Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Draft Site Dev Review Guidelines CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 13, 1992 SUBJECT: Review of Draft Site Development Review Guidelines REPORT PREPARED BY: David Choy, Associate Planner EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Site Development Review Guidelines Draft #4 , dated April 1, 1992 Attachment 1 : Minutes of the September 16 , 1991 Planning Commission - Meeting Regarding Site Development Review Guidelines Attachment 2 : Minutes of the November 4 , 1991 Planning Commission Meeting Regarding Site Development Review Guidelines Attachment 3 : Minutes of the January 6, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting Regarding Site Development Review Guidelines Attachment 4 : Community Design Guidelines for Metal Buildings, prepared by California Building Systems Institute, Inc. Attachment 5 : Checklist of Submittal Requirements for Site Development Review Attachment 6 : Sample Pictures RECOMMENDATION: #-�1) Receive Staff Report 2 ) Question Staff 3) Provide input regarding Site Development Review Guidelines 4 ) Direct Staff to bring item back to future meeting for adoption ------------- ITEM NO. ♦ COPIES TO: Senior Planner Project Planner Agenda File Application File CITY CLERK FILE z o z o i BACKGROUND: In response to the Management Audit recommendation prepared by Hughes, Heiss & Associates in 1989 , the Planning Staff has prepared the attached Site Development Review (SDR) Guidelines . The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Site Development Review Guidelines on September 16 , 1991 (Attachment 1) and November 4 , 1991 (Attachment 2 ) , providing comments regarding the document. On January 6 , 1992 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Draft Site Development Review Guidelines, forwarding the document to the City Council for review and comment (Attachment 3) . In addition, on September 17, 1989, at a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council to review the Management Audit, the City Council requested the development of criteria specifying when small additions or alterations subject to Site Development Review would or would not be routed out to other agencies and City Departments . Council directed Staff to include this criteria within the Site Development Review Guidelines . Site Development Review routing criteria should include the establishment of a maximum size (200, 300, 400 square feet) for new construction or additions which have minimal or no effect on the operation of the existing site (i .e. , on-site circulation, drainage or landscaping) . Projects conforming with this criteria would not require routing for comments . The Zoning Ordinance currently requires Site Development Review approval for new structures totalling 1,000 square feet or more or any construction aggregating 1,000 square feet or more, proposed within the Commercial or Industrial Districts, unless zoning approval is granted through a Site Development Review Waiver. Staff currently processes Site Development Review Waiver requests for minor physical modifications to existing or approved projects ( i .e. , additions of windows or doors to existing buildings, modifications to landscaping, installing satellite dishes, etc. ) which have little or no impact on the existing site. Waiver requests are reviewed to ensure that the intent and objectives of the Site Development Review procedure are met. Waiver requests are handled administratively and are not routed for comments . It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to include routing criteria information as an attachment, or within the Appendix, to the Site Development Review Guidelines, since the Guidelines do not address procedures for processing Site Development Review applications . Staff will prepare a list of projects which would typically not be routed for comments, at a later date for City Council review and approval . Staff has included the Community Design Guidelines for Metal Buildings, prepared by California Building Systems Institute, Inc . (Attachment 4 ) as an example of the content and format of design guidelines . -2- DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the Site Development Review Guidelines is to assist property owners, developers, architects, and Applicants in understanding 1) the objectives of the City of Dublin Site Development Review process and 2) the level of quality that the City is seeking. The Site Development Review Guidelines are intended to provide Staff and Applicants with general design direction for use in the review of development proposals . The Site Development Review Guidelines identify the intent of overall design criteria and should be used in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance, which will provide specific information on minimum/maximum sizes, dimensions and quantities of buildings, setbacks, structures and improvements required on-site. Comments on the Site Development Review Guidelines were received from other City Departments and affected agencies . In addition, the guidelines were referred for comments to approximately fifty Developers, Architects and Designers with past or present projects in the City of Dublin. Eight firms responded, providing comments on the Site Development Review Guidelines . Staff has reviewed all of the comments and, where applicable, modified the Site Development Review Guidelines to address the comment or concern expressed. The following is a summary of the comments received. I . Site Planning 2-. A comment was received requesting the guideline to define "Streetscape" . This guideline was clarified to emphasize compatibility with adjacent uses and to identify streetscape elevations as viewed from the public streets . 5 . This guideline was modified to state The siting and orientation of buildings should respond to both the pedestrian and vehicular nature of the street" and not one, or the other. in -esponse to the comment Why not count off-street parking toward required parking to reduce size of parking lots" this guideline was modified to state that off-site parking is "recognized as providing important supplemental parking" but it is not considered required parking, which is to be provided on- site. 6 . This guideline was modified to ensure that visual surveillance of the parking lot by the Police Department is provided. 13 . A new guideline was added requiring water and sewer facilities to comply with DSRSD Design Guidelines . 15 . This guideline was modified to emphasize ease of vehicular access from the street onto the site. -3- 17 . This guideline was modified to emphasize the importance of balancing tenant visibility from the street frontage and provisions for convenient parking. 18 . This guideline was modified to specify trees should be utilized to provide dense summertime shade over parked cars . Consideration is to be given to selecting "well behaved" trees which will not damage cars with sap or droppings, and that preserve visibility of tenant signage. 19 . This guideline was modified to ensure that screening/buffering of parking lots allows visual surveillance of the site by the Police Department, to help reduce vehicular burglaries . 