No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 SDR, Sign Reg & Permit Procedures~~' ~1 ~~~ ~~I1 ~~/ CITY CLERK File # ^0~ O^-03 D^ ~/10-3D 'f 5b' 2D `~LIFOR~'''` - AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: ZOA 09-001: Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Site Development Review Permit Fee (Legislative) -Amendment to the Sign Regulations and the Permit Procedures Chapters (Chapter 8.84 and Chapter 8.96) of the Zoning Ordinance to be effective for cone-year period, and amendment to the Site Development Review Chapter (Chapter 8.104) of the Zoning Ordinance and a Site Development Review fee for residential additions and residential tear downs. Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) May 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Statement (without attachments). 2) Ordinance amending Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.84 relating to Sign Regulations and Chapter 8.96 relating to Permit Procedures for aone-year period - ZOA 09-001. 3) •June 17, 2008 City Council Agenda Statement (without attachments). 4) Minutes from the June 17,2008 City Council meeting. 5) Ordinance amending Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.104 relating to Site Development Review - ZOA 09-001. 6) Resolution Amending Resolution 49-06 to revise the adopted fee schedule for residential additions over 500 square feet in size and residential demolition and construction projects which require site development review. 7) May 26, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without attachments). 8) Minutes from the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive the Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; ~~ 3) Take testimony from the Public; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; 5) Take the following actions: a) Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance amending the Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.84 relating to Sign Regulations and Chapter 8.96 relating to Permit Procedures for aone-year period - ZOA 09-001; COPY TO: File " Page l of 9 ITEM NO. • G:IZoning OrdIZOA 09-OO11CC 7-71CCSR 7-7ZO Modifications.DOC ~y / I J b) Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance amending the Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.104 relating to Site Development Review - ZOA 09-001; and c) Adopt a Resolution amending Resolution 49-06 to revise the adopted fee schedule for residential additions over 500 square feet in size and residential demolition and construction projects which require site development review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: At the request of the City Council, Staff has been reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for ways to provide a stimulus to the business. community and property owners in the City during the current economic climate. The Planning Division identified several alternatives to streamline the entitlement process for development applications and to promote businesses in Dublin. These alternatives included temporary modifications, for atwo-year period, related to the display of Promotional Banners and Balloons, and the extension of the effective period of permits, and "permanent" modifications related to the hearing body and type of review for minor projects. On May 5, 2009, Staff presented the proposed Zoning Ordinance modifications to the City Council for discussion (Attachment 1). The City Council unanimously agreed with Staff's recommendations regarding the proposed "permanent" modifications to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review and the temporary modification to Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures. The City Council had considerable discussion regarding the proposed temporary modifications to the Sign Ordinance related to Temporary Promotional Banners and Balloons. The City .Council ultimately decided to move forward with Staff's recommendations regarding Promotional Banners, however, the City Council decided the proposed modifications should only be in effect for one year (and requested that Staff bring this item back for discussion in one year). The City Council decided not to make any changes regarding Temporary Promotional Balloons. The City Council directed Staff to bring a draft Ordinance to the Planning Commission, modifying Chapters 8.84, 8.96 and 8.104, for the Commission's recommendation to City Council. Staff then prepared a draft Ordinance to address direction by the City Council. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include modifications to the Site. Development Review Chapter (Chapter 8.104) regarding the level of review required for projects, modifications to the Sign Regulations Chapter (Chapter 8.84) to facilitate the use of Banner Signs and modifications to the Permit Procedures Chapter (Chapter 8.96) to increase the effective period of Permits. The proposed Amendments are discussed in the Analysis Section of this Staff Report. ANALYSIS: The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance are discussed below. Temporary Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance Sign Regulations (Chapter 8.84) Temporary Promotional Banners are regulated by the Sign Regulations Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.84). Section 8.84.OSO.S of the Zoning Ordinance includes regulations related to the display of Promotional Banners which advertise special events, sales and promotional needs of businesses. Several temporary modifications are proposed to provide some relief from the current regulations in order to expand the advertising opportunities available to businesses in the City. 2 of 9 The Zoning Ordinance currently regulates the time frame in which a Banner maybe displayed, the waiting period between Banner displays and the size of Promotional Banners. Staff proposes to modify these Regulations in order to promote businesses in Dublin. The proposed modifications would increase the number of days Banners are allowed to be displayed, reduce the waiting period between Banner displays and modify the size requirements. The following table illustrates the existing and proposed regulations for Temporary Promotional Banners. Table 1: Temnnrarv Prmm~tinnal R9n.,Pl'C _ Fvic+..,.~ onrl u,-,.,,,,~„a D,.,...~,.~:.._.,. Existing Regulation Proposed Regulation Display Period Maximum of 15 consecutive Maximum of 21 consecutive calendar days calendar days Waiting Period 30 days 21 days Size Maximum of 30" tall x 24' long 60 square feet Location None Signs may not be located above Re uirement the eave By increasing the time a Banner may be installed on a property and decreasing the waiting period in between Banners, businesses will be allowed additional days throughout the year in which they can advertise special events and sales occurring at their location. The maximum size for Promotional Banners is proposed to be changed to 60 square feet, which is the maximum overall size currently allowed; however, by utilizing a maximum overall size rather than a maximum height and length, businesses will have more flexibility to design a Banner to suit their needs. In order to prohibit businesses from placing their signs so that they project above the roof of the building, the regulations are proposed to be amended to prohibit signs from being located so that the sign is above the eave of the building in which the business is located. The proposed Regulations would be effective for a period of one year. Prior to the expiration of the Amendments, Staff will bring the Ordinance back to the City Council for discussion. The City Council will then determine if they want to allow the Amendments to remain in effect for an additional period of time or if they would like the Ordinance to expire. Once the Ordinance has expired, the Zoning Ordinance will revert back to the current Regulations. The proposed Amendments are included on Pages 7 and 8 of Attachment 2. Permit Procedures (Chapter 8.96) The proposed Amendment to the Permit Procedures Chapter (Chapter 8.96) of the Zoning Ordinance is also a temporary Amendment. Section 8.96.O10.D of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the length of time a permit (typically Conditional Use Permits and Site Development Review permits) is valid and currently states that "construction or use shall commence within one (1) year of permit approval, or the permit shall lapse and become null and void." The Zoning Ordinance allows Applicants to apply for one 6-month extension prior to expiration of a permit. Today's economic climate has made it difficult for Developers to obtain financing prior to expiration of their permits. Additionally, some Developers would like to begin the Planning process but have expressed concerns that the economic climate may not be right for them to begin construction prior to expiration of their permits. 3 of 9 In order to assist Developers and to encourage Developers to stay in the Planning process, a temporary modification to Section 8.96.O10.D is proposed to extend the effective period for Planning Permits. Please refer to the table below for the existing and proposed regulations. This modification would be retroactive to extend the approvals of existing, valid permits. Tahla ~• Permtt F.rniratinn _ F,xictinu and Prnnnsed Regulations Existing Regulation Proposed Regulation 1 year from permit 2 years from permit Permit Expiration approval approval Permit Extension 6 Months 6 Months The proposed regulations would be effective for a period of one year. Prior to the expiration of this Amendment, Staff will bring the Ordinance back to the City Council for discussion. The City Council will then determine if they want to adopt an Ordinance allowing the modification to continue or if they would like the Ordinance to expire. Once the Ordinance has expired, the Zoning Ordinance will revert back to the current regulations The proposed Amendment is included on Pages 8 and 9 of Attachment 2. Permanent Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance Site Development Review (Chapter 8.104) On June 17, 2008, the City Council adopted an Ordinance amending the Site Development Review Chapter (Chapter 8.104) of the Zoning Ordinance to improve the clarity of the Chapter, to ensure its effectiveness and to ensure that the Site Development Review Chapter was consistent with current practices (Staff Report and Minutes included as Attachments 3 and 4) .The amended Site Development Review Chapter has been in effect for approximately 11 months. As part of the City's effort to assist business owners through the current economic climate and streamline our processes, several additional changes are proposed to the Site Development Review Chapter (Chapter 8.104) of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Amendments would reduce the time and costs associated with obtaining Planning approval for minor projects. Modifications are proposed to the regulations for accessory structures, additions to principal structures and the reviewing body for facade modifications and the regulations are discussed in more detail below. The discussion includes a comparison of the current regulations, the regulations that were in effect prior to the 2008 Amendment, and the proposed Amendments. Accessory Structures -Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial The Site Development Review Chapter establishes the level of review (Site Development Review Waiver or Site Development Review) that is required for accessory structures in the Single-Family, and the Multi- Family, Commercial, and Industrial Zoning Districts. The level of review is based on the size of the accessory structure. A Site Development Review requires notification of property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site, can take up to one month to process and the cost is based on Staff time and materials associated with the review of the project. A Site Development Review Waiver does not require notification of property owners, has a flat fee of $250 and is typically processed in one to three business days. 4of9 The following table illustrates the regulations that were in effect prior to the 2008 Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the existing regulations, and Staff's proposed modifications to the regulations for accessory structures in the Multi-Family, Commercial, and Industrial Zoning Districts. Table 3: Accessory Structure Regulations -Multi-Family, r'nmmart~ial and inrlnctrial 7,nninu nictricts Required Permit Type Previous Regulations (Prior to July 2008) Existing Regulations Proposed Regulations Accessory Structures <120 square feet Site Development As determined by the Community Accessory Structures or Review Waiver Development Director < 120 s uare feet - q Accesso Structures that ry are not visible from any street Accessory Structures that are visible from any Site Development Review As determined by the Accessory Structures street, located on a (by Community Community Development Director > 120 square feet property adjacent to a residentially zoned Development Director) property and > 120 square feet For example, if these modifications are enacted, a retail business that wanted to construct a 1,000 square foot accessory structure at the rear of the store (which is not visible from the street), would be reviewed pursuant to a Site Development Review Waiver. If the business wanted to construct a 1,000 square foot accessory structure at the front of the store (which would be visible from the street) the accessory structure would be reviewed pursuant to a Site Development Review. Accessory Structures which are not visible from the street are not typically controversial projects and do not typically have significant impacts. By decreasing the level of review required for minor accessory structures and accessory structures which are not visible from the street, this Amendment would reduce the permitting burden on property owners. The proposed modifications are shown on pages 4 and 5 of Attachment 5. Accessory Structures -Residential The following table illustrates the regulations for accessory structures in the Single-Family Residential Zoning District that were in effect prior to the 2008 Amendment, the existing regulations, and Staff's proposed modifications to the regulations. Table 4: Accessory Structures Regulations -Single Family Residential Zoning Districts Required Permit Previous Regulations Existing Regulations Proposed Regulations Type (Prior to July 2008) Site Development No permit required for No permit required for Review Accessory Structures that Accessory Structures Accessory Structures that (by Community comply with the > 120 square feet comply with the Develo ment Director) Development Regulations Develo ment Regulations 5 of 9 Single-family residential accessory structures are required to comply with the existing development regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. The development regulations establish the maximum size, height, and setback for accessory structures. Single-family residential accessory structures that do not comply with the development regulations require approval of a Site Development Review. Site Development Review would no longer be required for single-family residential accessory structures that are greater than 120 square feet provided that they comply with the development regulations for accessory structures. The proposed modifications are consistent with the regulations in place prior to the 2008 Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The proposed modifications are shown on pages 4 and 5 of Attachment 5. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Additions The Site Development Review Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the reviewing body for additions to the principal structure in the Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts and Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar uses. Staff is proposing a modification to the types of additions that can be reviewed by the Community Development Director. The following table illustrates the regulations that were in effect prior to the 2008 Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the existing regulations, and proposed regulations with respect to additions. Table 5: Regulation of Additions to Principal Structures - Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts Required Permit Previous Regulations Existing Regulation Proposed Regulation Type (Prior to July 2008) As determined by the Site Development Community Development -- -- Review Waiver Director Additions < 1,000 square Site Development Additions < 1 000 square feet in size or <15% of the Review As determined by the ° feet in size or <15 /° of the building floor area (by Community Community Development building floor area (v~,hichever is greater) Development Director (whichever is greater). or Director) Any addition which is not visible from any street Site Development As determined by the Additions > 1,000 square Additions that are visible feet in size or >15 /o of the from any street and > 1,000 Review (by Planning Community Development building floor area square feet in size or >15 /o Commission Review) Director (whichever is greater). of the building floor area Typically, additions which are less than 1,000 square feet in size or are not visible from the street do not have significant impacts. By allowing Staff to review these types of additions, Applicants will save time and money while trying to improve their property. For example, if a property owner with a large building wanted to construct a 2,000 square foot addition to their building which was visible from the street, the addition would be less than 15% of the overall floor area of the building (total building size is 139,410 square feet), this addition would be reviewed by the Community Development Director. If the property owner wanted to construct a 21,000 square foot addition, this addition would be larger than 15% of the floor area of the building and would be visible from the street and therefore would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 6of9 The modifications are shown on pages 5 and 6 of Attachment 5. Facade Modifications The current Site Development Review Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance divides facade modifications into two categories: Major and Minor (Sections 8.104.040.A.13 and 8.104.040.C.3). The Site Development Review for Minor Facade Modifications are reviewed by the Community Development Director and the Site Development Review for Major Facade Modifications are reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director determines which types of facade improvements are Major and which are Minor. In order to reduce the burden on the Applicant and encourage property owners to improve their properties, Staff is recommending that the Site Development Review for all facade remodels be reviewed by the Community Development Director. This would be consistent with the procedures that were in place prior to the Zoning Ordinance update approved in 2008. Prior to issuing a decision on facade modifications, the Community Development Director would send out a notice to all tenants and property owners within 300 feet of the project site and would also notify the Planning Commission and City Council of the proposed project. The Community Development Director can transfer hearing jurisdiction on a project at any time to the Planning Commission, should a proposal be controversial. The following table illustrates the pre 2008 Amendment, existing, and proposed reviewing body for facade modifications. TahlP Fi• Farade Mnditieatinnc Fxictinu and Prnn~sed Regulations Required Permit Type Previous Regulations (Prior to July 2008) Existing Regulation Proposed Regulation Site Development Review (by Community All Facade Remodels Minor Facade All Facade Remodels Development Remodel Director) Site Development Major Facade Review (by Planning None Remodel None Commission) The modifications are shown on pages 5 and 6 of Attachment 5. Residential Permit Fee (500 square foot addition and demolition and reconstruction) At the June 17, 2008 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to include a flat fee of $500 for residential additions and residential demolition and construction projects which require a Site Development Review with the next fee update (Attachments 3 and 4). A fee update has not yet occurred, therefore, Staff is proposing that the City Council amend the Fee Schedule to include this flat fee at this time. Typically, Staff charges on a time and materials basis for Site Development Review applications. Time and materials include all Staff time associated with processing a project application which can amount to a large sum of money. However, the City would not want to discourage homeowners from improving their property due to a high permit cost. The City does not typically fully subsidize permit fees for improvements. The City does currently subsidize the fee for certain permits, such as large family daycares (the application fee is $100) in order to encourage these types of facilities. 7 of 9 Staff estimates that it would take approximately four hours to process a Site Development Review for these types of improvements. The City currently charges $129.27 per hour for Planning staff time. This would result in a cost of approximately $517 or more, if more time were needed, if the City charged for actual time spent. Staff acknowledges that some permits may take longer to process, however in order to encourage homeowners to continue to improve their property, Staff is recommending a flat fee of $500 for the Site Development Review for residential additions which are 500 square foot (or more) and the demolition and reconstruction of a residential home. A Resolution amending the City's Fee Schedule to include a flat fee for these types of improvements is included as Attachment 6. PLANNING COMMiSSiON: On May 26, 2009, Staff presented the draft Ordinances to the Planning Commission for their review (Attachment 7). The Planning Commission discussed the proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 8) and requested that the following modifications be incorporated into the City Council Ordinances: • Include a requirement in Section 8.84.OSO.S of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit businesses from displaying banners above the eave of the building; • Change the statement "visible from the street" to "visible from any street" for accessory structures and additions for clarity; and • Require Site Development Review for accessory structures, in the R-M, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts, which are larger than 120 square feet and adjacent to properties in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts and Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar uses. At the meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-24 recommending that the City Council approve temporary amendments to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, and Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, and adopted Resolution 09-25 recommending that the City Council approve amendments to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review with the modifications noted above. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) may have a significant effect on the environment. PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice was published twice in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A notice of this hearing was mailed to those requesting such notice 14 days before the hearing and the Staff Report and attachments were made available for public review 10 days prior to the public hearing in accordance with Government Code Sections 66016 and 66017. CONCLUSION: Several modifications are proposed to be made to the Zoning Ordinance in order to improve its effectiveness and to provide temporary relief from some of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance during the current economic climate. The proposed temporary modifications to the Sign Ordinance will expand 8 of 9 will increase the effective period of Planning permits. By reducing the level of review required for some projects that require Site Development Review, the City will encourage continual improvement of properties by making the process easier for minor projects and will also reduce the amount of money spent by Applicants due to a reduction in Staff time spent on a project. The flat fee for residential additions and demolition and construction projects which require Site Development Review will reduce homeowner costs in order to encourage property owners to improve their property. All of the proposed modifications are aimed at assisting property owners and businesses in the City and to help ease them through these difficult times. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive the Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Public; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; 5) Take the following actions: a) Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance amending the Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.84 relating to Sign Regulations and Chapter 8.96 relating to Permit Procedures for aone-year period; b) Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance amending the Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.104 relating to Site Development Review - ZOA 09-001; and c) Adopt a Resolution amending Resolution 49-06 to revise the adopted fee schedule for residential additions over 500 square feet in size and residential demolition and construction projects which require site development review - ZOA 09-001. 9of9 ~OI' DUBS C I T Y ~_~ 11 File # ~~~®-©~ C~I~V ~ ~J~Q~~ ~~ ~ ~oo• ~ .~,,r.r~n~l~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 5, 2009 SUBJECT: NEW BUSINESS: Proposed Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance designed to provide a stimulus to Businesses and Property Owners in the City during the current economic climate. Report Prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) June 17, 2008 City Council Agenda Statement (without Attachments). 2) Matrix showing proposed changes. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public comment; and 3) Provide Staff with direction. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: If the proposed changes are enacted, the City would lose approximately $11,b50.00 related to permit fees for Temporary Promotional Signs and Balloon Signs (approximately $5,825.00 a year for two years). However, the increased use of temporary signs could increase sales and generate additional sales tax revenue to offset the loss of permit fees for Temporary Promotional Signs and Balloon Signs. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: At the request of the City Council, Staff has been reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for ways to provide a stimulus to business community during the current economic climate. The Planning Division has identified several alternatives to streamline the entitlement process for development applications and to promote businesses in Dublin. These alternatives include modifications to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, regarding the level of review required for projects and modifications to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, to facilitate the use of banner signs and balloon signs. The proposed modifications to the sign regulations include: a temporary elimination of fees for promotional banners and balloons and other minor modifications to the Sign Ordinance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPY TO: Page I of 6 G:IZoningOrdISDRUpdate20091CC4-71SR4-7-ZOModificatians.DOC ~~-~~~ ""') f ~'7~f~t~~~ to ~ ~ / s1 / ~f Attachment 1 i~~ CLERK ~~ ANALYSIS: The following modifications are proposed in order to provide a stimulus to businesses and property owners in the City: Site Development Review Chapter On June 17, 2008, the City Council adopted an Ordinance amending the Site Development Review Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.104) to improve the clarity of the Chapter, ensure its effectiveness and ensure that the Site Development Review Chapter. is consistent with current practices (June 17, 2008 Agenda Statement included as Attachment 1). The new Site Development Review Chapter has been in effect for 8 months. The revised Chapter reduced the level of review required for several projects, but also increased the level of review for major projects. For example, under the previous Site Development Review Chapter, the Community Development Director was charged with reviewing most improvements in the City. The 2008 update requires new principal structures and major facade remodels to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, rather than by the Community Development Director. As part of the City's effort to assist business owners through the current economic climate, Staff has identified several changes that could be made in order to reduce the time and costs associated with obtaining Planning approval for minor projects. Staff is recommending that these changes be permanently made to the Site Development Review Chapter. Accessory Structures All Accessory Structures which are over 120 square feet currently require a Site Development Review which requires notification of property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site, and can take up to one month to process. Staff recommends that all multi-family, commercial and industrial accessory structures, which are less than 120 square feet in size or are not visible from the right-of--way, be reviewed pursuant to a Site Development Review Waiver which is typically processed in three days. Accessory Structures in asingle-family residential zoning district would no longer require a Site Development Review. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Additions Staff is recommending that all additions to a principal structure which are not visible from the right-of- way and all additions which are less than 1,000 square feet or 15% of the floor area of the building be reviewed at Staff level. Typically these types of additions do not have significant impacts. By allowing Staff to review these types of additions, Applicants will save time and money while trying to improve their property. Facade Modifications The current Site Development Review Chapter divides facade modifications into two categories: major and minor. Minor facade modifications are reviewed by the Community Development Director and major facade modifications are reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director determines which types of facade improvements are major and which are minor. In the previous Site Development Review Chapter, the Community Development Director was given the authority to approve all facade improvements. Prior to issuing a decision on facade modifications, the Community Development Director would send out a notice to all tenants and property owners within 300 feet of the project site and would also notify the Planning Commission and City Council of the proposed project. In order to reduce the burden on the Applicant and encourage property owners to improve their properties during the current economic climate, Staff is recommending that all facade remodels once again be 2 of 6 ~ ~9 reviewed by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director can trans er hearing jurisdiction on a project at any time to the Planning Commission, should a proposal be controversial. Residential Additions The revised Site Development Review Chapter, adopted in 2008, requires property owners to obtain a Site Development Review for all residential additions over 500 square feet in size (Section 8.104.040.A.7). Since the enactment of this Chapter, Staff has only received 3 requests for Site Development Review for residential additions. Staff typically provided minimal comments and was able to notice the additions within 10 days of receipt of a project. A Site Development Review for a room addition allows Staff to review the proposal and notify neighbors within 300 feet of the project site of the proposed addition, and also allows them to make comments or review plans prior to the Community Development Director making a decision on the project. However, Site Development Review adds an additional step that homeowners must go through in order to improve their property and can discourage people from improving their property. Because additions did not require review under the previous Site Development Review Chapter, Staff is asking for direction from the City Council on whether or not to continue to require review of room additions over 500 square feet in size. Permit Expiration Section 8.96.O10.D of the Zoning Ordinance states that "construction or use shall commence within one (1) year of Permit approval, or the Permit shall lapse and become null and void." The Zoning Ordinance allows Applicants to apply for one 6-month extension prior to expiration of a Permit (typically this is for Conditional Use Permits and Site Development Review). Today's economic climate has made it difficult for developers to obtain financing prior to expiration of their permits. Additionally, some developers would like to begin the Planning process but have expressed concerns that the economic climate may not be right for them to begin construction prior to expiration of their permits. h1 order to assist developers and to encourage developers to stay in the Planning process, Staff is recommending that the City Council enact a temporary modification to Section 8.96.O10.D to allow Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permits to remain in effect for 2 years rather than the current 1 year. The permit holder would also have an option of applying for one 6-month extension at the end of the permit term. Staff recommends that this modification be retroactive to extend the approvals of existing, valid permits. The proposed modifications would be repealed automatically 2 years following the effective date of the ordinance or the City Council could choose to extend the effective period should conditions warrant it. Section 8.96.O10.D is recommended to be revised as shown below and to be enacted for a period of two yeazs: Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence within two (2) years ene-(~-}ear of Permit approval, or the Permit shall lapse and become null and void. Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the Permit approval, or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. Where a Conditional of Approval 3 of 6 ~. ~~ states that a ermit will ex ire within one ear this Section shall override the Condition of Approval. Temporary Promotional Signs Staff has recommended several changes to the Sign Regulations Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.84), to provide some relief from the current regulations in order to expand the advertising opportunities available to businesses. Staff is recommending that these regulations be enacted for a period of two years. The City Council can also choose to extend this period prior to the expiration if conditions warrant it. Following the two year period, the amendments would expire and the existing regulations would then apply. Staff is recommending that the City Council consider enacting the following temporary modifications to the sign regulations (each change is discussed in further detail below): • Allow temporary Promotional Banners to remain up for a maximum of 21 consecutive days with a 21 consecutive day waiting period between permits; • Allow Promotional Banners to be a maximum of 60 square feet in size; • Allow businesses to cluster a maximum of 7 balloons which are less than 15 inches in diameter; and • Allow balloons which are larger than 15 inches in diameter to be located on-site for a maximum of 30 days per calendar year. Promotional Banners Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance currently allows Promotional Banners (a banner which advertises special events, sales or promotional needs) to be displayed for a maximum_ period of 15 consecutive days. A business owner is then prevented from displaying another promotional banner for 30 days after a promotional banner is removed. Promotional banners are limited in size to a maximum of 30 inches tall x 24 feet long (60 square feet). In order to allow businesses to keep Promotional Banners up for a longer period of time to maximize their advertising efforts, Staff is recommending that Banners be allowed to remain up for a maximum period of 21 days (an increase of one week). Staff is also recommending that the waiting period between Banners be reduced from 30 days to 21 days. By increasing the time a Banner may be installed on a property and decreasing the waiting period in between Banners, businesses will be allowed additional days throughout the year in which they can advertise special events happening at their location. Banners are currently limited in size to a maximum of 30 inches in height x 24 feet in length. All Banners must fit within these size limitations. Staff is recommending that the maximum size be changed to 60 square feet, which is the maximum overall size currently allowed; however, by utilizing a maximum overall size rather than a maximum height and length, businesses will have more flexibility to design their banner to suit their needs. 4of6 5 ~q Staff is also recommending that the City Council waive the normal a lica ' the Planning Division processed 153 permits for 202 Banners whch resultedeinoappl5cat0ionafeeseof $5,050.00 ($25 fee per sign x 202 signs=$5,050.00). By eliminating this fee for the next two years, it will allow the City to encourage businesses to continue to promote their businesses, while still requiring a permit to ensure that businesses are following the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and to track requests for Banners. - Balloons The Zoning Ordinance currently allows businesses to display Promotional Balloons (greater than 15 inches in diameter) for a maximum period of 21 days per year. Staff is recommending that the City Council increase the number of days Balloons may be displayed on a site for a maximum of 30 days per year (an increase of nine days). Additionally, Staff is recommending that the City Council waive the $25.00 permit fee for Promotional Balloons. Last year, the Planning Division issued 31 permits for Promotional Balloons which resulted in revenues of $775.00 ($25 permit fee x 31 permits=$775). Section 8.84.150.B of the Zoning Ordinance allows businesses to display small balloons (no more than 15" inches in diameter) at their business. Staff's interpretation of this section of the Zoning Ordinance only allows businesses to display a maximum of 1 balloon rather than a cluster of balloons because these clusters would be Iarger than 15" in diameter when measured together. An example of a balloon cluster is shown on the right. In order to allow businesses to cluster several balloons, rather than one, for more effective advertising, Staff is recommending that the City Council modify this section of the Zoning Ordinance to allow up to seven balloons to be clustered. No permit would be required. There would be no limitations on the number of clustered balloons that may be displayed on a site. CONCLUSION: Staff is recommending several modifications to the Zoning Ordinance in order to improve its effectiveness and to provide temporary relief from some of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance during the current economic climate. By reducing the level of review required for some projects in Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, the City will encourage continual improvement of properties by making the process easier for minor projects and will also reduce the amount of money spent by Applicants due to a reduction in Staff time spent on a project. The proposed temporary modifications to the Sign Ordinance will expand advertising options available to businesses. All of the proposed modifications are aimed at assisting property owners and businesses in the City and to help ease them through these difficult times. NEXT STEPS: Based on direction received ftom the City Council at tonight's hearing, Staff will prepare a Draft Ordinance which incorporates all of the modifications discussed tonight. Staff will then bring the Draft Ordinance to the Planning Commission during a Public Hearing for their recommendation to the City Council. Staff will then bring the Ordinance to the City Council during a Public Hearing for action. Staff anticipates that the Draft Ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in June 2009 and the City Council will be able to act on the Ordinance in July 2009. 5 of 6 ~ ~~~ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public comment; and 3) Provide Staff with direction. 6of6 ~ ~q ORDINANCE NO. XX - 09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.84 RELATING TO SIGN REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER 8.96 RELATING TO PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR AONE- YEAR PERIOD ZOA 09-001 WHEREAS, at the request of the City Council, Staff has reviewed the Zoning Ordinance for ways to provide a stimulus to businesses and property owners in the City during the current economic climate; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified temporary modifications to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, and Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, of the Zoning Ordinance which will provide assistance to business and property owners during the current economic climate; and WHEREAS, the proposed modifications would be in effect for a period of one year from the effective date of the Ordinance adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this Project on May 26, 2009 and adopted Resolution 09-24 recommending that the City Council approve temporary modifications to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 7, 2009; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.120.OSO.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): The City Council declares this ordinance is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15601(b) (3). Section 15601(b) (3) states that CEQA applies only to those projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. This adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. ATTACHMENT 2 SECTION 2. 849 Section 8.84.030 of Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Municipal Code, entitled "Sign Regulations," is hereby amended as follows, with deletions indicated in strikethrough (~*ri'~°*'~r~~•~-'~' and additions indicated in underline (underline "Section 8.84.030 Sign Approvals and Decisionmaker Authority by Zoning District. Matrix A, Sign Approvals and Decisionmaker Authority prescribes the necessary permits and the decisionmaker authority applicable to the specified signs for each zoning district: Matrix A Sign Approvals and Decisionmaker Authority by Zoning District* Si n T e A R-1, R-2, R-M C-N C-O C-1 C-2 M-P, M-I, M-2 Awnin E X ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Bulletin Board BP BP BP BP BP BP BP Comin Soon X X ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Communit ID X ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Electronic Readerboard X X CUP PC) CUP(PC) CUP PC) CUP(PC) CUP PC Freestandin 20' or less in ht. E X ZC X BP BP BP Freestanding greater than 20' in hei ht X X X X SDR SDR SDR Grand-O enin X X ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Identification ** ZC/SDR ZC/SDR ZC/SDR ZC/SDR ZC/SDR ZC/SDR ZC/SDR Master Sign Program SDR(ZA X SDR(ZA) SDR(ZA) SDR(ZA) SDR(ZA) SDR(ZA) Office Buildin Master ID X X ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Off-Site Residential Develo ment Directional BP BP BP BP BP BP BP Off-Site Temporary For Sale or Lease E X ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC O en-House X Permitted X X X X X Permanent Banner Sign X X X X MSP/SDR MSP/SD R MSP/SDR Pro'ectin E X BP BP BP BP BP Service Station Display Structure X X ZC X ZC ZC ZC Service Station Price Si X X ZC X ZC ZC ZC S ecial Easement E X ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Temporary Promotional (21 -1-5-Da s) X ZC*** ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Tenant Director X X BP BP BP BP BP Wall E X BP BP BP BP BP Window X X BP BP BP BP BP Notes for Matrix A: E Business Signs not exceeding an area often (10) square feet per side are permitted per Section 8.84.090. and subject to Building Permit BP Permitted and subject to Building Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit Approval Required and subject to Building Permit SDR Si[e Development Review Approval by Staff Required and subject to Building Permit PC Planning Commission is decision maker authority ZA Zoning Administrator is decision maker authority ZC Zoning Clearance by Staff Required and subject to Building Permit X Not Permitted Page 2 of 9 `~~ti~ * Matrix A does not reflect Exempt Signs in Section 8.84.140 ** A sign of up to 24 square feet on a side is allowed with a Zoning Clearance and a sign of up to 36 square feet on a side is allowed with a Site Development Review. *** Only Temporary Banners, not exceeding 12-square feet, are allowed for apartment communities (see Section 8.84.020.B for definition). All other temporary promotional signs are not allowed in this zoning district. Planned Development signage is permitted by Section 8.84.100. A Sign Exception to a regulation in this Chapter may be applied for per Section 8.84.200. SECTION 3. Section 8.84.040 of Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Municipal Code, entitled "Sign Regulations," is hereby amended as follows, with deletions indicated in strikethrough (s~il~l~ and additions indicated in underline (underline "Section 8.84.040 Matrix B, Sign Development Regulations. The following Matrix B, Sign Development Regulations, prescribes required development regulations for permitted signs. The information in Matrix B is subordinate to and supplementary to the information in Section 8.84.050, Signs Subject To Permits." Matrix B Sign Development Regulations ** Sign Type Maximum Maximum Maximum Area per Location Copy Restrictions * Additional Section No. Number of Height side Requirements * Regulations si ns ins . ft. Awning 1 per business 2 ft. 6 in. 1 sq. ft. per lineal ft. 1 per business N/A May project 36 Sec. or tenant of Tenant Frontage to or tenant inches. More 8.84.OSO.A frontage as maximum of 150 sq. frontage with than 36 inches permitted by ft. (with SDR, maximum of with SDR. Sec. 8.84.110 1.5/lineal ft. to max of three frontages. Max. sign length B.4. 250 sq. ft.); 25% of 24 ft. bonus if tenant space is 100 ft. from Street. Bulletin 1 6 ft. 24 sq. ft. 10 ft. from Announcements Board front property pertaining to an on- Sec. line; Must meet site church, school, 8.84.OSO.B all other yard community center, requirements. park, hospital or institutional buildin . Coming Soon 2 8 ft. 32 sq. ft. On construction Opening date, May only be Sec. site. architect, engineer, placed during 8.84.OSO.C contractor, future time period business, or lender. between building permit and final occu anc . Community 1 20 ft. 120 sq. ft. Service club names Illumination shall ID and emblems and not be Sec. community slogans intermittent; 8.84.050.D Means of support shall be concealed. * Location Requirements, Copy Restrictions and Additional Regulations are in addition to those identified in Sections 8.84.1 l0 and 8.84.120. ** Matrix B does not reflect Exempt Signs in Sec. 8.84.140 Page 3 of 9 ~n~~9 Sign Type , Maximum Maximum Maximum Location Copy Restrictions Additional Section No. Number of Height Area per side Requirements * * Regulations si ns ins . ft. Electronic Per Sec. Per Sec. Per Sec. Per Sec. Per Sec. 8.84.110 if Per Sec. 8.84.110 Readerboard 8.84.110 if 8.84.110 if 8.84.110 if wall 8.84.110 if wall wall sign; 8.84.120 if wall sign; Sec. 8.84.050.E wall sign; wall sign; sign; 8.84.120 sign; 8.84.120 if if freestanding 8.84.120 if 8.84.120 if 8.84.120 if if freestanding freestanding sign. freestanding sign. free- freestanding sign. sign. standing sign. si n. Freestanding 1 per parcel; 10 ft. at 15 sq. ft. per In a planter of Must indicate Must have 20' or less in 2 or more property side at appropriate building address or minimum height; with Master line; May be property line; dimension; Not address range. clearance of 14 Freestanding Sign increased .5 May increase closer than 50 feet if greater than Program. ft. for every 2.5 sq. feet per feet from R-O- overhanging 20' in height. 1 ft. the sign side for each l W of Interstate vehicular way; Sec. 8.84.120. is set back ft. sign is set Highway; Must not project from the back from Permitted into a public nearest street nearest street within required right-of--way. frontage frontage yards; At one property line property line. or more main up to a Maximum of entrances with maximum of 150 sq. ft. Master Sign 20 ft.; Up to Program. 35 ft. with SDR. Grand- l No limit. No limit. Must be Only effective Opening displayed on within 60 days of Sec. 8.84.OSO.G the site on initial occupancy; which grand- 30-day maximum. opening will occur. Identification 1 6 ft. 24 sq. ft. with None. Name and/or use of Means of support Sec. 8.84.OSO.H Zoning building. shall be Clearance; concealed. 36 sq. ft. with SDR. Office Building 1 8 ft. 25 sq. ft. None. Name of office 100 ft. minimum Master ID building, parcel frontage Sec. 8.84.OSO.I institutional use required; Means and address of support shall be concealed. * Location Requirements, Copy Restrictions and Additional Regulations are in addition to those identified in Sections 8.84.110 and 8.84.120. ** Matrix B does not reflect Exempt Signs in Sec. 8.84.140 Page 4 of 9 it ~u9 Sign Type Maximum Maximum Maximum Location Copy Restrictions Additional Section No. Number of Height Area per side Requirements * * Regulations si s ins . ft. Off-Site Determined Determined Determined Determined by Determined by Determined by Residential by Director by Director by Director Director of Director of Director of Development of of of Community Community Community Directional Community Community Community Development Development Development Sec. Development Development Development 8.84.050.) Off-Site 1 per 100 ft. 8 ft. 16 sq. ft. Off-site sign is For sale or lease; Must be Temporary of street located in Name and phone constructed of For sale or frontage; immed. vicinity number of agent wood, plywood, lease Up to 2 per of advertised and/or agency. metal or other Sec. parcel. premises w/o rigid material. 