�� r'f� 1 �.;l r 5=, �".�is 5 x �"�• s E � k�1`!..'E _ t r J��f .�f.j
>. B .y�:�r` •s :, j C �,y--- --,^"""�. e yt t �c, � �F � t ,, r.�.�'Tr
t S
y� S
is`4t �i�`, .:, t 5�J',`.{�'�+? •�. ��'h .:� g , �, ;w t. t s .a E ��
,; 4``
i�'• � K t,3iNi -�Yy�`t�;,t',E i .r'�. `���'a!�"4.re I __ _— ti-d`" y,; r!-� N
RES
ln
1 `.r
t ♦ � � Q�a
Et I i
� ,y'C.ryr Et• y 75 -.�". ftfi - mow•. '.c��o 1• E..
rs �� , >t.; �. I d I�•�Z'R4►i��..�—" � � ° ,_.....,,� Ott,
1
av i,x P
L
t^��, �1..�—,T',y f°s.��`�!' ;�• R.,,, h.. - 5 �tw...z�;a t , �, 1Y r4ry{��,�j ylpj�v`
�"-,�,.nv,:.h:.�:.4«�f ti5..�o�j;��.*'n i' �, `,,,'1{A�����` p2 �_�?I"�r?k���;�y., f/ •��r
i
I
13
Conceal outdoor utility building in an unobtrusive building materials and colors
connections and equipment— location. Reduce visual exterior can provide security and
heat pumps,air conditioning runs of piping,ducting and concealment.
compressors,humidifiers etc.— wiring. Include trash enclosures in
with architecturally compatible Outdoor utility hookups and site designs,open to trash
screens and enclosures. equipment should be out of trucks,but not prominently
Connect above-ground general view. Screening open to view.
electrical telephone wires to the structures that blend with
. . :NOT THIS
Aim
I
nnl Y.
11111 1 Y i�•
�.� f am
III I, III_it,
I
Ai� EM
SOLUTION:
CONCEAL
architecturally attractive. effective message.Use symbols UTILITIES,
Sign colors should be that are easily recognizable.
compatible with building colors. Keep overall shape simple to OR BLEND
Light background with dark avoid detracting from message. THEM IN
lettering is best visually.Use no
more than rnro primary colors, Letters should not occupy more
with a secondary third color as than 75%of the sign area
accent or shadow detail. Use easy-to-read styles that fit
Fewer words make a more the business and the building.
1 .. Import Caancs r
Truck Parts Center
-Y
r
• �lA r 1 11. �r
1 -
}
14
Use a balanced mix of trees, ing)can reduce the apparent
shrubs and ground cover building mass and height and
with reasonable maintenance conserve energy-
8/ Landscaping '
energy-
requirements) Distribute landscaping
and shade for parking and open throughout the project:in
spaces. parking areas,at the base of
Earth-berming(mounding building walls to break up hard
earth upward toward the build- edges between paving and walls.
THIS. . .
V ;
JOP
00 :t
i
i r
R;
Chalking- A process by Facade -An accessory to -
which finishes develop a enhance the appearance of
Glossary of Terms loose powdery surface from a wall, or to cover eaves or
decomposition of the paint gables.
binder, principally from Fluorocarbon Coatings -
ultraviolet rays. Thermoplastic coatings
Concealed Fastener - based on resins made by
Screws or other metal wall polymerizing polyvinyl
fasteners that are not fluoride, or plyvinyl fltlo-
visible. ride, or polyvinylidene
fluoride.
Lanndscape at trash Landscaping should not be Conserve water.Use native,
enclosures and property line used to mask a sub-standard low-maintenance and drought-
walls.Landscape around the site building design. tolerant plants and minimum
(10 to 15 feet wide along public Landscaping helps buildings turf areas.
streets) to allow for mounding blend with their surroundings.
shrubbery and trees that soften Plants,shrubs and trees add
and enhance the public's view variety and reduce the appar-
of the site. ent scale of large, blank walls.