21 . This guideline was not changed, however, comments included 1) eliminate provisions for compact spaces, they' re too small, 2 ) provide one size stall sized between a compact and standard size parking space, and provide some which are oversized, 3) agrees with compact stalls located along front of building but disagrees with compact spaces located along rear and side of site. Responses to these concerns are as follows : 1) compact spaces are valuable in providing more efficient utilization of property, by allowing more parking spaces or landscaping in the same amount of area; 2 ) compact stalls sizes in the City of Dublin are 8 ' x 171 , which are larger than the 7 .5 ' x 15 ' size allowed by some other cities; 3) compact stalls should be evenly distributed throughout the site and not all clustered in one portion of the site. 22 . This guideline was added to address the design and placement of handicapped parking spaces on-site. 25 . This guideline was added to address fire sprinkler valves and backflow preventers which are required by DRFA and DSRSD to be located at the front of the property. These items need to be carefully screened, but not concealed, as visible and physical access. are mandatory in emergency situations . 30 . This guideline was modified to include "utilizing landscaping and siting, in combination with fences and walls as activity separators . " II . Landscape Design 1 . This guideline was moved to the front of the section to emphasize the importance of water conservation measures within landscape designs . Compliance with City and DSRSD regulations was also added. 4 . This guideline was clarified to state "existing site conditions should be evaluated on an individual basis, as part of the environmental review process" , to identify significant trees and natural amenities on site. In addition, flexibility was worked -4- into the guideline by allowing substantial tree replacement or mitigation should the removal of a significant tree or natural amenity become unavoidable. 8 . This guideline was modified to require consideration of the growth pattern and maintenance requirements of landscaping planted on property lines, to help avoid potential conflicts between adjacent property owners resulting from the maintenance of perimeter landscaping. 9 . _ A comment was received requesting consideration of 2 ' to 3 ' minimum growing areas in parking lots, instead of the 5 ' growing area specified within the guideline. This topic was separated into three guidelines (9 , 10 & 11) addressing perimeter landscaping, landscape strips and landscape fingers, respectively. For perimeter landscaping the growing area remained unchanged, at a minimum of •5 ' . Guidelines 10 and 11 were added to permit a minimum growing area of 3 ' for landscape strips and landscape fingers within parking lots . 15 . This guideline was added to provide a buffer zone between open space areas and landscaped areas- for fire protection purposes, also known as "Fuel Modification. Zones" . 16 . This guideline was modified to allow consideration of utilizing one 24 inch box tree in place of two 15 gallon trees in landscape designs . 17 . A comment was received suggesting that trees be required to be placed as close to the street as possible. Street trees are currently placed near the street. But, by making such placement a requirement, the flexibility in the placement of trees within landscape designs may be unduly restrictive. No change was made. 18 . This guideline was modified to include the installation of root barriers/collars to prevent root damage to sidewalks, streets, utilities, etc . III Architecture/Building Design 4 . A comment was received stating that visual diversity is not necessarily important in design. This guideline was modified to state that visual diversity can be important in design. 6 . A comment was received stating that it is very tough to provide architectural detailing or treatment on all building elevations, especially for commercial or industrial projects . The guideline is intended to make developers, architects and applicants think about the visual appearance of their project from all perspectives, not just the front. No change was made. 8 . A comment was received requesting that the project budget be considered as a determining factor in the location of mechanical equipment on site. Mechanical equipment should be integrated -5- within the design of a building, and should not be treated as a separate, "add-on" , item. No change was made. 11 . This guideline was added to ensure that building addresses are visible from the street and are integrated into the building design and/or sign program. IV. Residential Design 3 . The Police Department is concerned that if parking lots are _ entirely screened from view, it will encourage automobile burglaries . This guideline was modified to state "These elements should be balanced with the need to allow visual surveillance on site. " 7 . A comment was received requesting the guideline to define "major ridgeline" . The Dublin General Plan contains policies addressing development on major ridgelines . The Site Development Review Guidelines are designed to work in conjunction with the General Plan. No change was made. 12 . This guideline was modified to require pedestrian circulation systems on site to provide physical or visual access for Police Department surveillance. V. Commercial Centers 1 . This guideline was modified to place the emphasis on enhancing the streetscape of large commercial projects . 2 . This guideline was added to encourage the _development. of outdoor activity plazas or courtyards within larger commercial developments . These amenities can induce public interaction on site. 3 . This guideline was modified to require commercial projects which are attempting to emphasize or encourage a pedestrian environment to integrate elements of pedestrian interest within the building design.. 4 . This auiH-Line was added to ensure visibility of all tenant spaces and to discourage int-arior corner units within commercial centers . 5 . This guideline was modified to emphasize safe, as well as , separate pedestrian walkways . 7 . This guideline was modified to encourage awareness of potential pedestrian connections between commercial centers and adjacent residential areas . -6- VI . Industrial Design 1 . A comment was received requesting Staff to consider developing a standard chart for stepping building heights away from residential areas ( i .e. 5 ' setback - 20 ' height limit, 10 ' setback - 30 ' height limit, etc . ) . This type of approach is very inflexible, and would not account for architectural design techniques which can provide buffering and screening. No change was made to this guideline. VII_. Signing The introduction paragraph was modified to emphasize signs designed and scaled to be compatible with the building, and recognizing that effective business identification may not always be oriented toward the business entrance. 