8.84.OSO.K direct access to ublic road. Open-House Maximum of 3 ft. 4 sq. ft. On sidewalk and Not attached to Sec. 4 per landscaping strip any public sign, 8.84.050.E property; but cannot post, traffic Up to 8 per disrupt normal signal or utility inter-section. vehicular flow, pole; No One per block views, additional tags, property block ingress or riders, being .egress to any streamers, advertised at residence or balloons or other a given business, or attachments; intersection restrict a Permitted on sidewalk to less Holidays, than 32 inches. Saturdays and Prohibited in Sundays and one center divider or agent tour day traffic islands of each week from public streets; 10:00 a.m. to Cannot be sunset. within 5 ft. radius of a call box, fire hydrant or mail box. Pedestrian/ 1 N/A 5 sq. ft. Suspended from None. 8 ft. vertical Shingle canopy over a clearance; Sec. sidewalk directly Perpendicular to 8.84.OSO.M in front of the business building door of the wall. business. * Location Requirements, Copy Restrictions and Additional Regulations are in addition to those identified in Sections 8.84.110 and 8.84.120. ** Matrix B does not reflect Exempt Signs in Sec. 8.84.140 Page 5 of 9 is ~yy Sign Type Maximum Maximum Maximum Area Location Copy Restrictions Additional Section No. Number of Height per side in sq. ft. Requirements * * Regulations si ns Permanent N/A Per Per MSP/SDR Per MSP/SDR Name of shopping Maintain in good Banner MSP/SDR center, business or condition; Sec. logo. Subject to semi- 8.84.OSO.N annual review; Replace if in poor maintenance. Projecting 1 per 2 ft. 6 in.; 16 sq. ft.; May In middle 1/3 of N/A Sec. 8.84.]10 (C) Sec. business. May be be increased front wall of 8.84.OSO.P increased through SDR. building. through SDR. Service 1 8 ft. 16 sq. ft. None. Name of service May be Station station. combined with Display Service Station Structure Price Signs; Sec. Placed in 8.84.OSO.Q landscape lanter Service 2 6 ft. 16 sq. ft for 3 1 per street Gasoline prices. May be Station Price fuel products; 24 frontage. combined with Signs sq. ft for 4 fuel Service Station Sec. products. Display 8.84.OSO.R Structure. Special 1 4 ft. 24 sq. ft. Within Name of business In-lieu of Easement immediate and/or center. Freestanding Sec. vicinity of the Sign; Business 8.84.OSO.S business the sign located on parcel advertises. w/o direct access or frontage on improved ROW; must be connected by roadway/access easement. * Location Requirements, Copy Restrictions and Additional Regulations are in addition to those identified in Sections 8.84.110 and 8.84.120. ** Matrix B does not reflect Exempt Signs in Sec. 8.84.140 Page 6 of 9 13 ~~+9 Sign Type Maximum Maximum Maximum Area Location Copy Restrictions Additional Section No. Number of Height per side in sq. ft. Requirements * * Regulations si ns Temporary Per Zoning Per Zoning Per Zoning Only on site on Per Zoning Maximum of ~ Promotional Clearance. Clearance. Clearance. which business is Clearance. 21 consecutive Sec. located and shall calendar days 8.84.OSO.TS not be located so per permit; 38 Banner signs that the siEn is 21 consecutive shall not be hisher than the calendar day larger than 3A eave of the waiting period it-ehes-b3`~4-fleet structure in between permits. 60 square feet which the business is located. Temporary Temporary One (1) Temporary Banners for Promotional Banner for Apartment Banner for Apartment Communities Apartment Communities shall be allowed Sec. which shall not 10 consecutive 8.84.OSO.TS exceed 12 square days per permit; feet 20 consecutive calendar days waiting period between permits. The duration in which banners may be displayed is limited to a maximum duration of 90- days per calendar ear. Tenant 1 N/A l2 sq. ft. At entrance of Listing of tenant None Directory building on an names and suite Sec. exterior wall. numbers/letters. 8.84.050. U Wall 1 per 2 ft. 6 in. 1 sq. ft. per 1 per business or N/A May project 12 Sec. business or lineal ft. of tenant frontage inches, 30 inches 8.84.110V tenant Tenant Frontage with maximum w/ SDR. Max. frontage to maximum of of three sign length 24 ft. Rev. Ord. 20- with 150 sq. ft. (with frontages. 06 (November maximum of SDR, 1.5/lineal 2006) three ft. to max of 250 frontages sq. ft.); 25% bonus if tenant space is 100 ft. from Street. Window N/A N/A N/A Inside a N/A Not more than Sec. building. 25% of 8.84.OSO.W contiguous window area. * Location Requirements, Copy Restrictions and Additional Regulations are in addition to those identified in Sections 8.84.1 l0 and 8.84.120. ** Matrix B does not reflect Exempt Signs in Sec. 8.84.140 Page 7 of 9 w ~~~ SECTION 4. Subsection S of Section 8.84.050 of Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Municipal Code, entitled "Temporary Promotional Signs," is hereby amended as follows, with deletions indicated in strikethrough (s~l~euglr} and additions indicated in underline (underline Section 8.84.OSO.S is hereby amended as follows: S. Temporary Promotional Signs. Temporary Promotional Signs permitted pursuant to a Zoning Clearance may be placed on-site for a maximum of ~~ twenty-one (21) consecutive calendar days per permit when used for special promotional events or needs. A minimum waiting period of tl~i~t3~3A3 twent.~21) consecutive calendar days between permits is required, with the exception of balloons as defined herein and temporary banners for apartment communities. A Banner Sign shall not be larger than 60 square feet 2~ ~r°''°~'~~~''^ ~ °* in size and the si ng shall not be located so that the sign is taller than the eave of the structure in which the business is ln~atarl One (1) temporary banner for apartment communities is permitted pursuant to a Zoning Clearance and may be placed on-site for a maximum of ten (10) consecutive calendar days per permit when used for special promotional events or needs. A minimum waiting period of twenty (20) consecutive calendar days between permits is required. In addition, the duration in which banners may be displayed is limited to a maximum duration of 90 days per calendar year. A temporary banner sign for apartment communities shall not be larger than 12 square feet (see Section 8.84.020.B for definition of apartment communities). Any tethered or un-tethered balloon of greater than 15 inches in diameter shall be permitted only as a temporary promotional sign and subject to a permit. All balloons shall be tethered to the ground only with the bottom of the balloon on the ground and shall not be permitted to be attached to any structure or vehicle. No permit(s) singularly or cumulative shall be issued that allows any temporary promotional signs that include balloons for more than 21 days per calendar year. Zoning clearance(s) maybe issued for periods less than 15 days. Up to 4 searchlights, attached to function as a single unit, are permitted as a Temporary Promotional Sign pursuant to a Zoning Clearance. No permit(s) singularly or cumulative shall be issued that allows any temporary promotional sign(s) that include searchlights for more than 21 days per calendar year. Zoning clearance(s) maybe issued for periods less than 15 days. CF.(''TiON S Section 8.96.020.D of Chapter 8.96, of the Dublin Municipal Code, entitled "Permit Procedures," is hereby amended as follows, with deletions indicated in strikethrough (°*ri'~°*'~r°••~-'~' and additions indicated in underline (underline "D. Permit Expiration. Notwithstanding any conditions of approval of permits approved prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. ,construction or use shall commence within two (2) years of Permit approval, or the Permit shall lapse and become null and void. Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the Permit approval, or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing Page 8 of 9 15 ~ 49 to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the Ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances. SECTION 7. Effective Date, Term and Posting of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance shall expire one year from the effective date and following its expiration, the provisions of Dublin Municipal Code sections 8.84.040, 8.84.OSO.S and 8.96.020.D as they existed on the day preceding the effective date of this ordinance shall become effective. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN on this 7th day of July 2009, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G: IZoning OrdIZOA 09-00/ ICC 6-161CC Ord Temp Mod.DOC Page 9 of 9 ~~~~ ~I~V '~\~~~ CITY CLER~~9 F,~e # ^~oo-oo AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 17, 2008 ZOA 07-002 (Legislative) - Amendment to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance approving amendments to Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority, Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations and Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review. 2) October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without attachments); 3) Minutes from the October 9, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session; 4) May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without attachments); 5) Minutes from the May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session; 6) June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (without attachments); 7) Draft Minutes from the June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting; 8) Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (as proposed); and 9) Chapter 8.104 showing modifications to text in strikethrough (text to be removed) and underline (text to be added). RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive the Staff presentation; 2) Open Public Hearing; /1,~3) " Take testimony from the Public; / ~~~1//~ 4) Close Public Hearing and deliberate; ~ 5) Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving amendments to Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority, Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and ~~ Uses Regulations and Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review; and ' " 6) Direct Staff regarding the application fee for residential improvements. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: For most modifications, there will be an insignificant financial impact to the City. Costs associated with processing these COPIES TO: In House Distribution File Page 1 of 9 G:1Zoning Ord\SDR Update 2007\CC Agenda Statement 6-I7-08.doc Attachment 3 i~~~~ improvements will be bourn by the Applicant as currently required for Site Development Review (time and materials). However, Staff is recommending that the processing costs associated with the review of residential additions over 500 square feet and the demolition and reconstruction of residential homes be a flat fee of $500.00. Because this fee is based on an average of Staff's time to process the improvement, there could be a slight subsidy necessary from the General Fund for any additional time above and beyond the anticipated four hours of Staff review time. BACKGROUND: The City Council, as a high priority goal for Fiscal Year 2007/2008, requested that Staff and the Planning Commission review Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (SDR), of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and determine if any changes should be made to increase the effectiveness of the Chapter. The review of the SDR Chapter is separate from the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance. History Prior to 1997, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance was similar to what was in effect when the City was a part of Alameda County. In 1997, the City adopted an updated and amended Zoning Ordinance. The current version of the Site Development Review Chapter was adopted as a part of the 1997 comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update. Minor changes have been made to the Site Development Review Chapter since 1997; these changes were made to require review of projects in the Historic Overlay Zoning District and the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. Since the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1997, the City has undergone some dramatic changes. In the last ten years, much of the eastern portion of Dublin has been developed and a significant number of remodels and new construction have also occurred in the western portion of Dublin due to the age of the structures. Planning Commission Review October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session The Planning Commission discussed the Site Development Review Chapter during a Study Session on October 9, 2007. For background information on the SDR Chapter and recommended changes to the Chapter, please refer to the Study Session Agenda Statement included as Attachment 2. During this meeting, the Planning Commission discussed recommended changes to the SDR Chapter and additional changes were requested by the Planning Commission as shown in Attachment 3 (minutes of the October 9, 2008 meeting). A draft Ordinance was not presented at this meeting. May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session The Planning Commission reviewed a draft Chapter during a Study Session on May 27, 2008. For background information on the changes made to the Chapter, please refer to the Study Session Agenda Statement included as Attachment 4. The Planning Commission did not request any modifications to the draft Chapter during this Study Session. Page 2 of 9 -g~~ June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing On June 10, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving amendments to Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority, Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations and Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review. ANALYSIS: The proposed changes to the SDR Chapter are described in detail below. General changes include correcting the text for clarity and relocating information within the Chapter which are not discussed in this Agenda Statement. Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review A significant number of modifications are proposed to the existing Site Development Review Chapter that will improve the clarity of the Chapter, ensure its effectiveness, ensure that the SDR Chapter is consistent with current practices and to create a more user friendly Ordinance which will benefit the community. Requirements for Site Development Review, which are currently located in other Chapters of the Zoning Ordinance, have been moved to the Site Development Review Chapter, as well as direction provided from the Planning Commission on regulations have also been included in the Site Development Review Chapter. Currently, projects that require Site Development Review are identified in several Chapters in the Zoning Ordinance, but are not listed in the Site Development Review Chapter. Staff is proposing to relocate these sections from the various Chapters to the Site Development Review Chapter to ensure that all improvements which require a Site Development Review are easily identifiable in one location in the Zoning Ordinance. Purpose Statements (Section 8.104.010) The purpose statements in the existing (adopted) Ordinance have been revised. The revisions were made to ensure that projects meet a high level of design, ensure compliance with other structures in the vicinity, and ensure a pedestrian friendly environment. Projects Exempt from Site Development Review (Section 8.104.020) This section has been moved from its previous location in Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority. Staff recommends that this section be relocated to the SDR Chapter to ensure that all projects that require or are exempt from Site Development Review are located in one location for clarity. Site Development Review Waiver (Section 8.104.030) This section has been slightly modified to allow Staff to issue a Site Development Review Waiver for any of the following improvements, regardless of whether or not a Site Development Review was approved by the City for the site previously. The following activities are proposed to be subject to Site Development Review Waiver: • Minor Landscape Modifications; • Minor modifications to an approved Site Development Review; Page 3 of 9 ~9 ~~~ • Accessory Structures in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts; • Color Modifications (changes to the color of a structure) in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts; • Modifications, replacements or construction of fences and walls in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts; • Parking lot restriping; • Modifications to the roof materials, pazapet or roof screen in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts; • Modifications to the site layout including new paving areas, sidewalks or similar improvements in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts; and • Window modifications in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts including tinting, frosting, window and door replacements, new windows or doors. While most of the above listed improvements currently require review, many of these types of improvements are not clearly identified in the SDR Chapter. Site Development Review Waivers typically only take one to three days (depending on the scope) to process. These projects tend to be non- controversial and no conditions of approval aze added to the project. If at any point during the review of a proposed project Staff determines that additional review or conditions of approval are warranted for a project, this Ordinance allows Staff to change the level of review required for a project. Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority also allows Staff to change the decision making body for a project (i.e. to refer to the Planning Commission) at any time. This process was recently followed when Staff brought the Oil Changers color modifications to the Planning Commission. Three new types of activities are proposed to require review under the Site Development Review process. These types of projects include: • Minor landscape modifications in the R-M, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts; • Color modifications in the R-M, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts; and • Window modifications. As proposed, minor landscape modifications in the R-M, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts will require review by Staff through a Site Development Review Waiver. Currently, the Chapter does not require review of landscape modifications at a property. In Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, there is a reference requiring a Site Development Review when a majority of the trees on site aze removed, however "majority" is not defined. By requiring review of all landscape modifications on all R-M, Commercial and Industrial and similar Planned Development zoned properties, Staff will be able to ensure that adequate landscaping is provided throughout the City as well as ensuring that the proposed changes are compatible with the site as well as the vicinity of the project site. Color modifications of structures without an approved Site Development Review do not can ently require review. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission during the Study Session, all color changes to buildings in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts will be reviewed by Staff to ensure compatibility with the colors in the neighborhood and with the specific plan (if applicable). Page 4 of 9 ~o ~~q Currently, only new windows and doors in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and similar Planned Development Zoning Districts require review. Tinting and replacement of window glass is currently exempt from review. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission during the Study Session, Staff is recommending that all window and door replacements, new windows and doors, tinting, frosting and all other materials which obscure the glass require a Site Development Review Waiver. As stated earlier, if the proposed modification does not appear to be consistent with the surroundings, Staff has the ability to refer the decision making authority (application) to the Planning Commission at any time. Community Development Director Review (Section 8.104.040.A) The following projects will require review by the Community Development Director or his/her designee (the improvements noted in italics are projects that do not currently require a Site Development Review): • Additions which are 1,000 square feet in size or 15 percent of the building (whichever is greater); • Agricultural accessory structures; • Custom house (new house); • Flag poles over 3S feet in height; • Major landscape modifications; • Residential Additions over 500 square feet; • Residential demolition and reconstruction; • Security gates; • Wireless Communication Facilities; and • Minor facade modifications. Residential Improvements Currently, individual residential improvements do not require a Site Development Review. Additionally, residential additions, the demolition and reconstruction of all or part of a house, and the construction of custom homes do not require Site Development Review. During the Study Session, the Planning Commission discussed whether or not these types of activities should be reviewed as a part of the Site Development Review Chapter. At the Study Session, after considerable discussion, the Planning Commission discussed if review should be required for all second story additions or additions of a particular size. At the meeting, the Planning Commission determined that additions which are over S00 square feet could have significant impacts on a neighborhood and, therefore, determined that review of these additions, by Staff, should be required. Residential Demolition and Reconstruction Additionally, the Planning Commission discussed whether or not to require review of the demolition and reconstruction of residential houses. Staff researched several cities in the vicinity to determine their definition of a demolition. Staff found that most cities define a demolition as the removal of SO percent or more of the exterior walls of a structure. As proposed, a demolition of SO percent of the exterior walls and remodel or construction of a residential dwelling would require a Site Development Review. Custom Single Family Home A new custom single-family home is also proposed to require a Site Development Review. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not require a Site Development Review for the construction of an individual custom home. Review of these projects will allow the City to ensure that the proposal will be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located. As proposed, the Zoning Ordinance allows the Community Page 5 of 9 ~~ o~ 4~~ Development Director to transfer hearing jurisdiction of these projects to the Planning Commission if the Community Development Director determines that the circumstances of the project warrants it. Proposed additions over 500 square feet in size, a residential tear down (of more than 50% of the house and reconstruction) and new custom single family homes will now require that all property owners/neighbors within 300 feet of the property will be notified of the proposed project prior to a decision by the Community Development Director. The Notice of Decision process is currently a part of the SDR regulations. This process requires the notification of property owners within 300-feet of the subject site. If a property owner(s) has concern with a proposal, they have a period of time in which they can communication their concerns with the City. If comment is received from a concerned party, the application can be appealed to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council. While the City currently processes SDR through the Notice of Decision process, these proposed modifications (to review additions greater than 500 square-feet, reconstruction of demolition greater than 50% of a principal structure, and new custom single-family homes) are a shift from existing policy which currently exempts these types of activities from SDR review. Residential projects of this type are not currently "noticed" to neighbors. Based on historical building permits issued over the past several years, Staff has determined that there are roughly a dozen (total for all three categories) of these types of permits per year. As the housing stock grows in age, it could be anticipated that there will be more modifications to homes (specifically in the western portion of the community) that may be subject to these regulations as people invest in improvements to older homes. The additional review that will be required for these permits will take more Staff time. By increasing the review time for smaller residential projects, staffing resources will be directed in other areas and will thereby reduce staffing resources for other projects. Additionally, the review of these types of permits could potentially result in the submittal of a greater number of appeals due to greater community involvement, which requires additional review by Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council (please refer to page 8 for more discussion on fees). Major landscape modifications in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial and Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar uses are also proposed to require a Site Development Review. By requiring a permit for these types of activities, the Planning Commission will be able to ensure that landscape modifications are compatible with the neighborhood and the project site. Facade Remodel Minor facade remodels which do not significantly alter the character of a structure in the R-M, Commercial, Industrial or similar Planned Development will require a Site Development Review which will be reviewed by the Community Development Director. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows the Community Development Director to review all facade remodels. Staff is recommending that facade remodels be categorized as either major or minor. Major facade remodels will continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Zoning Administrator Review (Section 8.104.040.B) The following projects require review by the Zoning Administrator: Page 6 of 9 as ~ ~~ • Exception to accessory structure requirements; • Front Yard setback encroachment for living area; and • Height increase for principal structures in the Agriculture, R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. The typical maximum height of residential dwellings west of Dougherty Road is two stories and 25 feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows an increase in height for residential dwellings in the Agriculture, R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts to a maximum of 35 feet with a Site Development Review which requires review by the Planning Commission. In order to be more consistent with the proposed review of custom single family homes, additions and the demolition and reconstruction of single family homes and allow for a public hearing, Staff is recommending that the reviewing body for a residential dwelling height increase be transferred to the Zoning Administrator. Planning Commission Review (Section 8.104.040.C) The following projects will require review by the Planning Commission: • Additions which are larger than 1,000 square feet or 15 percent of the building; • Height increase for public and quasi-public structures; • Height increase for towers and water tanks; and • New principal structures. Only two modifications are proposed to what currently requires review by the Planning Commission. Staff has added requests for height increases for public and semi-public structures; towers and water tanks to the list of projects that require review by the Planning Commission. Currently the Zoning Ordinance allows a height increase through a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has determined that a Site Development Review is a more appropriate method of review because these types of activities are related to design. Findings (Section 8.104.090) The findings section of this Chapter has been modified. The existing findings have been completely revised to be consistent with the purpose section of the Chapter. The proposed findings clearly address design and aesthetics for projects. Overlay Zoning_Districts The reviewing body and level of review required for projects in the Scarlett Court (Chapter 8.34) and Historic District Overlay Zoning Districts (Chapter 8.62) will remain unchanged. Other Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance In order to ensure consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance, various Chapters are required to be amended in order to implement some of the changes proposed in Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review. The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance are discussed in detail below. Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority This Chapter is proposed to be modified to remove several types of activities that are exempted from permit requirements that are related to SDR. The newly proposed SDR Chapter includes a section that describes exempted permits that relate to SDR. There are several activities that are appropriate to retain in Section 8.04.070 - F_xemptions from Permit Requirements including (Film and Theater Productions; Page 7 of 9 a3 ~ ~-~ Governmental Activities; School Facilities; Solar Collectors; and Utilities). The other activities (Decks, Paths and Walkways; Irrigation; Repairs and Maintenance; and Retaining Walls} are proposed to be removed from this Chapter and included as a part of the SDR Chapter as exempted activities. Interior residential alterations and additions which are less than 500 square feet will continue to be exempt from Site Development Review. Residential additions over 500 square feet, custom homes and the demolition of and reconstruction of single family homes are proposed to require Site Development Review as discussed above. The proposed amendments are shown on Page 2-3 of Attachment 1. Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations This Chapter has been modified to change the level of review for residential house height exceptions (Section 8.36.020.A) from requiring Planning Commission Review to requiring review by the Zoning Administrator. The permit requirement for a reduced font yard setback, in the residential zoning districts (Section 8.36.OSO.A.2.c.3) and for a height exception for freestanding structures (8.36.110.C.3.b) has been changed from a Conditional Use Permit to a Site Development Review, which is the more appropriate type of review for this type of improvement. Per the Planning Commission direction, the review of a residential house height exception is consistent with similaz actions currently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance which are reviewed by the Zoning Administrator (i.e. reduced front yard setback and exceptions to accessory structure requirements). Therefore, Section 8.36.020.A -Agricultural and Residential Development Regulations is proposed to be amended from requiring Planning Commission Review to requiring review by the Zoning Administrator. Additionally, the permit requirements for a reduced font yazd setback, in the residential zoning districts (Section 8.36.OSO.A.2.c.3 -Front Setback Exceptions) and for a height exception for freestanding structures (8.36.110.C.3.b -Height Limits and Exceptions) is proposed to be modified from a Conditional Use Permit, which is currently required in the Zoning Ordinance to a Site Development Review. A SDR is the appropriate type of review for these activities since it relates to site layout and the design of structures rather than the approval of a particular type of use. The proposed amendments are shown on Page 3-6 of Attachment 1. Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses This Chapter is proposed to be modified to change the permit requirement from a Conditional Use Permit to a Site Development Review for flagpoles (Section 8.40.020.D.2 -Accessory Structures) and for an exception to accessory structure requirements (Section 8.40.F.2.a -Accessory Structures). The proposed amendments are shown on Page 6-7 of Attachment 1. Residential Permit Fee (500 squaze foot addition and demolition and reconstruction) As proposed, this Chapter will now require homeowners to obtain Site Development Review approval prior to constructing a residential addition over 500 squaze feet in size and for the demolition and reconstruction of a home. Typically, Staff charges time spent on these applications on a time and materials basis which can amount to a large sum of money. Time and materials include all Staff time associated with a project application. For these two types of activities, the City would not want to discourage Page 8 of 9 ay ~ ~9 homeowners from improving their property due to a high permit cost. However, the City does not want to fully subsidize the permit fee for these improvements because the City currently requires full cost recovery for most permits. The City does currently subsidize the fee for large family daycares (the application fee is $100) in order to encourage these types of facilities and the City charges a flat fee for residential Conditional Use Permits. Staff estimates that it would take approximately four hours to process a Site Development Review for these types of improvements. Based on the City's fee schedule, the City currently charges approximately $125.00 per hour for Planning staff time. This would result in a fee of $500.00. Staff acknowledges that some permits may take longer to process, however in order to encourage homeowners to continue to improve their property, Staff is recommending a flat fee of $500.00 for the Site Development Review for a 500 square foot (or more) residential addition and the demolition and reconstruction of a residential home. If the City Council concurs with the recommended method for a flat fee for these two improvements, Staff will include the flat fee in the upcoming Development Fee Schedule Update. CONCLUSION: A number of modifications are proposed to the existing Site Development Review Chapter that will improve the clarity of the Chapter, ensure its effectiveness and ensure that the SDR Chapter is consistent with current practices. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) receive the Staff presentation; 2) open Public Hearing; 3) take testimony from the Public; 4). close Public Hearing and deliberate; 5) waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving amendments to Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority, Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations and Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review; and 6) direct Staff regarding the application fee for residential improvements. Page 9 of 9 ~25~, ~9 Adopted (4.23 360-20) RESOLUTION NO. 11 APPROVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEE REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, CITY DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSE ENT DISTRICT 1999-1 and UTION N0.116-08 APPOINTING TIME LACE OF HEARING PROTESTS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED AS SSMENTS, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1999-1 -None PUBLIC HEARINGS +~--- Amendment to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance - ZOA 07-002 (Legislative) 7:15 p.m. 6.1 (410-30) Vm. Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Erica Fraser presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council, as a high priority goal for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, requested that Staff and the Planning Commission review Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (SDR), of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and determine if any changes should be made to increase the effectiveness of the Chapter. The review of the SDR chapter was separate from the Comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance. She spoke on the type of modifications that will require site development review, the type of projects subject to Community Development Director review, projects requiring Zoning Administrator review and projects requiring Planning Commission review. In conclusion, she recommended a $500.00 flat fee be applied for the Site Development Review fora 500 square foot (or more) residential addition and the demolition and reconstruction of a residential home. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9 VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING ~ 19 June 17, 2008 ATTACHMENT 4 a~ ~~~ Ms. Fraser responded to Council questions on clarification of minor and major projects the type of modifications requiring site review. No testimony was received by any member of the public relative to this issue. Vm. Sbranti closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Scholz, and by unanimous vote, with Mayor Lockhart absent, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance Approving Amendments to Chapter 8.04, Title, Purpose and Authority, Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations and Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review; and approved a $500 flat fee for the Site Development Review fora 500 square foot (or more) residential addition and the demolition and reconstruction of a residential home. ~~-- Ordinance Adding Section 1.04.061 (Recovery of Nuisance Abatement Costs Incurred by the City) to Dublin Municipal Code 7:30 p.m. 6.2 (530-20) Vm. Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. City Attorney John Bakker presented the Staff Report and advised that this is the first reading of a proposed ordinance that contains the procedures governing steps for the levying of nuisance abatement special assessments. No testimony was received by any member of the public relative to this issue. Vm. Sbranti closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand, and by unanimous vote, with Mayor Lockhart absent, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance Adding Section 1.04.061 to the Dublin Municipal Code, Relating to Nuisance Abatement Cost Recovery. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES io VOLUME 27 REGULAR MEETING t9 June 17, 2008 a ~ ~~ ORDINANCE NO. XX - 09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.104 RELATING TO SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ZOA 09-001 WHEREAS, the City Council has identified modifications to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal Code to provide a stimulus to business and property owners in the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this Project on May 26, 2009 and adopted Resolution 09-25 recommending that the City Council approve modifications to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 7, 2009; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.120.OSO.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the proposed modifications on July 7, 2009 for which proper notice was given in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendments to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its June 16, 2009 meeting did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): The City Council declares this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15601(b) (3). Section 15601(b) (3) states that CEQA applies only to those projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. SECTION 2. Chapter 8.104 of the Dublin Municipal Code is revised as follows, with deletions indicated in strikethrough and additions indicated in underline: . ~~ ~t~ R 2 Zoning District or ~ Planned Development Zoning District with similar uses. a. Color Modifications. Repainting of an existing building with a color(s) which is different from the existing or approved color(s). b. Fences and Walls. The replacement, reconstruction or construction of fences and walls. c. Parking Lot Restriping. The restriping of a parking lot. d. Roof. A modification to the roof of a structure, including new roofing materials (when the roof is visible from the street), modifications to the parapet or the roof screen or a new parapet or roof screen. Changes to the style or roof type (i.e. gable to a mansard), are considered to be a facade modification and require a Site Development Review. e. Minor Landscape Modifications. Minor landscape modifications. f. Minor Site Layout Modification. A minor modification of the layout of the site including new paving areas, sidewalks or other similar improvements as determined by the Community Development Director. g. Window Modifications. Window modifications which include new and replacement windows, frosting, tinting or the addition of other materials which may obscure a window as determined by the Community Development Director. 3. Minor Modifications to Approved Site Development Review. Minor modifications to an approved Site Development Review (other than what is listed in this section), where the modification is in substantial conformance with the approved Site Development Review, is consistent with the conditions of approval for the Site Development Review, and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Other Improvements. All other improvements determined by the Community Development Director to be minor in nature and requiring review. 8.104.040 Projects Subject to Site Development Review. The following projects are subject to Site Development Review. When a project which typically requires a Site Development Review Waiver is combined with a project subject to a Site Development Review, the review and project type shall be the highest level. In accordance with Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, the Community Development Director and the Zoning Administrator may refer decision making to the Planning Commission at any time. A. Community Development Director. The following projects are subject to a Site Development Review, and shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director or his/her designee: Page4of9 ~~ ~~ 1. #1Eaje~ Accessory Structures. Accessory structures which are greater than 120 square feet in size in the R-M Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning_ Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses and are visible from any street or located adiacent to a property in the R-1 or R-2 Zonin District or a Planned Development Zoning District with similar residential uses. 2. Addition. ~ All additions which are not visible from any street or any addition which is less than 1,000 square feet in size or less than 15 percent of the total floor area of the structure (whichever is greater), to an existing structure in the R-M, Commercial, or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses. 3. Agricultural Accessory Structures. All agriculture accessory structures. 4. Custom House. A new house in any Residential Zoning District or Planned Development Zoning District with single family residential uses. 5. Flag Poles. All flag poles in any zoning district, which are over 35 feet in height. 6. Major Landscape Modifications. Major landscape modifications in the R-M, Industrial and Commercial Zoning Districts and Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family, industrial or commercial uses. 7. Residential Additions. Residential additions which are over 500 square feet in size in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts with residential uses. 8. Residential Demolition and Construction. A residential demolition and construction which includes the demolition of 50 percent or more of the existing exterior walls of the principal structure and the reconstruction, remodel or construction of a new house in the R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts or any Planned Development Zoning Districts with residential uses. 9. Security Gates. Security gates at the entrance(s) to a residential or office development. 10. Signage. Signs which require a Site Development Review pursuant to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations. 11. Major Site Layout Modification. A major modification of the layout of the site including but not limited to a significant increase in paving areas, circulation, light fixtures, parking or other similar improvements as determined by the Community Development Director. 12. Wireless Communications Facilities. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.92, Wireless Communications Facilities. Page 5 of 9 3~ ~ti~ 13. 1~--4irner Facade Modifications. 1~4iner Facade modifications in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses. #I~er Facade modifications include, but are not limited to, trellises, arbors, arcades, building materials, architectural details, a combination of improvements which would typically require a Site Development Review Waiver if constructed separately, other modifications which change the character or design of a building or any other improvements as determined *~-rby the Community Development Director. B. Zoning Administrator. The following projects are subject to a Site Development Review, and shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator during a Public Hearing: 1. Exception to Accessory Structure Requirements. An exception to the requirements of Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures. 2. Front Yard Setback Encroachment for Living Area. As permitted by Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations, an encroachment for living area above the garage or for any structure within the Front Yard Setback area. 3. Height Increase. An increase in the height of the principal structure, as permitted by the regulations for the Agricultural, R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. C. Planning Commission. The following projects are subject to a Site Development Review and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission during a Public Hearing: 1. Height Increase for Public and Semi Public Structures. A height increase for public and semi public principal structures, as permitted by Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations. 2. Height Increase for Towers and Water Tanks. A height increase for towers, poles, water tanks and similar structures, as permitted by Chapter 8.36, Development Regulations. 3. ~, Additions. Additions which are 1,000 square feet or more, or greater than 15 percent of the floor area of the structure and visible from any street in the R-M, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts, or Planned Development Zoning Districts with multi-family or non-residential uses. 4. New Principal Structures. All new principal structures, including principal structures in a Planned Development Zoning District, and any structure which is to be demolished and reconstructed. Page 6 of 9 ~33 ~~ D. Historic Overlay Zoning District. All improvements within the Historic Overlay oning District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.62, Historic Overlay Zoning District. E. Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. All improvements within the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to Chapter 8.34, Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. F. All Other Improvements. All other improvements to structures or a site, which are not otherwise mentioned in this Chapter, shall be subject to a Site Development Review Waiver or Site Development Review, as determined by the Community Development Director. 8.104.050 Application. The Applicant shall submit a complete application pursuant to Chapter 8.124, Applications, Fees and Deposits, accompanied by a fee and such materials as are required by the Community Development Director. 8.104.060 Action. The decision maker for Site Development Reviews shall be the Community Development Director (or his/her designee), the Zoning Administrator (or his/her designee) or the Planning Commission as set forth in this Chapter. The decision maker may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Site Development Review based on the required findings in Section 8.104.090. 8.104.070 Concurrent Consideration. When a Site Development Review is required for a project which is also subject to a Conditional Use Permit and/or Variance, it shall be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the same decision-maker or body for those actions during the same public hearing. 8.104.080 Notice Of Decision, Public Hearing. The following notice requirements shall apply to decision makers for Site Development Review: A. Notice of Decision. The Community Development Director shall provide notice that a Site Development Review decision is being considered, consistent with the Notice of Decision provisions of Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearings. B. Public Hearing. A public hearing is required for decisions by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, with notice provided consistent with the provisions of Chapter 8.132, Notice and Hearings. C. Notice for Concurrent Processing. Where a Site Development Review is being considered concurrently with another permit requiring a public hearing, the notice and public hearing requirements of the other permit shall apply. 8.104.090 Required Findings. All of the following findings shall all be made in order to approve a Site Development Review and shall be supported by substantial evidence in the public record: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter, with the General Plan and Page 7 of 9 ~~ ~ with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties and the lot in which the project is proposed. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles. 8.104.100 Construction Permits. Building and Grading Permits shall not be issued except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Site Development Review approval. 8.104.110 Procedures. The procedures set forth in Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, shall apply except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 8.104.120 Design Guidelines. Any design guidelines which are approved for a particular site or area shall apply to all Site Development Review Waivers and Site Development Review applications for that site or area. SECTION 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the Prdinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances. SECTION 4. Effect of Ordinance on projects in progress. The provisions of Dublin Municipal Code section 8.04.040.D shall apply to land uses, development and/or structures. Page 8 of 9 ~~ ~~ SECTION 5. Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN on this 7`h day of July 2009, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IZoning OrdIZOA 09-OOIICC 6-161CC Ordinance (SDR).DOC Page 9 of 9 ~~ RESOLUTION NO. -09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING RESOLUTION 49-06 TO REVISE THE ADOPTED FEE SCHEDULE FOR RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS OVER 500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE AND RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS WHICH REQUIRE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code establishing projects which require review pursuant to a Site Development Review within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the current fee schedule on April 18, 2006 by Resolution 49-06 and the fees took effect on July 1, 2006; and WHEREAS, the fee for a Site Development Review is typically $140.00 plus Staff time and materials are charged to the Applicant; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2009, the City Council authorized Staff to include a flat fee of $500.00 for Site Development Review of residential additions over 500 square feet in size and residential demolition and constriction in the next fee update (the "Fee"); and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the staff time required for Site Development Review processing of residential additions over 500 square feet in size and residential demolition and construction projects, the hourly rate (inchiding overhead) of the staff who perforni such work and the average cost of processing such applications of $517 (four hours of staff time at 129.27); and WHEREAS the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on said flat fee on July 7, 2009; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts a flat fee of $500 for Site Development Review pursuant to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, of Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Municipal Code for all residential additions over 500 square feet and for all residential demolition and construction projects. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Attachment 6 c.~~ `l I G~~~ OF Dp~~ 9~ ~k jai AGENDA STATEMENT ~~~~ll CANNING COMMISSION MEET:[NG DATE: May 26, 2009 ~~ C~ l r ~4LI]^pR~l~ SUBJECT: ZOA 09-001: Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Legislative) - Amendment to the Sign Regulations and the Permit Procedures Chapters (Chapter 8.84 and Chapter 8.96) of the Zoning Ordinance to be effective for a one-year period, and amendment to t}ie Site Development Review Chapter (Chapter 8.104) of the Zoning Ordinance. Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, and Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures of Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal Code for aone-year period, with draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. 2) Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review of Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Muuucipal Code, with the draft City Council Ordinance attached as l;xhibit A. 3) May 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Statement (without attachments). 4) Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations (existing). 5) Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (existing). 6) Previous Chapter 8.104, Site ]development Review (prior to July 2008). RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive the Staff presentation; 2) Open Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Public: 4) Close Public Hearing and deliberate; 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Chapter 8.84, :iign Regulations, and Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures of Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal Code for aone-year period, with draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit E,; and 6) a) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Chapter f>.104, Site Development Review of Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal Code, with the draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A or b) Adopt a modified Resolution as directed by the Planning Commission. COPIES TO: File Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. ~ G:~Zoning Ord~SDR Update 2009~PC 5-26~PC Staff Report for ZAA Amend.doc ATTACHMENT 7 38 ~p y~ BACKGROUND: At the request of the City Council, Staff has been reviewing the Zoning Ordinance for ways to provide a stimulus to the business community and property owners during the current economic climate. The Planning Division has identified several alternatives to streamline the entitlement process for development applications and to promote businesses in Dublin. These alternatives included temporary modifications, for atwo-year period, related to the display of Promotional Banners and Balloons, and the extension of the effective period of permits and permanent modifications related to th~~ hearing body and type of review for minor projects. On May 5, 2009, Staff presented these alternatives to the City Council for discussion (Attachment 3). The City Council unanimously agreed with Staff s recommendations regazding the proposed permanent modifications to Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review (these modifications are discussed on pages 2- 3 of Attachment 3) and the temporary modification to Chapter 8.96 (page 3-4 of Attachment 3). The City Council had considerable discussion regarding the proposed temporary modifications to the Sign Ordinance related to Temporary Promotional Banners and Balloons Gages 4-5 of Attachment 3). The City Council ultimately decided to move forward with Staff's recommendations regarding Promotional Banners, however, the City Council decided the proposed modifications should only be in effect for one year (and requested that Staff bring this item back for discussion in one year). The City Council decided not to make any changes regazding Temporary Promotional Balloons. The City Council directed Staff to bring a draft Ordinance to the Planning Commission, modifying Ch;~pters 8.84, 8.96 and 8.104, for their recommendation to City Council. These proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include modifications to the Site Development Review Chapter (Chapter 8.104) regarding the level of review required foi~ projects, modifications to the Sign Regulations Chapter (Chapter 8.84) to facilitate the use of Banner Signs and modifications to the Permit Procedures Chapter (Chapter 8.96) to increase the effective period of Permits. ANALYSIS: The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance aze discussed below. Temporary Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance Sign Regulations (Chapter 8.84) Temporary Promotional Banners are regulated by the Sign Regulations Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.84). The Sign Regulations allow for the display of Promotional Banners which advertise special events, sales and promotional needs, excluding apartments. Promotional Banners are currently required to adhere to the regulations in Section 8.84.OSO.S of the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 4). Several temporary modifications aze proposed to provide some relief from the current regulations in order to expand the advertising opportunities available to businesses. The Zoning Ordinance currently regulates the time frame in which a I3anner maybe displayed, the waiting period between Banner displays and the size of Promotional Banners. Staff proposes to modify these Regulations in order to promote businesses in Dublin. The propos~:d modifications would increase the number of days Banners are allowed to be displayed, reduce the waiting period between Banner displays Page 2 of 8 ~~ ~~ and modify the size requirements. The following table illustrates the existing and proposed Regulations for Temporary Promotional Banners. Table 1: Temporary Promotional Banners -Existing and Proposed Regulations Existing Regulation Proposed Regulation Display Period Maximum of 15 consecutive calendar days Maximum of 21 consecutive calendar days Waiting Period 30 days 21 days Size Maximiun of 30" tall x 24' long 60 square feet By increasing the time , a Banner may be installed on a property and decreasing the waiting period in between Banners, businesses will be allowed additional days throughout the year in which they can advertise special events and sales happening at their location. The maximum size for Promotional Banners is proposed be changed to 60 square feet, which is the maximum overall size currently allowed; however, by utilizing a maximum overall size rather than a maximum height and length, businesses will have more flexibility to design their Banner to suit their needs. The proposed Regulations would be effective for a period of one year. Prior to the expiration of the amendments, Staff will bring the Ordinance back to the City Council for discussion. The City Council will then determine if they want to allow the amendments to remain in effect for an additional period of time or if they would. like the Ordinance to expire. Once the Ordinance has expired, the Zoning Ordinance will revert back to the current Regulations (Attachment 4). The proposed amendment is included on Page 6 of Exhibit A to Attachment 1. Permit Procedures (Chapter 8.96 The proposed amendment to the Permit Procedures Chapter (Chapter 8.96) of the Zoning Ordinance is also a temporary amendment. Section 8.96.O10.D of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the length of time a permit is valid and currently states that "construction or use shall commence within one (1) year of permit approval, or the permit shall lapse and become null and v~~id." The Zoning Ordinance allows Applicants to apply for one 6-month extension prior to expiration of a permit (typically this is for Conditional Use Permits and Site Development Review). Today's economic climate has made it difficult for Developers to oi~tain financing prior to expiration of their permits. Additionally, some Developers would like to begin the Planning process but have expressed concerns that the economic climate may not be right for them to begin construction prior to expiration of their permits. In order to assist Developers and to encourage Developers to stay in the Planning process, a temporary modification to Section 8.96.O10.D is proposed to extend the effective period for Planning Permits, please refer to the table below for the existing Regulation and proposed m~~dification. This modification would be retroactive to extend the approvals of existing, valid permits. . Page 3 of 8 ~~~µ~ Table 2: Permit Expiration -Existing and Proposed Regulations Existing Regulation Proposed Regulation Permit Expiration (typically Site 1 year from permit 2 years from permit Development Review and approval approval Conditional Use Permit) Permit Extension 6 Months 6 Months Prior to the expiration of the amendments to the Sign Regulations at~d Permit Procedures Chapters of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff will bring the Ordinance back to the Ci~.y Council for discussion. The City Council will then determine if they want to adopt an Ordinance allowing the modifications to continue or if they would like the Ordinance to expire. Once the Ordinance ha;• expired, the Zoning Ordinance will revert back to the current regulations The proposed amendment is included on Page 3 of Exhibit A to Attachment 1. Permanent Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance Site Development Review (Chapter 8.1041 On June 17, 2008, the City Council adopted an Ordinance amending the Site Development Review Chapter (Chapter 8.104) of the Zoning Ordinance to improve the clarity of the Chapter, to ensure its effectiveness and to ensure that the Site Development Review Chapter was consistent with current practices. The amended Site Development Review Chapter has been in effect for approximately 11 months. As part of the City's effort to assist business owners through thy: current economic climate, several additional changes are proposed to the Site Development Review Cl-apter (Chapter 8.104) of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments would reduce the time and costs associated with obtaining Planning approval for minor projects. Modifications are proposed to the regulations for accessory structures, additions to principal structures and the reviewing body for facade modifications and are discussed in more detail below. The discussion includes a comparison of the current regulations, the regulations that were in effect prior to the 2008 Amendment, and the ~~roposed Amendments. Accessory Structures -Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial The Site Development Review Chapter establishes the level of review (Site Development Review Waiver or Site Development Review) that is required for accessory structures in the Single-Family, and the Multi- Family, Commercial, and Industrial Zoning Districts. The level of review is based on the size of the accessory structure. A Site Development Review requires notification of property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site, can take up to one month to process, and the cost is based on Staff time and materials associated with the review of the project. A Site Development Review Waiver does not require notification of property owners, has a flat fee of $250 and is typically processed in one to three business days. Page 4 of 8 ~i ~~r~ The following table illustrates the regulations that were in effect prior to the 2008 Amendment, the existing regulations, and Staff s proposed modifications to the regulations for accessory structures in the Multi-Family, Commercial, and Industrial Zoning Districts. Table 3: Accessory Structure Regulations -Multi-Family, rn..,.,,s.rt~.al anri indnCtrial 7.onine 1}1strlCtS Required Permit Type Previous Regulations (Prior to July 2008) Existing Regulations Proposed Regulations Accessory Structures <120 square feet Site Development As determined by the Community Accesso Structures rY or Review Waiver Development Director < 120 s uare feet - q Accesso Structures that ry are not visible from the street Site Development Review As detenmined by the Accessory Stru~~tures Accessory Structures that are visible from the (by Community Community Development Director > 120 square feet street and > 120 square Develo ment Director feet For example, if these modifications are enacted, if Orchard Supply wanted to construct a 1,000 square feet accessory structure at the rear of there store (which is not visible from the street), the accessory structure would be reviewed pursuant to a Site Development Review Waiver. If Orchard Supply wanted to construct a 1,000 square foot accessory structure at the front of the store (which would be visible from the street) the accessory structure would be reviewed pursuant to a Site Development Review. Accessory Structures which are not visible from the street are not typically controversial projects and do not typically have significant impacts. By decreasing the level of review required for minor accessory structures and accessory structures which are not visible from the street, this amendment would reduce the permitting burden on property owners. As an alternative, the Planning Commission may recommend that the Site Development Review Chapter allow the Community Development Director to determine the level of review, similar to what was done prior to July 2008 (when the current Site Development Review Chapter took effect). This would allow flexibility by allowing the Community Development Director to reduce the level of review required for accessory structures which the Director determines to be minor in nat:ue. Accessory Structures -Residential The following table illustrates the regulations for accessory structures in the Single-Family Residential Zoning District that were in effect prior to the 2048 Amendment, the existing regulations, and Staff s proposed modifications to the regulations. Page 5 of 8 v~~y3 Table 4. Accessorv Structures Regulations - Single Family Residential Zoning Districts Required Permit Previous Regulations Existing Regulations Proposed Regulations Type (Prior to July 2008) Site Development No permit required for No permit required for Review Accessory Structures that Accessory Structures Accessory Structures that (by Community comply with the > 120 square feet comply with the Develo ment Director Develo ment Re lations Develo ment Re lations Single-family residential accessory structures are required to comply with the existing development regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. T'he development regulations establish the maximum size, height, and setback for accessory structures. Single-family residential accessory structures that do not comply with the development regulations require approval of a Site Development Review. Site Development Review would no longer be required for single-family residential accessory structures that are greater than 120 square feet provided that they comply with the development reg.lations for accessory structures. The proposed modifications are consistent with the regulations in place prior to the 2008 Amendment. The proposed modifications are shown on pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit A. to Attachment 2. Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Additions The Site Development Review Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the reviewing body for additions to the principal structure in the Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts and Planned Development Zoning Districts with similar uses. Staff is prcposing a modification to the types of additions that can be reviewed by the Community Development Director. The following table illustrates the regulations that were in effect prior to the 2008 Amendment, the existing regulations, and proposed regulations with respect to additions. Table 5: Regulation of Additions to Principal Structures - Multi-Family, Commercial and Industrial 7.oning Districts Required Permit Previous Regulations Existing Regulation Proposed Regulation Type (Prior to July 2008) As determined by the Site Development Community Development -- -- Review Waiver Director Additions < 1,000 square Site Development 000 square Additions < 1 feet in size or <15% of the Review As determined by the , ~;o /o of the feet in size or <1 building floor area (by Community Community Development _ building floor area whichever is eater ( ~ ) Development Director) Director (whichever is greater). or Any addition which is not visible from the street Additions > 1,000 square Additions that aze visible Site Develo ment p As determined b the y feet in size or >1 _`~% of the from the street and > 1,000 Review (by Planning Community Development building floor area square feet in size or >15% Commission Review) Director (whichever is greater). of the building floor azea Page 6 of 8 ~~~ ~-~ Typically, additions which are less than 1,000 square feet in size or are not visible from the street do not have significant impacts. By allowing Staff to review these types of additions, Applicants will save time and money while trying to improve their property. For example, if Lowe's wanted to construct a 2,000 square foot addition to their store which was visible from the street, the addition would be less than 15% of the overall floor area of the building (total building size is 139,410 square feet), this addition would be reviewed by the (:ommunity Development Director. If Lowe's wanted to construct a 21,000 square foot addition, this addition would be larger than 15% of the floor area of the building and would be visible from the street and therefore would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. As an alternative, the Planning Commission may recommend that the Site Development Review Chapter allow the Community Development Director to determine the level of review, similar to what was done prior to July 2008 (when the current Site Development Review Chapter took effect). This would allow flexibility by allowing the Community Development Director to reduce the level of review required for additions which the Director determines to be minor in nature. The modifications are shown on pages 4 and 6 of Exhibit A to Attachment 2. Facade Modifications The current Site Development Review Chapter of the Zoning Ordina~ice divides facade modifications into two categories: Major and Minor (Sections 8.104.040.A.13 and 8.104.040.C.3). The Site Development Review for Minor Facade Modifications are reviewed by the Community Development Director and the Site Development Review for Major Facade Modifications are reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director determines which types of facade improvements are Major and which are Minor. In order to reduce the burden on the Applicant and encourage property owners to improve their properties, Staff is recommending that the Site Development Review for all facade remodels be reviewed by the Community Development Director. This would be consistent with the procedures that were in place prior to the Zoning Ordinance update approved in 2008. Prior to issuing a decision on facade modifications, the Community Development Director would send out a notice to all tenants and property owners within 300 feet of the project site and would also notify the Planning Commission and City Council of the proposed project. The Community Development Director can transfer hearing jurisdiction on a project at any time to the Planning Commission, should a proposal be controversial. The following table illustrates the pre 2008 Amendment, existing, and proposed reviewing body for facade modifications. Page 7 of 8 ti~~~ Table 6: Fagade Modifications Existing and Proposed Regulations Required Permit Type Previous Regulations (Prior to July 2008) Existing Regulation Proposed Regulation Site Development Review (by Community All Fagade Remodels Minor Fap:ide All Facade Remodels Development Remodel Director Site Development Major Fa~;~de Review (by Planning None Remodel None Commission The modifications are shown on page 6 of Exhibit A to Attachment 2. CONCLUSION: Several modifications are proposed to be made to the Zoning Ordinance in order to improve its effectiveness and to provide temporary relief from some of the provi;;ions of the Zoning Ordinance during the current economic climate. The proposed temporary modifications to the Sign Ordinance will expand advertising options available to businesses. By reducing the level of review required for some projects in Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review, the City will encourage continual improvement of properties by making the process easier for minor projects and will also reduce the amount of money spent by Applicants due to a reduction in Staff time spent on a project. All of the proposed modifications aze aimed at assisting property owners and businesses in the City and to help ea;~e them through these difficult times. Should the Planning Commission determine that the type of review required for accessory structures and additions by determined by the Community Development Director, Staff will revise the draft Ordinance (Site Development Review Chapter) to reflect this modification. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive the Staff presentation; 2) Open Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Public; 4) Close Public >=[earing and deliberate; 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Chapter 8.84, Sign Regulations, and Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures of Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of tt~e Dublin Municipal Code for aone- yeazperiod, with draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A; and 6) a) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to Chapter ,3.104, Site Development Review of Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal Code, with the draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A of b) Adopt a modified Resolution as directed by the Pluming Commission. Page 8 of 8 DRAFT DRAFT ~~ ~ 8.2 ZOA 09-0 01 Zoning Ordinance Amendments -Amendment to the Sign Regulations and Permit Procedures Chapters (Chapter 8.84 and Chapter 8.96) of the Zoning Ordinance to be effective for aone-year period, and amendments to the Site Development Review Chapter (Chapter 8.104) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to clarify the time frame for the amendment. Ms. Fraser answered that the amendment is for one year and will be revisited after one year and the City Council will decide if they want to allow the amendment to remain in effect for an additional period. Cm. Schaub asked if the City Council will make the decision to look at the amendment after one year. Ms. Fraser stated that the Planning Commission is recommending that the change be for one year and then the Council will decide if the amendment should continue at that point. Mr. Baker responded that at Council's request Staff brought forward a series of options to amend the Zoning Ordinance. One of those was a recommendation for a two year temporary period, but the Council only wanted a one year period. Ms. Fraser stated that if the amendment became permanent it would have to come to the Commission for change. Chair Wehrenberg asked about the waiting period between banners. Ms. Fraser explained the current and proposed waiting period for banners. Ms. Fraser continued that the current Zoning Ordinance specifies the height and length of the banner. Cm. Schaub stated that the Zoning Ordinance specifies the size of the banner but not how high it is on the building. Ms. Fraser answered yes. Cm. Brown asked if all banners are considered promotional banners. Ms. Fraser answered that banners are only allowed for certain reasons such as sales or special events which are included in the temporary modification. She continued that there are other banners allowed but those are not included in the temporary modifications. ~`~"~ 116 ATTACHMENT 8 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Schaub asked if the current sign regulations are keeping businesses from thriving in Dublin. Ms. Fraser stated that some people feel the current regulations are hampering their business but that has been an on-going complaint. Ms. Ram stated that this change was done at the request of the Chamber of Commerce. She continued that the Economic Development Committee asked her to meet with a gentleman who owns a banner business and he indicated that his clients have requested some changes to the Ordinance. Cm. Brown felt that information gave this change more clarity. Cm. Schaub felt the City was attempting to have a business environment that is inviting to people and not cluttered by many banners. He understands that something should be done to help businesses in this economic environment but felt there should be a limit to how high the banner should be allowed. He was not concerned about the square footage of the banner but how high it is on the building relative to other buildings and businesses and that it would not interfere with other signage. Chair Wehrenberg agreed that height is a valid point. Mr. Baker responded that the Ordinance could be modified to require the banner to be on the building and not cover other signs, etc. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there was a question regarding the banner would the Community Development Director evaluate the situation and make a decision. Mr. Baker answered that it would be reviewed at the counter by the Planner and if there was a question regarding the standards it would be referred to the Community Development Director for a decision. Ms. Fraser stated that currently there are no location requirements, but there are height and length requirements for banners. Cm. Brown asked if Staff requires a business to show where the banner will be located at their business when they apply for a permit. Ms. Fraser answered no; the business owner only needs to complete the application form. Mr. Baker stated the Commission could recommend some standards for placement of the banner at the business. Cm. Schaub felt that if the current Ordinance is enough then nothing has to be changed, but if Staff feels there needs to be a change then this is the time to make it. ,:.'~~nnznq ~'i~mm: _ ,~~ ~ ~r~~=~~~~ 117 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Wehrenberg asked if the City finds a banner to be obtrusive can the next banner at that business be denied. `~ ~ ~ / Ms. Fraser answered that since there is no location regulation in the Zoning Ordinance, talking with the Applicant usually takes care of any problem. There was a discussion regarding the height of banners and where they should be placed on the building. Ms. Fraser referred to Exhibit A to Attachment 1, Page 7, under Temporary Promotional Signs which states "A banner sign shall not be larger than 60 square feet in size" suggested adding: "...and shall not extend above the roofline." Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report regarding Site Development Review for Commercial accessory structures. Cm. Schaub felt the wording should be changed to include "any street" instead of "from the street." He felt it was too vague. Mr. Baker stated that the code defines what a street is to mean any of the streets around the structure. Ms. Fraser stated that the Ordinance could be changed to include "any street." Cm. Schaub asked if structures over 120 square feet would be noticed if they cannot be seen from the street. He was concerned about large structures being constructed without noticing the adjacent neighbors. He felt that if the structure is in the public realm it should be noticed. Ms. Fraser stated that there are only a few cases where there would be a residential area close enough to a commercial structure that the project would need to be noticed. Cm. Schaub felt the Ordinance should state it should be "visible from any street or from a residence." He wanted to ensure that homeowners were notified of a change in their area. Ms. Fraser suggested keeping the requirement under 120 square feet, then rewording the Ordinance to read: "...or of any size that are not visible from any street or any property zoned R-1, R-2, or similar PD." Cm. Schaub agreed and stated that the project would not have to be brought to the Planning Commission as long as it is noticed. Ms. Ram commented that if Staff feels a project would be controversial Staff has the option to forward the project to the Planning Commission. She continued that the previous Ordinance allowed the Community Development Director to approve items and move things along more quickly. She felt this Ordinance has slowed down the process. 9 . , - ~a~~n~ ('C7~sttttg,Sy%sara ~l~t~ay a h; ~~ra~ ~rlur. ~~!e~tireq 118 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Fraser agreed with Ms. Ram regarding forwarding the level of review to the Planning Commission if the project is controversial or the Staff did not feel comfortable approving it. She mentioned two projects that could have been reviewed and approved at Staff level but were brought to the Planning Commission for approval because they were more sensitive. L~~ ~~ Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission has the option of going back to allowing the Community Development Director to approve an accessory structure under an SDR Waiver or through SDR if the project is a large accessory structure on a commercial property adjacent to a residence and did not seem appropriate for the Community Development Director to approve. It would then require Site Development Review which would include noticing of all the neighbors within 300 feet of the project. Cm. Schaub felt that residents within 300 feet of a visible structure deserve to be noticed. Mr. Baker asked if the Planning Commission agreed with Staff's recommendation or if they want to modify the level of review for an accessory structure over 120 square feet is adjacent to a residence. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's recommendation to include the words "...or of any size that are not visible from any street or any property zoned R-1, R-2, or similar PD" to the Ordinance regarding accessory structures. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report; discussing Single Family Residential Accessory Structures. Ms. Fraser recommended not requiring permits for accessory structures under 120 square feet for single family residences. She continued that if someone wanted an accessory structure that did not meet the requirements the project would have to go before the Planning Commission for review and approval. The Commission supported the change. Ms. Fraser continued with Additions to Princiyal Structure in the Commercial/Industrial Zoning District. The Commission asked for the words "any street" to be added to the Ordinance. Cm. Schaub asked if this type of SDR would be noticed. Ms. Fraser answered yes as part of the process. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report; discussing Facade Modifications Cm. Schaub stated that with facade modifications approved at Staff level the Planning Commission would receive a notice and can choose to attend a hearing or get involved in some way or not. Spray 2ti; 7Uf}9 ,'-. -~fe~~etrtr~ 119 DRAFT DRAFT / , Ms. Fraser answered yes, but indicated there would be no actual hearing. She coned tha ~ " the notice contains information regarding when Staff would accept comments on the project and contact information. She stated that anyone interested may come to City Hall and view the plans and ask questions regarding the project. If someone has a concern Staff will try to work with them regarding their concern. If the project became controversial it would be referred to the Planning Commission. Cm. Schaub felt that most of the facade modifications are to existing SDR's that were approved before, and in that case Staff would have to abide by the approved SDR. He asked if the Community Development Director could modify the existing, approved SDR. Ms. Fraser stated pursuant to the Ordinance, Staff can approve modifications and hopefully changes occur to update and enhance the look of the building. She continued that even though Staff has the authority to approve the color change if Staff did not feel comfortable with the change, instead of denying the project, it would be referred to the Planning Commission which makes the process easier. The purpose of this Ordinance is to make the process easier and to encourage property owners to improve their property. Cm. Schaub stated that he felt that Staff and the City Council appreciates the Planning Commissions ability to help make good decisions and public policy. He stated that the Planning Commission has rarely denied a project and felt the whole process that they worked hard on is working well, and has helped the City Council not to have to get involved. He felt the system is working well and the City looks very nice. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 3-0, Cm. Swalwell and Cm. King absent, the Planning Commission approved, with modifications: "...or of any size that are not visible from any street or any property zoned R-1, R-2, or similar PD." RESOLUTION N0.09 - 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.84, SIGN REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER 8.96, PERMIT PROCEDURES OF TITLE 8 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD ZOA 09-001 RESOLUTION N0.09 - 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ~i'lrtnrtiny ("'r~mmi~.s-if>~ ~t#I aal~ar <;tre~~rirt,9 120