. . :NOT THIS
SOLUTION
CREATE A
NATURAL
PRESENCE
sT9f' �3 yam.+b.- t^•
1
A
Galvalume - Aluminum- Pilaster - A projection and fuse to a continuous Standing Seam Roof-
zinc alloy coated steel. Ap- from a masonry wall film. Metal roof system with
proximately 55% alumi- intended to support mem- Roll Forming Used in panel sidelaps interlocked
num and 45% zinc, applied bers or reinforce the wall, formino metal strip. The to form a watertight joint,
by continuous hot dip. architecturally. metal is run progressively without through-fasteners.
Mil-Unit of measure Plastisol Coatings - through rolls of definite Step In Eave Height-
equal to 0.001 inch. Used Thermoplastic coatings settings that bend the strip The condition where a
to describe paint film consisting of finely divided to a final contour. lower building is attached
thickness. polyvinyl chloride resins Soffit-Underside to a higher building at the
Parapet Wall—that part of to suitable plasticizers. covering, usually at a roof end walls.
a vertical wall extending During the baking process overhang.
above the roof line. g the resin particles are
solvated by the plasticizer
S
California Building Systems Institute, Inc.
1531 Argonne Drive, Stockton, California 95203
(209) 948-9333
C71 D t ,
Aq
,, , � z -x�',�.-J';`:✓ '-+der'"
Copyright 1991 California Building Systems Institure,Inc.
CITY OF DUBLIN
CHECKLIST OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR)
On a case by case basis , a City Planner will place a checkmark ( )
next to the information required to be submitted. The City Planner
may- determine that specific information is not needed to process a
particular application. If the City Planner decides to waive certain
information, the City Planner will initial the waived information and
keep a copy of the form for City records . Incomplete application
submittals will not be accepted unless a Planner has signed a
submittal requirement waiver specifically identifying those items
waived. Incomplete or inaccurate information may result in processing
delays or denial of the project.
An example of a situation in which a Planner might waive certain
submittal requirements :
Site Development Review request for a site with an existing
building where no roof mounted mechanical equipment or
changes to the roof are proposed. In this situation, the
Planner may waive the requirement for a roof plan.
To comply with State law the following represents a comprehensive list
of information which must be submitted prior to acceptance of an
application for a Site Development Review:
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Project Street Address/Location:
Project Name:
Project Description:
Zoning District:
Applicant Name:
No . of Copies
1 . Application Form including address and 1
signature of property owner(s) and applicant.
2 . Completed Environmental Information Form including 1
signature of property owner(s) and applicant.
ATTACK /
/submitls - 1 -
September 3, 1991
3 . Application Deposit (cash or check payable to City N/A
of Dublin in the amount of $ _. ) . Contact
' Planner to determine amount to submit.
Fish and Game Environmental Filing Fee:
Environmental Impact Report ($850 . 00) N/A
Negative Declaration ($1,250 . 00) N/A
County Administrative Fee ( $25 . 00) N/A
Initial Study Fee ($25 . 00) N/A
Environmental Impact Report N/A
Special Studies (traffic, noise, etc . ) N/A
4 . Written Statement/Brief description of proposal 1
indicating whether the project is located on a
hazardous waste and substances site (pursuant ' to
Government Code Section 2 . 65962 . 5) . If the site
is included on a list of hazardous waste and
substance sites, the list shall be specified on
the statement.
5 . Preliminary Title Report/Property Profile to document
ownership 1
prepared within three months of application
submittal .
6 . Public Notice Materials :
a . reproduced copy of Alameda County Assessor' s 1
parcel map showing project parcel (s) outlined
in red and a 300 foot radius drawn from the
perimeter of the site drawn in blue;
b. list of names and addresses of current property 1
owners within 300 feet of site typed on labels;
and
C . one set of self-addressed envelopes with postage 1
for all property owners within 300 feet of site.
7 . Vicinity Map showing site in relation to nearest 1
cross streets .