5 . A comment was received regarding how this guideline relates to "neon" lights . This guideline addresses signs which are illuminated from external, or separate, light sources, typically freestanding monument signs . This guideline is not intended to prohibit neon lights, which the Sign Ordinance permits subject to Site' Development Review approval . No change was made to this guideline. A comment was received requesting that freestanding "pad" buildings be allowed signage on all four building elevations . The Sign Ordinance currently permits signage on a maximum of three building elevations (one primary and two secondary) . This request would require an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to allow signage on more than three building elevations . This is beyond the scope of the Site Development Review Guidelines . In addition to the specific comments received on the guidelines, some general comments were also received regarding the Site Development Review process . A request was made to consider establishing a concept review process with the Planning Commission to generate early feedback. Staff consulted the City Attc ney regarding this issue. If the Planning Commission were to consider projects at a conceptual level, they would need to do so through an additional noticed Public Hearing, which could increase the processing time and cost of applications . The Planning Commission could not consider projects which they would later vote on, outside of a public hearing forum, as it would be an infringement of the Public Hearing Due Process . In addition, it may be potentially prejudicial for the Planning Commission to offer an opinion on a project at a conceptual level, without benefit of full information. A general comment suggested that the Planning Staff be directed to help solve problems not create them. The Site Development Review Guidelines are intended to provide clear direction regarding development proposals , including the expectations of the Planning -7- Department. This should be useful in avoiding discrepancies during the application review process . Included as Attachment 5 is the Planning Department Checklist of Submittal Requirements for Site Development Review Approval . This checklist is utilized to indicate to Applicants the material required by the Planning Department to process a Site Development Review application. Another general suggestion was made to include exhibits, in addition to photos, within the Site Development Review Guidelines to better illustrate design concepts on streetscapes, landscape sections, street widths, medians, buffers, etc. Staff is preparing several typical illustrations which will be integrated with photos within the final document. Staff will prepare brief one line descriptions to accompany each photo or sketch. The Planning Commission expressed a concern regarding the picture quality within the Site Development Review Guidelines . In response to this concern, Staff proposes to have half-tone prints prepared for each photograph. This will allow the pictures to maintain a high degree of clarity within the final document when photocopied. Attachment 6 demonstrates picture quality attainable with half-tone prints . Staff has prepared a matrix as a tool to provide quick reference throughout the document. Each policy has been cross referenced with the following primary topics : SF- Single Family, MF- Multiple-Family, C- Commercial, I- Industrial, A- Architecture, P- Parking, L- Landscaping, FS- Fencing and Screening, and S- Signs . Individuals interested in only one or two aspects of the Site Development Review Guidelines will be able to use the matrix to locate the applicable guidelines . The matrix also eliminates the necessity of repeating guidelines which may apply to more than one subject. A list of the Primary Topic Abbreviations will be located at the bottom of each page of text within the final version of the Site Development Review Guidelines . This will help define the abbreviations which are used at the end of each guideline. In addition, the final matrix format will include page numbers next to the guideline number, to make it easier to find the guideline within the written text of the Site Development Review Guidelines . Staff is seeking input and direction from the City Council regarding the policies contained within the Draft Site Development Review Guidelines . After receiving the City Council comments and making any necessary revisions or clarifications, Staff will bring this item back to the City Council for adoption at a future date. -8- SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDELINES DRAFT #4 APRIL 1 , 1992 -EXHIBIT TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 I. Site Planning 2 II. Landscape Design 11 III. Architecture/Building Design 17 IV. Residential Design 22 V. Commercial Centers 28 VI. Industrial Design 31 VII. Signing 32 Appendix - SDR Guideline Matrix A - 1 INTRODUCTION Site Development Review is one of several procedures used by the City of Dublin to protect the public welfare and environment. The process is a comprehensive evaluation of those characteristics of a development which have an impact on neighboring properties and the community as a whole. Site Development Review makes a careful examination of a project's quality of site planning, architecture, landscape design and important details such as signage and lighting. The purpose is to insure that all new and remodeled development will carefully consider the community context in which it takes place and make a conscientious effort to develop a compatible relationship to the natural setting, neighboring properties and community design goals. The design policies contained in this booklet are intended to aid the Planning Department in the review of development proposals. Each of the separate sections within the Site Development Review Guidelines are intended to compliment one other. General policies stipulated within a specific section should be followed whenever applicable. The Site Development Review Guidelines have the specific purpose of aiding the implementation of the goals and objectives of the General Plan, together with the Zoning Ordinance, and other City Ordinances and Policies. The Guidelines will generally indicate the intent of overall design criteria, while the Zoning Ordinance will provide specific information regarding minimum/maximum sizes, dimensions and quantities. Development proposals should demonstrate compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the Site Development Review Guidelines and other applicable codes. A matrix is included as an Appendix to the Site Development Review Guidelines to allow for quick reference throughout the document. Each policy has been cross referenced with the following primary topics: SF- Single Family, MF- Multiple-Family, C- Commercial, I- Industrial, A- Architecture, P- Parking, L- Landscaping, FS- Fencing and Screening, and S- Signs. The Primary Topic Abbreviations are located at the end of each guideline. Individuals interested in only one or two topics will be -able to use the matrix to locate the applicable guidelines. The Planning Commission recommended adoption on January 6. 1992. The City Council adopted these Guidelines on I . SITE PLANNING Site Design and planning is important because it combines the three major elements of physical development: buildings, parking and circulation, and landscape and amenities . The Planning Department will review all applications to ensure that these three aspects are compatible, and in proper balance, with the existing or proposed area setting. The following policies have been established to meet this intent. 