Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2007 Special Meeting - Zoning Ord (SDR) Study Session Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session Planning Commission Study Session Minutes CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 9, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ATTENDEES Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Biddle, King, and Tomlinson; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. 1.1 Study Session – Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) Chair Schaub asked for the Staff Report. Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Ms. Fraser stated that exterior façade remodels are brought to the Planning Commission at the request of the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub asked if the Shamrock Center project was brought to the Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser answered that, at the time, it was reviewed by Staff only, as permitted by the code a number of years ago. Chair Schaub mentioned that this is an example of a big change that did not come before the Planning Commission. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director stated that the reason Staff approved the Shamrock Center at the Staff level was because the property owner stated that the only way they would do anything to the shopping center was if it was done at the Staff level. Ms. Ram stated that Staff weighed the possibility of not getting anything done to the property for years or getting a partial façade remodel approved at the Staff level. Ms. Ram stated that the developer was upset about an issue that was discussed with the Mayor at a City Council meeting after which they stated that they would not work with the City again. Therefore, approving the project at Staff level gave the City the ability to get something done to the shopping center. Cm. King asked Ms. Ram why they didn’t want to go in front of the Planning Commission. Ms. Ram stated that it was because they had some history with the property owner and did not want to repeat it. She stated that the developer was angry about what happened at the City Council meeting previously and therefore, did not want to elevate the application at all. Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session Cm. King stated that what he was trying to figure out was whether the reason was because of certain personalities or events or if they thought the Planning Commission was a huge hassle. Ms. Ram stated she didn’t think it had anything to do with the Planning Commission but rather with a previous experience relating to a super market project. Ms. Ram stated if everything is elevated to the Planning Commission and nothing at the Staff level then sometimes improvement projects won’t happen. Cm. Biddle asked if cost was a factor for the developer not wanting to deal with the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to continue with her presentation and they would revisit the discussion later in the meeting. Ms. Fraser continued the presentation of the Staff Report. Staff has recommended changes to the SDR to bring the chapter into compliance with what is currently being practiced today. The table on pages 3-7 of the Staff Report shows the reviewing body, i.e., Community Development Director can review all Site Development Reviews. Ms. Fraser stated that this not the process currently, some applications are reviewed by the CDD Director and some are reviewed by the Planning Commission. She stated that when things are clear in the code then the process is easier for the Applicant and Staff. Cm. King commented that this Zoning Code change connects with the Community Design Element and indicates what kind of standards the Commission prefers. Ms. Fraser continued that the chapter specifies when a Site Development Review is required and gives a list of every zoning district that it applies to. She stated that this section is confusing and it leaves out Planned Development, which Staff will still review, therefore, to make it clear Staff could remove the zoning ordinance tags and indicate either residential or non-residential. Then it would be clear as to when an SDR is required to be brought before the Planning Commission. She continued that it is not clear in the code for an SDR Waiver what a minor project is and that would need to be clarified. Cm. Biddle asked if there should be a dollar figure or square footage requirement for what constituted a minor improvement. Ms. Fraser answered that if the project was an addition to a non-residential building then it would be easier to use square footage not a dollar amount because the dollar amount would be hard to verify. Cm. King asked if there was something specific in the other cities’ codes and/or definitions that we could use and mentioned Foster City’s codes. Ms. Fraser stated that in Foster City there is a policy that states the definition of minor and major. This document was not in the code but a few pages written by Staff and adopted by the City Council to provide clarity. Cm. Tomlinson asked if it worked. Ms. Fraser answered that it worked and it allowed the director to make a determination on if a project was a minor or major improvement. She stated that items in the code that were considered minor improvements were items such as; door and Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session window changes, paint color, or awnings. She stated that there was a policy that determined when the projects would have to go to the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub stated that this discussion includes the entire City but there are also specific plans within the City. He asked if the Commission would be making decisions for the entire City. He gave the example that the Planning Commission was working on redoing the Downtown Specific Plan which would allow the Commission to work on some of these items just for that specific plan. Ms. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager added that the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance are applicable to all of the specific plans or properties that are outside of the specific plan. Therefore, the Commission would not be precluded from making regulation modifications even if Staff is working on a specific plan. If there were to be a change to a specific plan it would have to be consistent with the Zoning Codes. She stated that specific plans do not regulate the SDR process. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she thought that the Commission had touched on the subject of minor improvements when they worked on the Garage Conversion Ordinance and asked if this would be related to what is being discussed tonight. She thought that there was something similar incorporated in the ordinance and thought that the City does not approve garage conversions any longer. Chair Schaub stated that garage conversions are not approved in the City. Ms. Wilson stated that a garage conversion would not be called out as a specific item in the SDR chapter of the Zoning Codes. Cm. Wehrenberg continued with the question regarding the Applicant that is supposedly converting a garage and wants to change a window and leave the door – Ms. Wilson stated that a garage conversion is governed by the garage conversion section of the code. Chair Schaub stated that he did not think that Applicants should have to have an SDR for something as minor as changing windows from single to double pane, for instance. Ms. Fraser stated that Staff has not recommended getting into the specifics with residential projects as that would include a lot of Staff time and a great deal of expense with a lot of regulations. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought it would be worthwhile to see the Foster City list of minor vs. major improvements. She continued that the list, which is provided with the Staff Report, is a broad spectrum document that provides information on cities in the area such as Foster City, which is smaller, to San Jose which is quite a bit larger. She continued that Foster City is a highly regulated City. For example, windows, garage doors, even skylights are required to have design review by the City. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the requirement was for a full design review not just an application for a permit. Cm. Tomlinson asked if some of the design reviews are over-the-counter. Ms. Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session Fraser answered that a window change can usually be done over-the-counter, however, with the increase in permit applications there is a delay in getting the permits issued. She continued that when you add the ten day appeal period a permit can take a lot longer. Chair Schaub stated that there is a significant amount of neighborhoods with HOA CC&R’s and they are very specific about what can and cannot be done. He continued that a resident can’t change the front yard landscaping or house color or windows unless it is approved by the HOA board. He thought that the CC&R’s are a good thing that would take some of the burden off of Staff. Ms. Fraser stated that most cities don’t review to the level of detail that Foster City does. Cm. King observed that Livermore and Pleasanton have the same kind of code and that they must have some way of determining a minor or major façade remodel. Chair Schaub stated that Dublin will never be very big and that our City acts like a small town which is different than Pleasanton or Livermore. He stated that he did not like the color change that Oil Changers made to their store and asked why landscaping is not required in some areas. He wondered how we can stop this type of thing from happening within Dublin. Cm. King asked about how much is the Commission willing to stand our ground if a property owner indicates that they won’t make any improvements if they have to go in front of the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub answered that he believes that the Commission should not be threatened by a property owner. He stated that they still have to have a shopping center that appeals to the public, that there is still a market that forces the property owner to make improvements. He stated that in the past, when the Commission made it clear that the façade had to be changed, the property owner came back with some good projects. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Chair Schaub and the Staff Report that indicated that some property owners were holding off on going forward with façade remodels because they don’t want to go before the Planning Commission. He stated that he didn’t think the Commission was that hard to deal with. Ms. Fraser asked if the Commission could wait to discuss this subject until they talk about the pros and cons. She didn’t think that it was because the property owners thought they were hard to deal with. She stated that there is a different perspective when you are the Applicant. Ms. Wilson stated that Dublin’s population at build-out is projected to be approximately 65,000 to 70,000. She stated that the balance is critical in terms of who has the role of approving projects, Staff, City Council or the Planning Commission. Chair Schaub stated that his point was that there may be 78,000 people but the square miles or footprint of the City is small compared to the other cities in the Tri-Valley area. It’s a fraction of Pleasanton or Livermore. He stated that he thought it was even more important to get it right because the City will be denser. Ms. Wilson said that as the existing ordinance stands, Staff has the ability to approve almost everything that the Commission sees but they don’t because it is better to have the Commission Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session review certain projects which includes public notice. She stated that it