8. Site Plan drawn to 1" = 20 ' scale and fully 10
dimensioned ( folded, 9" x 11" maximum) . The plans
must be prepared and signed by licensed civil _
engineer, surveyor, architect, or designer. The
plans must graphically and understandably describe
the proposal . The plan must show the following:
a. north arrow and scale;
b. dimensioned property lines and adjacent
streets;
C . location and setbacks of all existing and
proposed structures on the site;
d. location and dimensions of existing and
proposed parking, driveways and loading
areas;
/submitls - 2 -
September 3, 1991
e. location of all easements;
f . landscape areas, walkways, fences, retaining
walls ;
g. location and dimensions of proposed paving,
freestanding light standards, fences, walls,
trash enclosures, mechanical equipment and
utility meter screens;
h. proposed pedestrian, vehicular, and service
points of ingress and .egress, paths and
walkways , loading docks, and maneuvering
areas;
i . location, species, size and proposed
disposition of all existing trees; and
j . summary of development calculations including
site area, gross and net floor area of all
buildings, number of parking stalls required
and proposed, lot coverage allowed and
proposed, and when appropriate, number of
beds, students or dining seats .
9 . Grading Plan showing existing (dashed line) and 10
proposed or finish grade (solid line) contours at
two foot intervals, boundaries of all cut and fill
areas, cross-sections of site where topographic
changes exceed 5%, and direction and path of
drainage on, through and off the site ( indicate
any proposed and existing drainage channels or
facilities ) ( folded, 9" x 11" maximum) .
10. Preliminary Landscape Plan showing locations of 10
proposed plant materials( folded, 9" x 11"
maximum) , including the following:
a. plant palette with the name of the proposed
plants (both common and botanical) ,
quantities, spacing and container sizes; and
growth rate.
b. locations of proposed plants, berms , concrete
curbs, paths , fencing, and miscellaneous
structures ( including above grade utility
structures such as PG&E transformers ) .
11. Building Elevations, fully dimensioned and drawn to 10 _
a 1/8" = 1 ' scale of all sides of all proposed
structures . Elevations must include building
materials, colors, trash enclosures, fencing and
roof screening details .
12. Colored Buildinq Elevations . 1
13. Color and Material Palette indicating the proposed 1
finishes of all exterior materials ( including roof
and walls ) and color samples of paint or
manufactured products to be applied on the
building exterior (including fascia and trim) .
/submitls - 3 -
September 3, 1991
14'. Floor Plans, fully dimensioned, drawn to scale, 10
showing exterior doors and windows, stairways,
mechanical rooms and hallways ( folded, 9" x 11"
maximum) .
15 . Roof Plan drawn to scale showing the direction 10
of slope of roof elements and location of
mechanical equipment, ducts and vents ( folded,
9" x 11" maximum) .
16 . Reduced copies ( 8 1/2" x 11" ) of each plan 2
17 . Traffic data specific to the site or proposed project:
traffic generation rates, peak hour counts, trip
distribution and similar information.
18 . Special information or information in such a form N/A
and number as may be required by the Planning
Department.
For help in understanding this information, please contact:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 CIVIC PLAZA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
(510) 833-6610
/submitls - 4 -
September 3, 1991
r .n
y'4' "�,.4 � •�'T.,r A,� d� � ,�'^. � �x=•� � � ,�:�j� � a�x 2�a�Y,�s �' P
HO TO V
a3
x
N.
V
ATTACOW 6
PjG �o Z
eyr
1
g ff DTO 3Z
• �m J•W ..a�.;ySA•��
• u�tt � Vii i��u� r, { �� �6 a r� 'ir�'��iitiipy9' Yl
1
.Fey �. ., A R F &•.e
P# r 37
VtIAI
..........
a �°R
wr � f
d�y� a���e(�'0. ��,��S�d���`»�"�a �•e
77• �+ t�3 � �� R. mF $'t NiY g�i1
,!1 3 16, A
,�' ..ax`bxa°T 'sr slaw a* s!
� k+.
t