1 . Buildings should be designed and sited so as to provide a strong functional relationship to the site. Required side and rear yards should be utilized and should be integrated into the overall purposeful arrangement. Inaccessible yards and similar outdoor spaces which tend to encourage gathering of trash, storage, and weeds should be avoided. (SF, MF, C, I, A) 2 . Site designs should address compatibility with adjacent uses and environments . Plans should provide streetscape elevations from the public streets, especially where uses contrast with surrounding environments . (SF, MF, C, I, A) 3 . Natural site amenities should be recognized and integrated into the site design. Views, trees, creeks and similar features unique to the site should be incorporated into developmental proposals . Such features should be considered as strong site design determinants . Disruption of existing natural features., particularly older trees, should be minimized, and offset by providing other natural amenities on-site. (See photos 1 & 2 ) ( SF, MF, C, I , A, P, L) 4 . Separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems should be provided for larger projects . Pedestrian linkages between uses in commercial developments should be emphasized, including distinct pedestrian access from parking areas in large commercial developments such as shopping centers . (SF, MF, C, P) 5 . The siting and orientation of buildings should respond to both the pedestrian and vehicular nature of the street. Buildings on streets of high pedestrian use should face on and be directly accessible from the sidewalk, with no interruption by driveways or parking areas . Buildings on streets with heavy vehicular _ traffic, particularly those with no on-street parking should provide a major entry for the off-street parking area. On-street parking is not to be counted as required parking, but is recognized as providing important supplemental parking. (MF, C, I , A, P) 6 . Driveways into or out of a shopping center should not be obstructed by parking spaces . Ingress and egress driveways should be separated from parking spaces by pedestrian walkways or landscaped areas, while maintaining visual surveillance of the site. (See photo 3) (C, P, L) K ASS� � �- -� •'+_"�• �' ~ /' •.: p �y :3 k .f��1p�IF� �i � w_ .• or p+.. ..:. ; fir• ;r ,P�. .2i.L•vt P. 1�• \r d r fi . Y ti s•` i *� 1J 7 . Common driveways which provide vehicular access to more than one site are encouraged, if applicable. (C, I, P) 8 . Public and private street design, including but not limited to: street width, sidewalk, curb and gutter, street lights, etc. should meet Public Works and other department requirements . (SF, MF, C, I , A) 9 . Adequate provisions should be made for emergency vehicle and service vehicle access and turning radii. (SF, MF, C, I, P) 10 . Energy efficient designs are recognized as additional benefits to the project and the community. When possible, site orientation should give consideration to solar or energy efficiency. (SF, MF, C, I , A) 11 . Provision should be made for bicycles . Bicycle parking in multi- family residential developments shall be on an all-weather surface and should be located close to dwelling unit or residential development entrances . Bicycle parking in commercial and employment areas should be in highly visible locations, be well lighted and lockable. (MF, C, P) 12 . Early contact with the utility companies is encouraged so that pad-mounted transformers and air conditioning condensers can be integrated into the site plan and screened with landscaping or fencing. All pad fixtures and meters should be shown on the site plan. (SF, MF, C, I, L, FS) 13 . The design of water and sewer facilities should comply with the Dublin San Ramon Services District Design Guidelines . (SF, MF, C, I, L, FS) OFF STREET PARKING 14 . Parking lots should be designed with a hierarchy of circulation: major access drives with no parking; major circulation drives with little or no parking; and then parking aisles for direct access to parking spaces . Small projects may need to combine components of the hierarchy. Parking lots should be clearly and easily understandable, especially to the first time visitor. An on-site Vehicular Signing Program, utilizing a combination of signs and pavement markings, should be developed for each site. _ (MF, C, I , P, S) 15 . Parking areas should be easily accessed from the street by providing flat flares on all driveway entrances identified by the Public Works Department. In order to minimize conflicts created by vehicles entering the site and vehicles exiting parking spaces an adequate clear space behind the sidewalk, such as a setback or landscape strip, should be provided prior to starting the first parking space. (MF, C, I , P, L, FS) 16 . Circulation wits—n parking areas should not interfere with other site activities . Visitor parking should be located at the entrance of the building and clearly marked. Automobile parking shall be separated from loading areas and truck parking areas . (See photo 4 ) (MF, C, I, P, L) 17 . Off-street parking facilities which are located in front of buildings should provide a balance of tenant visibility and convenient parking. In order to improve street frontages, parking should be developed in a clustered manner, to avoid long expanses of parking. (C, P) 18 . Landscaping should be integrated into the design of all parking areas . Trees should be utilized to provide a canopy of dense summertime shade over parked cars . The canopy should be pruned up high enough to avoid damage to both trees and vehicles . As a general rule trees should be installed every 30 feet so that a minimum ratio of 1 tree per 6 automobiles is achieved. In large parking areas, or where a special design objective is desired, a lower ratio of trees to automobiles may be permitted by the Planning Director, if the intended canopy coverage is achieved. Consideration should be given to selecting a tree which is well behaved and will preserve visibility of tenant signage. (See photos 5) (MF, C, I , P, L) 19 . In order to enhance the streetscape, planting areas ( 3 ' wide minimum dimension interior, 5 ' wide minimum dimension perimeter) should be utilized to break up large .expanses of paving, visually separate masses of parked cars, and partially screen/buffer vehicles from the street. Screening/buffering should, however, allow visual surveillance of the site by the Police Department. Low lying shrubs and plants ( 18 inch maximum height) should be utilized so that the upper one-half of the vehicle remains visible. (See photo 6) (MF, C, I , P, L) 20 . Pedestrian access from the parking areas to structures should be integrated into the site design. (See photo 7 ) (MF, C, I , P) 21 . Compact .car spaces should be evenly distributed throughout the main parking lot. They should not be clustered adjacent to the building front or along the rear or sides of the site. (MF, C, I, P) 22 . Handicap parking spaces should be located closest to the primary _ building entrance. Handicap parking spaces should be designated by appropriate signs and pavement markings . The Building Department should be consulted regarding the number and location of handicap parking spaces in multi-family residential and multi- tenant commercial and industrial centers . (MF, C, I, P, S) S�Y :yY;z '�`?�F.s'sahfyu� u"� '� c�>���,,,,•��aT�`£'�£�7" ..-,:.� -, t,� ::. �1.��,'�yYFi �r,)'C. r+CFe } ��i l'?tir�_•..-�i`u+t ��t��+„�-btk•••, �� `.: ,�'tirW)'��4� s`�.L�a•7•i°Y t.*ka=.�r�`�c,s:•ti��Lr n `..1i�s?X7�'L�„��'✓ cwn `� 1SY <:• •j'• a��. .� � h: �. y T p'i't.' '1...�... •. .• � r KiFf� a.•3 Ytf+ `�f .• i' Jr..C}!-iv��`.. _ � <.' .yh•'s :- �.. 1� t'�� eq *Y„~rY lw- 3 ..r ♦ -4 7 y. 4• Vii? rr c. c / +a. l+l,< Fs Q•�': fy . ' �, :•/ . -x•.77. � • . 4 V } 1,,5,.���\��;•� �+f � &y-•`Ayr�"riQS •, ;r T` • 'l � r�� yet � rt �,CC.'�-=n U• ---':" a•.