is not necessarily appropriate to make a huge policy shift and that the reason for this study session is to bring this discussion to the Commission to determine the appropriate balance for review of projects. Ms. Wilson also mentioned that the Community Development Dept. has hired a new Code Enforcement Officer and that there will be a greater opportunity to look at landscaping and code enforcement issues related to conditions of approval for the enforcement of those conditions. Cm. Tomlinson asked about the Oil Changers paint change and if they had a permit to paint the building. Ms. Wilson answered that there are no restrictions in the code that would not allow the use of that color. She mentioned that she was doing some research to determine what other permits are on file but she believed that the building was approved before the City was incorporated and was not sure if the existing permits have any condition regarding color. She is still looking into it but mentioned that there are many buildings within the City that have existed for a long time and do not have any regulations that would stop a color change. Chair Schaub asked if the Commission could propose regulations that would begin to manage all the buildings in Dublin regardless of when they were built. Ms. Fraser answered that was the reason for the Study Session regarding the SDR changes so that the code is clear as to what it applies to. At present the code states a color change does not required an SDR. She continued that there are reviews required for some color changes within an existing SDR where the color was part of the original conditions of approval. Chair Schaub stated that the subject of paint color was brought up 2 ½ years ago and the Commission didn’t want to get into regulating that issue. He stated that he thought it was not fair to the rest of the residents and the property owners next to them when the paint color is too different. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff wanted the Commission to decide at what level they want to review a project. Color is one example of the lowest level of site development review and asked if they want to regulate every color. She stated that this type of review is a shift from current policy and requiring review of many more permits. She was also concerned that there would be property owners who would not come forward, even at the Staff level because of the level of review that would be required. Cm. Tomlinson mentioned that he spoke with Larry Stone who had worked in Sunnyvale and stated that they did not regulate residential colors only non-residential. He asked Staff to check on Sunnyvale’s policy on regulating color. Ms. Wilson agreed to have Staff check. Chair Schaub mentioned that most CC&R’s have color restrictions. Cm. Tomlinson continued that Sunnyvale is comparable to Dublin with a lot of old structures and that he thought a property owner of a single family residence could paint it whatever color they choose and the City does not get involved. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would like to start looking at multi- family developments and then commercial and then industrial. Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session Cm. King thought that Cm. Tomlinson was suggesting that the City may want to have a more demanding standard for commercial and retail. Cm. Tomlinson answered that he thought the Commission should review the color change on any large apartment complex that wanted to paint, especially if it is in a gateway area and would be very visible. Ms. Wilson stated that Dublin has relatively new developments and many of them have been approved as a part of the Planned Development process. Whether they are commercial, industrial or residential they would already have restrictions built in and SDR’s approved which would require them to paint the same or similar color that is required by the SDR. If the developer wanted to change the color dramatically then the City would be able to review it at the Staff level or bring it to the Commission, as needed. She stated that the ones that are not necessarily caught in the process are the projects that were approved before Dublin became a City and do not have SDR permits. Cm. Tomlinson stated that at some point the developer or property owner would want to bring the project or color change to the Planning Commission because if the building does not look good it would affect their business. Ms. Fraser gave the example of the area where the Heritage Center Park will be. The shopping center adjacent to it did not feel they needed to spend the money to fix it up. She continued that in the City there are a large number of new buildings, and a large number of 20+ year old buildings which causes a disparity between the ages of the structures. This is also where some property owners have to make the decision on whether it makes sense to remodel or not. She stated that the cost of remodeling and what they get in rent now and what they can get in the future influences their decision. Ms. Fraser gave another example of the Dublin Station shopping center. Staff recommended changes but the property owner said that they didn’t want to spend the money. She continued that they felt they were fully occupied and didn’t feel they needed to remodel. She felt that Staff will always be faced with applicants who are asked to make changes and then decide not to because they feel it is too expensive and there are no guarantees that it would be approved. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned the timeline is also a problem for the Applicant. If they want a new roof and have to wait and it starts raining then it is a problem. Ms. Fraser stated that the time constraints can be a problem for the Applicant. Cm. Wehrenberg continued that if we solidify the process and make it clear as to what is required then the code is clear. Ms. Fraser stated if someone wants to tear down a building and build something new they should be required to submit for design review. She continued that she thought that there is a fine line that has to be drawn as to at what point do we send everything to Planning Commission. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that she doesn’t want to see everything, but thought that it should be clear what types of projects we do want to see, i.e., major things come to us but minor things don’t. Chair Schaub suggested a policy that says that if the applicant wants they can bring up the exception at a meeting without a Staff Report and states what they want to do and that they Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session would like to keep it at the Staff level. Then the Commission would give permission for Staff to approve the project and it would not come before the Commission. Ms. Wilson explained the SDR waiver process, i.e., a slight change that could be approved at the staff level without going to the Planning Commission, less cost is involved, less Staff time and no public noticing is required but there is documentation in the file to show that the change is consistent with the SDR. She stated that the next level would be a project that needs an SDR permit but a public notice would be required, there would be more time involved in writing the Conditions of Approval but would still be at the Staff level. She stated that it would be a project that we would want the public to be aware of but is not that significant. Chair Schaub stated that he thought it was an interesting at what point is it of value to the public to have knowledge and input on a project. Ms. Wilson answered that it is based on a threshold. Ms. Fraser stated that, for example, The Elephant Bar project was not required to go to the Planning Commission but Staff forwarded it to the Planning Commission because there were concerns about the project design. Cm. Biddle stated that he did not want the Planning Commission to have to approve every paint color or every minor change. Ms. Fraser indicated that in the Staff Report, on page 4, she included the items that are being recommended to stay at staff level for SDR Waivers, minor projects would include: 1) color change; 2) fencing; 3) door and window changes; 4) awnings; 5) minor changes to the approved plans; 6) roof screens; 7) trellises; and 8) similar improvements. She stated that items could be added to the list that the Planning Commission would like to remain at Staff level. She stated that she got the impression from the Planning Commission that they want to look at the big projects that are very visible. Cm. Tomlinson made the example of Video Only and the painting/tinting of their windows. He asked if they are allowed to paint their windows without an SDR. Ms. Wilson responded that there is no restriction in the code. She mentioned that if there were an SDR that clearly stated that the windows had to remain clear glass then they would have to keep them that way. The problem is the older buildings have no previous SDR. Cm. Tomlinson thought that painting/tinting windows is something that the Planning Commission should address. Ms. Wilson stated that when Video Only tinted their windows she sent the Code Enforcement Officer out to see if there are other buildings with similar painted/tinted windows in the City. She stated that our research found that there are a variety of businesses that paint/tint their windows. Chair Schaub thought that no one should be able to make those types of changes without a review by the City. He stated that even the businesses that are not located on major Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session thoroughfares would be impacted by those types of changes. Ms. Fraser stated that with clearer codes the City would be able to enforce them. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the City has enough Staff resources to take care of these kinds of project reviews. She added that in the City of Santa Clara they have an architectural review committee that reviews projects before they come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser answered that a review board would add an extra step which would add extra time to a project. She stated that the more projects that are allowed to be approved at Staff level the less Staff is necessary and the quicker it is for the developer or property owner. Ms. Wilson commented that, as Ms. Fraser stated, the more regulations you have the more staff you need to implement them. If the Commission implemented an architectural review board it would have to be staffed. Ms. Wilson continued that Staff was not recommending an architectural review board. She stated that the Commission now has the opportunity to review land use changes, legislative actions, policy and codes, and SDRs but if there were an architectural review board such a body would review design and the Planning Commission would only review land use regulations. Ms. Fraser stated that it would depend on what the Commission will allow the staff to review and what has to go to Planning Commission. She stated that SDR waivers typically take a small amount of time to review. If you require projects to have a full site development review then there are more steps to be taken, i.e. noticing, staff reports, conditions of approval and appealable action letters which would increase staff’s time. Cm. Tomlinson liked the concept of Staff reviewing as much as possible. He felt it is more efficient for the Applicant and the Staff. He said his problem with the projects that were discussed earlier was that nobody was reviewing them. He felt it would not be necessary to bring those projects to the Commission but thought the Staff should at least take a look at those types of non-residential painting projects. Ms. Fraser suggested that it would be helpful if the Commission gave staff an idea of what they consider minor improvements that could be reviewed by Staff. Chair Schaub asked how the discussion tonight would impact the Design Element that the Commission has been working on. He felt that it would clarify what the Commission expects the vision to be. Ms. Wilson answered that the General Plan is a policy document and that the Community Design Element will be part of that General Plan. She stated that the Design Element will be policy based and not at the detailed level as a Zoning Ordinance. Cm. King asked if it will dictate design standards. Ms. Wilson answered that it will give policy for design standards but will not be detailed, i.e., slope of roof or architectural detail standard. She continued that the general plan is meant to be a broad document that would not be as detailed as a specific plan or an ordinance such as the SDR Chapter. Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session Chair Schaub mentioned that the Commission had talked about “form based” code as opposed to zoning. Ms. Wilson stated that a “form based” code is anticipated to be a part of the new downtown specific plan because it looks at the detailed level of how the land uses are laid out, as well as what the form of buildings will look like. Chair Schaub thought that color must be a part of form. Ms. Wilson answered that if color is a concern, neither the Community Design Element nor any of the Specific Plans would get to the level that would require review by the Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser stated that the Community Design Element and the Specific Plan would have statements to the effect that projects must be compatible with the community or other buildings in the vicinity. Chair Schaub stated that Staff should have the ability to take an exception to the Planning Commission. He continued that things change and colors are updated and slowly the colors in the neighborhoods change. Ms. Wilson stated that if all houses are white, then one purple, intuitively we know that it doesn’t make sense to allow that one purple house. Ms. Fraser stated that the important thing to remember is that any good general plan or specific plan will acknowledge that communities change over time. She stated that if the colors are compatible with each other, the problem is when there is someone who wants a totally different color. Chair Schaub asked Ms. Fraser when the change will be made. Ms. Wilson mentioned that it will depend on what the outcome of the meeting is. Chair Schaub was concerned about whether the Planning Commission should be working on a Zoning Change at the same time the Community Design Element is finalized. Ms. Wilson stated that they are both different and one does not drive the other. Chair Schaub was satisfied that the Planning Commission could work on the SDR Ordinance changes and the work on the Community Design Element and they would not be duplicating efforts. Ms. Fraser asked the Planning Commission to indicate where Staff should go from here. Input and suggestions from the Planning Commission tonight, will be incorporated as a part of the rewrite of the SDR chapter. This project will be totally separate from everything else, separate of the Community Design Element and separate from the other Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were any businesses that know about this change and are trying to slip something through before the ordinance is passed. Ms. Wilson answered that there were no applications at this time. Ms. Fraser stated that aside from this chapter, Staff is currently working on an update to the entire Zoning Ordinance but started with this chapter because it is a high priority goal for the City Council. Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session Cm. King was concerned whether the Planning Commission can expect large projects to be required to come before them. Ms. Fraser continued that in the Residential section of the Ordinance it states that as of now when a resident proposes modifications to their house they are not required to get any level of review from Staff or Planning Commission. Staff is suggesting that if a property owner wants to do a complete tear-down and rebuild that Staff would recommend a Site Development Review (SDR) reviewed by the Community Development Director. Chair Schaub asked what was meant by a complete tear-down. He mentioned a house on Silvergate where the owners left the front part of the garage up and rebuilt the house and it didn’t look like any other house in the neighborhood. Ms. Fraser asked the Commission to discuss with Staff what they felt was a complete tear-down. She stated that if the code does not define a tear-down a property owner could leave up the garage and not be required to process an SDR. Cm. Wehrenberg answered that she thought 50% of the exterior walls could be considered a tear-down. Chair Schaub stated that he thought it also means building up. He thought that if the option of a second floor was not available when the house was built then it should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Wilson stated that if the Commission wanted to set a specific percentage of the home that was to be rebuilt it could be done but is implementation of such regulations become very complex. Ms. Fraser suggested that they separate the issues, one is an addition, and the other is a tear- down. She stated that usually when an Applicant is doing a tear-down the project a large and could include a second story. She asked the Commission at what point would they consider the project a tear-down. Ms. Wilson suggested that Staff could do more research on the subject. She stated that her experience was that 50% is an appropriate number that is used frequently. Ms. Fraser stated that in some cities a full wall must be left up but the garage would not count as part of the project. Some cities require that two full exterior walls must be left intact. Chair Schaub stated that he thought requiring the Applicant to leave two full exterior walls is appropriate and that the most important are the walls that face the street. Ms. Fraser suggested that would be a difficult requirement because an Applicant could leave the front, teardown the back of the house and build up two stories. Chair Schaub stated that changing a house from a single story to a two story needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session There was a discussion regarding the size of an addition that must be brought to the Planning Commission for review. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff will do more research on the subject of residential development for SDR. Ms. Fraser stated she thought the Commission is in support of now requiring a review of SDR’s for residential development and that the review could be done at the Staff level and not brought before the Commission. Chair Schaub and the other Commissioners agreed. Chair Schaub reiterated that the Commission agrees that substantial residential changes need to have an SDR and be reviewed by Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser commented that this change to the SDR process could potentially affect a lot of people; this is a shift from existing policy. She stated that the older houses are, for the most part, in the west part of Dublin, are attractive as a remodel type of house because of their yard size and they are more affordable. She indicated that is a potential that more people will be doing a teardown and rebuild in the future. Ms. Fraser stated that Staff is recommending that all additions and exterior modifications on non-residential buildings should be reviewed. She stated that in the Staff Report she recommended that a minor addition should be reviewed by the Director. She stated that a minor improvement of less than 500 square feet is suggested to be reviewed by Staff. Chair Schaub stated that a minor improvement, less than 1,000 square feet can be reviewed by Staff. Ms. Fraser asked the Commission to determine at what point an addition would be large enough for the Commission to review. Chair Schaub answered that if it is 1,000 square feet or larger or more than 50% of a change to the front façade. Ms. Wilson stated that some buildings face into a parking lot, not necessarily onto Dublin Blvd so they may not want to restrict it to the front façade. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that if the project was controversial enough it would be brought to the Commission. Ms. Fraser stated that the restriction could be 1,000 square feet and under or not visible from the public right-of-way. Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session Cm. Tomlinson stated that he would support 1,000 square feet or 2,500 square feet and under or not visible from the public right-of way. Ms. Wilson shared the example of a building of over 100,000 square feet that could propose an addition of 3,000 to 4,000 square feet which would be a small addition relative to the size of the building, but would have to come to the Commission for review. She continued that the Staff would review the overall size of the building in relation to the size of the proposed addition and determine if it should go to the Commission for review. She stated that it could cause a problem in the development community if the code stated that 2,500 square feet of minor improvement/addition can be reviewed at Staff level and then Staff brings the project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. There was a discussion about what size addition can be reviewed at Staff level and what should be brought to the Commission. They discussed the fact that sometimes there will be a building where the regulations don’t make sense. Ms. Fraser suggested that the Commission needs to be comfortable with whatever level is selected as an average. It was suggested that the code read the level would be at 1,000 square feet or over 5% of the building area. Cm. King asked if it was agreed that at a certain level, there are projects that need to be reviewed by the Commission. He gave the example of the Shamrock Center that the façade was remodeled and was never brought before the Commission and asked if something that large should be brought before the Commission. Ms. Wilson discussed the Shamrock Center project stating that there was no change to the project square footage. She stated that unless the overall building size is taken into consideration then it would trigger the SDR process or the code could be interpreted that any change to the building must be reviewed. Ms. Fraser suggested that they go over each item, point by point and indicate whether it should be reviewed at the Staff level or brought to the Planning Commission. Cm. Tomlinson stated that almost all of the items could be reviewed by Staff as much as possible with the option to bring the item to the Planning Commission if needed. Ms. Wilson stated that was the way the code was written at present. Ms. Wilson stated that the code is written with a lot of flexibility. She stated that the Commission is reviewing more items than the code requires, however, there are certain types of modifications that are not regulated, which has become a big concern of the Commission. She thought that the Planning team had learned from the Commission and working as a team had learned what the Commission wants to see and what they don’t feel they need to see. She asked the Commissioners if they thought we were going too far or maybe trying to modify the chapter to a degree that is not necessary. She stated that we need to add some items into the code that will catch items that are not currently be regulated and with the understanding that Staff still has the discretion to send items that were not historically sent to the Planning Commission. Additionally, Staff does believe that there are some of clean-up issues that need to be addressed from an implementation standpoint. Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session Cm. Tomlinson stated that he didn’t think that the existing system is broken and he supports the idea of Staff having more flexibility. He felt that flexibility makes Staff, as well as the Commission, more efficient. Ms. Fraser stated that, as the code is currently written, everything has the ability to be reviewed by Staff. Cm. King asked if the code will indicate that certain things must come before the Planning Commission or will it always be at Staff’s discretion. He stated that the reason he is asking the question is because the Commission never reviewed Shamrock Village and he did not like the colors and that there are two large buildings that were never reviewed. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission did not review Bassett Furniture either and there are items on that building the Commission would have required the Applicant to change. Ms. Fraser stated that there could be a balance. A project that is a significant change, such as Bassett Furniture, where the remodeled building looked nothing like the old building, could be required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Fraser suggested that if the Applicant wants to make a slight change but the form of the building is the same, but there is a new element or material on the building then Staff can review it. She stated that she understood the Commission wants to see the “big picture items”. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Ms. Fraser and stated that he wanted to make sure that items which are exempt or not regulated in the process, whether they are reviewed by Staff or at the Planning Commission level, are included. Chair Schaub stated that if a change makes a significant impact on the public then the Commission should review the project. Cm. Biddle stated that the examples that have been given are examples of projects that were submitted before the current process was in place and his recommendation was to have Staff review according to the current process and then close the holes that need to be closed with those items that were missed. Cm. King stated he would like Staff to write an ordinance that will show when a minor improvement would become significant enough that the Commission would want to hear it. He stated that he didn’t feel comfortable listing all the possibilities of minor and major projects. Ms. Fraser thought that Staff had received good direction from the Commission and that she had wanted to speak in very broad terms to see if there was anything that was glaring enough that the Commission would definitely point it out as something that should come before the Commission. She asked the Commission if there was anything aside from residential additions that was not mentioned that they would like to see reviewed under the SDR process when the chapter is updated. Chair Schaub asked how the Commission can ensure that buildings are regulated that were built before there were processes in place. He didn’t think it was reasonable that since a building was approved 20+ years ago they don’t have to submit an SDR application. Planning Commission October 9, 2007 Study Session Ms. Fraser stated that Staff would determine an appropriate method to address the issue. Cm. King asked the city attorney if the City can go back and add conditions to a permit that was approved under Alameda County. Ms. Faubion, City Attorney’s Office, answered that the City cannot tell a property owner to do something by itself but must have an application. Once the application is submitted then the City can regulate in a reasonable manner. If there are regulations that cover design or scale then to the extent that the project has design or scale to it then regulations would apply. For example, the City could not make a homeowner take off a corner of their house that is legal but isn’t very nice, but, if they submit an application for a project that the City has determined should be regulated, then the City can regulate from that time forward. Cm. King asked if there was a commercial building that wanted to change the paint color they must submit an application for a permit to Staff first. Ms. Fraser answered that the code could clarify regulations regarding color modifications. Cm. Biddle stated he thought that the new chapter should be consistent with other codes. He thought that the City would not allow a home owner to change their electrical panel and not require them to bring the panel up to the current electrical code and it should be the same with the SDR code. Ms. Faubion stated that as a legal matter the City should explain to the public, in the findings and purpose statements, and as a regulator of the public good, why it is important to regulate large projects as well small projects. Chair Schaub stated that he thought the process was working well and that anything that the Commission can do to make Staff’s job easier he would support. He thought that Staff has done well in determining what comes before the Commission. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Biddle that the SDR ordinance should remain the same. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there should be a provision in the ordinance that states if there is a questionable item that Staff could invite a Commissioner to review the item. Ms. Wilson answered that typically Staff would not do that because the Planning Commission is considered a “body” and would not look at an application individually. She stated that the code should be understood well enough that Staff can make such a determination. Ms. Wilson stated that the next step would be for Staff to go back and do more research and bring that research back to the Commission in another study session. Hearing no further comments, Chair Schaub adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.