�. �;,`� �:�i��. _ _ � mil, ' ,��sy 9p: FENCING AND SCREENINu 23 . The design of fencing, sound walls, carports, trash enclosures storage yards and similar accessory site elements should be compatible with the architecture of main buildings, and should use similar materials . (See photo 8) (SF, MF, C, I, A, FS) 24 . All exterior trash and storage utility boxes, electric and gas meters, transformers, air conditioning equipment, satellite dishes, etc . should be screened -from view wherever possible. Generally, all such elements should be located at the rear of the site, and should not have direct access from the street. The applicant should coordinate the location of these elements with the appropriate utility company. (SF, MF, C, I, FS) 25 . The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority and the Dublin San Ramon Services District should be consulted regarding the location and screening of fire sprinkler valves and backflow preventers . These items should be visibly and physically accessible in emergency situations . (MF, C, I , L, FS) 26 . Adequate fencing and walls should be provided to preserve privacy and security of adjacent residential uses . (SF, MF, C, I, FS) 27 . Security fences which restrict access (concrete block walls or heavy timber fences) or maintain surveillance visibility (chain link fences) should blend in with the site ' s architecture. (SF, MF, C, I , A, FS) 28 . Uphill fencing in subdivisions that is irregular and visible from collector and arterial streets should receive architectural treatment in design or material selection to minimize its prominence. (SF, MF, A, L, FS) 29 . Where fencing is used at property frontages, it should enhance the entrance to the property, complement the building' s architecture and should not impair traffic safety by obscuring views . (SF, MF, C, I, A, L, FS) 30 . Where conflicting activities between residential and non- residential sites are adjacent to each other, consideration should be given to utilizing landscaping and siting, in combination with fences and walls, as activity separators . (SF, MF, C, I , A, L, FS) - 31 . Fencing that encompasses considerable land in highly visible areas should be of a type that preserves security and views on- site, as well as views from off-site. Fencing viewed from off- site should not impact the community' s scenic view potential . (SF, MF, C, I, FS) 32 . Long expanses of fence or wall surfaces should be architecturally designed to prevent monotony through the use of pilasters, bollards, differing materials, etc. (See photo 9) (SF, MF, C, I , A, L, FS) w• f .,...�7....,tit�`xs�rr^"''s� a��..n-� �•r.,u E j l"r b'd �'E�r�FP�f p'.rr,. + csr:'r , raa�� :►t I,�t �-,z�. �{,ix �r x.,+,,, .''4.�;>�.z —.� P •tip,�_ 1, +i 'n Va..tis•_ .y.,,. r I.f.J} � Sri� =1 ,�l,\i j.•�' yk� .*•, 3Kx. a J4 'S-; ,�j. p .•— ',h '', r 4 -/a+ a )0��r� n p•/a i ` fl '''t,�•f;. i 1 •f': tt / a C1. r�'r ( +r4v '�^'a4 .. fla,�yal�,?S.w}a '�'?r`j Y' V✓� j rFr,r (« rR r } Y• ♦c{� >iP}'�!�, T�{IS, '�• � .�� 'f�^fd .1t'�zl{' �..(?JI C +P vl `tt °f�.,, l 7 f !' t� -x.�;-• 1.1 ` + / � trP II,`I�x y,, ♦ ji,11! fit" t `r } �7+ L1 �( �-. ' Pr{ � ." l,�x jj r` P'er ��'!xy.:, ♦� ! C j P ;�, ° -�ff� l /� r `, �r . f� 11 r it•�'.._:. , h 1 4 w ✓!N If- EXTERIOR LIGHTING 33 . Exterior lighting should be an integral part of the architectural and landscape design of a project. Overall lighting levels should be compatible with the neighborhood ambient light level, and comply with current building and security code requirements . Area lighting should be predominantly down-directed, and should be designed so that light is not directed off the site. (SF, MF, C, I , A, L) 34 .- Area lighting for security and visibility should be provided by fixtures which are compatible and consistent with the building design. (MF, C, I, A) 35 . Fixture mounting height- should be appropriate to the project and the environment, while avoiding glare and minimizing light intrusion. (SF, MF, C, I, A) II . LANDSCAPE DESIGN All landscape plans should exhibit a concept or theme. Landscaping is more than an arrangement of plant materials with irrigation. Landscaping plans should utilize plant materials in a logical, orderly manner, which would define spatial organization, relate to buildings and structures, and which would incorporate various site elements . Landscaping can define areas by helping to focus on entrances, exits, loading areas, parking lots, define the edges of various land uses and provide transition between neighboring properties . The following policies have been established to meet this intent. 1 . Water conservation measures need to be incorporated into landscape designs, in accordance with applicable City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District regulations . (SF, MF, C, I , L) 2 . There should be a consistency of landscape design throughout a development. Unrelated and/or random choice or placement of plant materials should be avoided. All areas within a development need not be identical . Different landscape themes may be utilized in larger developments; for example, to heighten the distinction between spaces, and to strengthen a sense of movement and place, but such themes should be internally consistent. (See photos 10) (SF, . MF, C, I, L) 3 . The scale and function of landscape materials should be appropriate to the site and/or structures . Large scale buildings generally should be complemented by large-scale landscaping. Where shade is desired, broad-spreading canopy type trees are appropriate. Landscaping of sites on major streets should include large-scale trees . (SF, MF, C, I , A, L) 4 . Existing landscape elements should be incorporated into the landscape design. Mature existing trees and tree groupings as well as rock outcroppings should be considered as design determinants . Existing site conditions should be evaluated on an individual basis, as part of the environmental review process, to identify trees on site which are significant and would require protection. These trees should be listed on the site plan and landscape plans . Measures should be taken to protect the - existing significant trees . If tree removal is unavoidable, substantial tree replacement or mitigation will be required. Buildings should be located outside of the dripline of major trees, and disturbance of roots and changes in ground elevation should be avoided. (See photo 11) (SF, MF, C, I , L) 5 . Landscape plans should incorporate various site elements . Outdoor lighting, signing, parking, trash receptacles, fencing, garden walls, planters, etc. , should be carefully considered as integral elements of the landscape design and should be included in, and shown, on, all landscape plans . (SF, MF, C, I, A, P, L, FS, S) tV � � I• ` { rye J�`+�'xi��t�k !J�I t. t A�S�� ` rt n'tsw �' i' +��� l�.r ��' 7����N��� r�- r3 `m I`�rt.�� #FeTTF 1 �{ ��,R• �r I fir, �7► 't~. a.) � - ���� ��_r`� ,tai•�A���r��t yt ,�'��JJr`, '�. *yti� .y,_ '••`ya` .. ,f F� , � � t F `• S �• s.�. ' •w'i't F•,k- $:- ,, � ' 6 . Landscaping shu--d not be utilized to scream__ out an otherwise unacceptable building. Building architecture should stand on its own with landscaping incorporated as an integral and complimenting element of overall project design. (SF, MF, C, I , A, L, FS) 7 . Landscaping incorporated into building design is encouraged. Trellises, arbors, and cascading type landscaping should be considered. (See photo 12) (MF, C, I, A, L) 8 . Perimeter landscaping is encouraged. It should provide buffer, screening and appropriate transition to adjacent properties and should generally include trees, shrubs and groundcover. Consideration should be given to the growth pattern and maintenance requirements of landscaping planted adjacent to property lines . (MF, C; I, L, FS) 9 . Where automobile bumpers overhang into perimeter landscaping there must be adequate growing area, typically five feet wide, outside of the two foot bumper overhang. (See photo 13) (MF, C, I, P, L) 10 . Where automobile bumpers overhang into landscape strips there must be adequate growing area, typically three feet wide, outside of the two foot bumper overhang. (MF, C, I, P, L) 11 . A minimum one foot wide raised curb or equivalent should be provided on landscape fingers adjacent to parking stalls to allow for pedestrian access . There must be adequate growing area, typically three feet wide, within the landscape fingers . (MF, C, I , P, L) 12 . Generally, a limited palette of landscape materials is suggested. The use of indigenous or native-type plant materials is encouraged. The use of exotic or "foreign" materials is generally discouraged. In high use areas, landscaping should be suitable for the anticipated activity levels . (SF, MF, C, I , L) 13 . Ground cover should predominantly consist of live plant materials . Inert materials such as gravel, bark, colored rock may be used in conjunction with, but are not acceptable as a substitute for, vegetation. (SF, MF, C, I, P, L) 14 . Appropriate irrigation is required for all landscaped areas; _ generally, an automatic, underground system with separate irrigation meters is required. Said irrigation systems should be designed so as not to overspray walks, buildings, fences, roadways, etc. (MF, C, I, P, L) 15 . A buffer zone between open space areas and landscaped areas should be provided for fire protection purposes . (SF, MF, C, I, L) gat �����nr'�'}-� .��`. • . PHOTO 12 — GUIDELINE # II .7 ri a ' � r �r:��� �s,y x.� a'7�' -; •�.�.� ,�.:a �,= 'xr" r .yyar .[ +? _f" t �.,er�• � 1dt,���kkrt � d � � "nf�'�+�R �K�ah i..� a�vSar"`, 4 c, -rtk'�.' � w�.fsi'✓ '�iv' "�s.�'�.w.•k' `,�i.6,�. � �..Y�wx"r�`�dw� s Ufa�'�*� �q �?'9'' � ' �" q`"�.'�i,�+,ia.'�'' f.r�,./ a � ._ "'"' 4� yr 'S - ,b`'� �+ 'd, �f f" .•'` i g, � 1 PHOTO 13 — GUIDELINE # II.9 STREET TREES 16 . Street trees are required for all developments, 15 gallon minimum size. Consideration may be given to utilizing one 24 inch box tree in place of two 15 gallon trees . (SF, MF, C, I, L) 17 . Street trees should be pruned to develop high shade canopies, compliment the street frontage and maintain visibility of commercial tenant signage. (SF, MF, C, I, L) 18 ." Arterial and major streets should use a tree that creates a bold and sustained effect. On collector and residential streets the street trees should provide summer shade, interesting structure in the winter, and scale appropriate for the area. Adequate growing space must be provided to accommodate both the above and below grade characteristics of the specified tree. Where required, root barriers/collars should be installed to prevent root damage to sidewalks, streets, utilities, etc. (See photo 14 ) (SF, MF, C, I, L) 19 . Ornamental or flowering trees can be used as accent trees or on certain streets where a particular dramatic effect may be appropriate. (SF, MF, C, I, L) 20 . Street trees should represent a size relationship with the streetscape, i .e. , the wider the street the bigger the trees . Design consideration should be focused on space requirements of the selected trees at all phases of their life cycle. Soils, underground obstruction, overhead constraints, mature tree size, and shadow patterns are examples of design consideration. (See I photo 15) (SF, MF, C, I, L) 21 . Street trees should be properly planted in terms of soil conditioning, and multiple staking should be maintained for an adequate period of time to assure the healthy establishment of the tree. (SF, MF, C, I, L) �s 7 I t + s. 77 4�•-�' i � -1 r �t A•'.r''�4 y ,"•' 't AA • `�..�� '. �, c 1. `','.� t.rc 1a�'�. J���"�":6 1":. s �°k�`< #�� �� y4 Rfu,...1 k .„,�..�v,, h ':,•fit: •'a':!�'�' •/ � '_l, �'..3.. L���i c 12 a ;. ` 10 ttzz s*n III . ARCHITECTURE/BUILDING DESIGN No single architectural or building design theme is required in Dublin. Good architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purpose, its environment and its relationship of materials and proportion. Good architectural character is not, in itself, more expensive than poor architectural character. Themes may be established for selected parts of the community but they are directed more towards standards of quality and compatibility than achieving a uniform appearance. The following policies have been established to meet this intent. 1 . Buildings should achieve a human scale and interest. Buildings should exemplify a sense of proportion to the physical site and surrounding properties . Wall insets, balconies and window projections, etc. , are examples of building elements which may help produce a proportionate building and reduce the scale of larger buildings . (See photo 16) (SF, MF, C, I, A) 2 . Building entries should be protected from the elements and should create a "sense of entry" or focal point for the structure. (See photos 17) (SF, MF, C, I, A) 3 . Multiple buildings on the same site should be designed to create a strong visual relationship between -the buildings . When the first portion of a site is to be- developed, a concept plan should be submitted for the entire site. (MF, C, I, A) 4 . A transition from low building on the street frontages to larger and taller structures on the interior of the project is generally encouraged. Visual diversity can be important in design. (See photo 18) (MF, C, I, A) 5 . Each phase of a phased development should attain a visual completeness . Temporary barriers/walls should be painted and trimmed to integrate with the permanent construction. (SF, MF, C, I , A, FS) 6 . All building elevations should be considered for some architectural or sculptural treatment in order to avoid the blank wall effect. Where long buildings are utilized, visual relief - should be provided by changes in the building height, wall plane, landscape integration, and spatial volumes and by varied use of window areas, arcades, materials and roof elements . (See photo 19) (SF, MF, C, I, A, L) 7 . Parapet walls should be treated as an integral part of the building design. Such walls should not stick out as unrelated visual elements . (MF, C, I, A) 1 � ... ...�4"`.a �� yn,r_>,�..,,�'n� •�,e--sip J°`rp�_ •:A wry. - .i �' . __ '_•-. -.._. < _ t 7 _ 1.: __.r:::_a»'��=p�»e� �Y4it1:^dlts „r>�t_::•� ��y�p ... ., HOME AUTO b sµA,'?t'.. 4 j 1P, pvr t �• .:.+ �sl+.y.c�+� .� "•r...:�"�}i'rn r 'laT,dr�T.,� �5 �+.. A+�� .�'�-�'`r`h'/as :1�' Y.:4,•Rr C�}`.#' �'i�� t}�,df,.� � Y .' a'i?n„��,.;. .�sa.,+F.t A =�a �,.,, 8 . Exposed rooftops should be treated as visua--y sensitive areas . Rooftop mechanical equipment is not prohibited, but its design and screening should be incorporated into the building design and should not appear "cluttered" . Location of such equipment within the building or at ground level is preferable to roof-mounting, unless so locating it would adversely affect the streetscape and/or pedestrian circulation or open space. (SF, MF, C, I, A, FS) 9 . Building color should be compatible with the neighborhood and should reinforce the visual character of the environment of the proposed buildings . Integral coloring of concrete, stucco, and similar materials is encouraged. Bright colors may be used to provide an attractive and distinctive accent to the building. (SF, MF, C, I, A) 10 . The choice of materials, colors, signs, and the level of detailing should be thoughtfully integrated into the design of all building elevations . Avoid "false" or "decorative" facade treatments, where unrelated materials are placed on buildings . All elevations need not look alike; however, a sense of overall architectural continuity should be demonstrated. (SF, MF, C, I, A, S) 11 . Building addresses which are clearly visible from the roadway should be integrated into the building design and/or sign program for the site. (SF, MF, C, I, A, S) 12 . Highly reflective materials, such as mirrored glass, should be carefully integrated into the building design to minimize impacts resulting from glare. These materials may be considered as secondary or accent materials but are discouraged as the primary or base finish material of a building. (SF, MF, C, I , A) s 13 . Temporary buildings (portable offices and construction trailers) should have design features similar to permanent buildings . Landscaping is encouraged. (SF, MF, C, I , A, L) 14 . Metal buildings should be architecturally designed and compatible with surrounding buildings . Avoid exposing the shallow pitch eave lines, the steel box look and openings punched into the building in a manner that does not contribute to a completed design. (C, I , A) 15 . Attached structures such as solar heat collector panels, antennas, satellite dishes, etc. should be integrated into the project architecture. (SF, MF, C, I, A) 16 . The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes, etc. should be recognized and integrated within the architectural design of the site and/or building. (SF, MF, C, I, A) 17 . Outside vending machines and fixtures (incl_ _1ng automatic teller machines) and other assorted mechanical fixtures or devices should be incorporated into the architecture or design of the building or site. They should not look as though applied or adhered to the building, and should not unduly call attention to themselves . Instruction and identification boxes and other necessary items should be integrated into the design of the fixture. (C, I , A, FS) IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN Residential development should be designed in a manner which assures that neighborhoods are safe, pleasant and distinctive places to live. Residential development should also maintain and improve the overall appearance of Dublin. The following policies have been established to meet this intent. 1 . Protect the core of residential neighborhoods from through traffic. (SF, MF, A, L) 2 . An overall design theme should be provided to create visual continuity. (SF, MF) 3 . Design should provide sufficient architectural diversity to avoid monotony and provide visual interest. Designs which result in long lines of parked cars or blank garage doors are discouraged. Typical elements which can add architectural diversity are wing walls, roof design, trim, floor overhangs, building or unit offsets, window boxes, bays, balconies, porches, trellis, chimneys, or combinations of the above. These elements should be balanced with the need to allow visual surveillance on site. (See photo 20 & 21) (SF, MF, A, P, L, FS) 4 . Building entries should be clearly identified and protected from the weather. (SF, MF, A) 5 . Projects with multiple buildings should provide subtle variety in building size and massing, while maintaining a sense of overall architectural continuity. Buildings should relate to each other to create positive architectural and spatial relationships . (SF, MF, A) 6 . Design elements used at entries should consolidate the theme of the development, and signage should be well thought-out in an effort to communicate the development' s planned image. The main entries to a development are an important part of its definition, identity, and distinctiveness . They create the threshold for change from the public thoroughfares to the more private, quiet environment of the neighborhoods . They should be clearly understandable to the first time visitor. (See photo 22 ) (SF, _. MF, A, S) 7 . Surrounding ridgelines should be preserved or enhanced. The tops of structures near major ridgelines should be below the perceived skyline as viewed from freeways and major arterial streets . (SF, MF, A) 8 . Roof lines that pitch or step in opposite directions to the slope of the land are discouraged. (SF, MF, A) rk�'y+���'lr �If`��. . f.J �� � � ', H ;. „r, � •�'L'i'ndk';,,; f.Yy;. ,CF{� t��i rty�C r�•` J `'`� `�; .' f? tf e kS r ` ' Jf Y yi •i� t ���. y i t7•y��)Y1-d..C:fi P,1,t�rr7oQQ. �' '� ��,�. 'tea. _ - .A • _ ;� am AA v �. ^x ). i`* ,ct_•Y� ++•" `��iy,y� ti} +w h«s15„w�tN .iyS, �.^ 1Y a �.-':•-�.�.=.-Y•.r4 �Yr�.y�-��.�'',F+>w- �:K •s•+y'�'l r�'` t�.�'j".�i741 k"'�a5,«� �•f t t 3i..x" i e ,.`a°'r-.-�v i x:.._ r.tc�z*re+.•�.:.... .�.,N.w.,°bk�,w r , r,,.al,_:>}. ^'i.i ,ti�u:• � -w --c. 9 . Design should consider all possible areas oi energy conservation. Available sunlight for each unit should be maximized. The layout of development, the siting of structures, and the materials selected can influence long-term energy requirements . (SF, MF, A) 10 . Required noise attenuation measures, such as sound walls, should be architecturally compatible with the building design and landscaping. (SF, MF, A, L, FS) 11 . Encourage pedestrian walkways/access from residential areas to adjacent commercial and service areas . (SF, MF, C) 12 . Pedestrian access to residential developments should not depend solely on driveways and access roads . The pedestrian circulation system should be safely integrated with the vehicular circulation system or, if separated; must provide physical or visual access for Police Department surveillance. (SF, MF, P) 13 . Satellite dishes, air conditioning equipment, trash enclosures and mechanical and utility structures should be enclosed by architecturally compatible elements or screened from views off- site. (SF, MF, A, FS) MULTIPLE-FAMILY 14 . Careful consideration should be given to the design and layout of floor plans for adjacent units in order to minimize potential noise impacts resulting from incompatible uses ( i .e. placing living rooms next to, or above, bedrooms) . (MF, A) 15 . Carports, light fixtures, fences, mailboxes and trash enclosures should be integrated into the overall project design. (See photo 23) (MF, A, FS) 16 . Carports or open parking areas should be screened in a way that auto headlights do not shine into living areas . (MF, A, L, FS) 17 . Garages with parking aprons less than the standard length of twenty feet should provide automatic garage door openers with sectional roll up doors . (MF, P) 18 . If washing machines and dryers and not provided within the individual units, then common laundry facilities should be incorporated into the overall design of multiple-family projects . - (MF, A) i 19 . In addition to required parking, all multiple family residential units should be provided with adequate (typically 120 cubic feet) exterior enclosed storage space easily accessible to each unit, which is lockable and water-proofed. (MF, A) I PHOTO 23 - GUIDELINE # IV.15 OPEN SPACE 20 . Both "Private" and "Common" usable open space should be provided in multiple-family residential developments . (MF, L) 21 . "Private" usable open space for each dwelling unit should be directly accessible from the unit, and should be big enough to permit adequate outdoor living opportunities . (MF, L) 22 . "Common" open space areas should not consist solely of required setbacks, linear strips or incidental remote areas used for buffering, berming and screening. "Common" open space areas should be adequate in size and configuration to provide an environment which will encourage community activities and other amenities . (MF, L, FS) 23 . The location of "Common" open space areas should take into account the prevailing winds and solar orientation. "Common" open space areas should be located for use by all the residents, with the largest and most usable open space areas provided closest to the portions of the development with the highest density/intensity. (MF, L) 24 . Adequate pedestrian access to "Common" open space areas should be provided which flows from the interior of the development and connects with each other and the streetscape, wherever possible. (See photo 24 ) (MF, L) 25 . Housing design should encourage the possibility of community interaction while affording privacy between living units . Privacy within each unit and its immediate outdoor space should be a major design consideration, however an effort should be made through the placement of units to allow a "Common" open space pathway for public interaction. (See photo 25) (MF, A, L) 26 . Units should orient towards the "Common" open space areas whenever possible. Units oriented to parking should be setback and landscaped to sufficiently screen parked vehicles . (See photo 26 ) (MF, A, P, L) 27 . Adequate play areas with safe and durable play equipment should be provided in all projects likely to have children. These play areas should be located where .surveillance is practical and noise impacts are minimized. (MF, L) ..�� �q _ t •.�4 ,,tom. ��b�'a'� T:1 r r 1, rn PPM •� ` yl .z t Yom+���' 'z/ '� I ? ' Z +tiA. ��'Za•,� ,5 :� t < ^. .1•?..•.. ;j`'t .,..tzi. '—rtP"��i6[ `lIL . -c _t • ' �„o� � �,��1 -•may 3 t F re- :• ,. III(I� !elll> gw t`+a• �m S`•o. lr?`..• '.-R ,,.. fiL"` cx fx` 3'1*' ,r.w m�t+..r y_..,-",..,..•c�t..,.,,�_ i ��.t,�,yy_�_ S 1�t i V. COMMERCIAL CENTERS A unified architectural or building design theme should be incorporated into each commercial center. Building materials, colors, textures, etc. , should be consistent. Individual storefronts may vary to reflect the character of the store, but the overall theme of the Center must be respected. Additions and alterations must be consistent with and enhance the design theme. The following policies have been established to meet this intent. 1 . In order to enhance the streetscape of large commercial sites, off-street parking areas should be clustered and carefully screened. Screening can be achieved by utilizing landscape treatment, which allows visual surveillance, or by locating a portion of the building area along the perimeter of the site. However, consideration should be given to ensure that such siting does not "enclose" the project. (See photo 27) (C, P, A, L, FS) 2 . Encourage larger commercial developments to provide outdoor activity plazas or courtyards to enhance public and civic interaction and events . (See photo 28 & 29) (C, A) 3 . In commercial projects which emphasize a pedestrian environment, the ground floor level of buildings should include display windows, courtyard entrances and other elements of pedestrian interest. (C, A) 4 . Commercial centers should be designed to provide visibility for all tenant spaces, especially interior corner units . All tenant spaces should be oriented toward the interior of the center or toward the adjacent street. (C, A) 5 . Textured or colored paving materials should be utilized to identify safe and separate on-site pedestrian walkways . (See photo 30) (C, P) 6 . Service areas should be visually screened from pedestrian, customer and vehicular circulation areas . (C, I, FS) 7 . Commercial centers abutting residential areas should be sensitive to noise, visual, light penetration, operational impacts and _ potential pedestrian connections . (SF, MF, C, A, FS) 8 . Adequate street furniture and accessories should be provided and should be compatible with the architectural design of the building. (C, A) 9 . A unifying lighting concept should be incorporated into the center, including uniform fixtures and mounting locations for pedestrian, vehicular and architectural elements . (C, I, A, P) i .I f�•t� ._ ,t♦ �Ar ` 5f�• a' ,,'fit' �Z. r ys. _ t KCB 1 , � :'I (, N �T�• '"� A`. ._ �i�. � r,• � ' - -:i:i 3 � ,.f, �`�..fir r • . . _ ,ter � a• _ l c.'a. V�V pr. 4 IN �; • f yy MIT r I �y1*�3 i... Cf.. •t ti - .. VI . INDUSTRIAL DESIGN A unified architectural or building design theme -should be incorporated into each industrial center. Building materials, colors, textures, etc. , should be consistent. Additions and alterations must be consistent with and enhance the design theme. The following policies have been established to meet this intent. 1 . In areas where industrial uses are near residential uses, height and setbacks should be compatible. (SF, MF, I) 2 . To alleviate the unsightly appearance of loading facilities for industrial uses, these facilities should not be located at the front of structures . Backing from the street onto the site for loading into front end docks causes traffic congestion and leads to unsafe truck maneuvering. ( I, P, FS) 3 . When it is not possible to locate loading facilities at the rear of- the building, loading docks and loading doors should not dominate the frontage and should be screened from the street by landscaping or architecturally treated and should be offset from driveway openings . ( I, A, P, L, FS) 4 . Adequate on-site staging areas should be supplied for trucks waiting to load and unload in order to maintain safe and efficient on-site circulation. The use of the public street for parking and staging of trucks awaiting loading is unsightly and unsafe. ( I, P) VII . SIGNING All signing should be designed and scaled to be compatible with the building upon which it is attached. Sign concepts and location should be architecturally incorporated during the design of the building, in order to provide attractive and effective business identification. The following policies have been established to meet this intent. 1 . Sign Programs should be prepared for multiple occupancy buildings . Overall design compatibility is ensured by such programs . The program should promote the identifying name or address of the building and should allow for conveniently located directories to identify multiple tenants . (See photos 31 & 32) (C, I, A, S) 2 . The design of freestanding signs should be sensitively tied to the building design. Sign heights should be comparable with neighboring sign heights and above all should enhance the streetscape. (MF, C, I, A, S) 3 . Attached signs should not project over the eave, ridge or parapet line. (C, I , A, S) 4 . The use of individual letters for signs is preferred over "cabinet" signs . Individual letters typically provide more effective and attractive identification. (See photo 33) (C, I, A, S) 5 . The light source of externally illuminated signs should be shielded or be out of the public ' s view. (MF, C, I, A, S) 6 . Original signs or reproductions of such signs in historic areas are encouraged. (See photo 34) (C, I, A, S) 7 . Sign "letters" should be illuminated rather than the background area, to eliminate harsh and unsafe glare created by illuminated white backgrounds . (See photo 35) (C, I, A, S) 8 . Building design should provide areas for attractive and effective signage. (C, I , A, S) WI 1fi i - — PHOTO 31 - GUIDELINE # VII. 1 MALL LOCKS M+�..w a��i�irk� (�—a-eTRAVEL _ f r PHOTO 32 - GUIDELINE # VII.l T 2',,,�Z,i'�,`k�l�'`y�l k��.� .a� '� y �~� ���� " r�^��� �� Y��•s,_i.�""S t�s ?ti 4 'S x•51 y`.\�"r�s�� � .r�-,�-� ?���..���`'�''�r�a:.° "'mac. •r �; '\ �'�',-��ti...-� a fC'<2.�-,r ��y��.'c.1.'•� '��4 ��i.;.?'n �.-�x e-� �' .•�.� �=7Z ,s y��_�>.��=?,�"`2•4_Z f:`y �.r;y��„'{=s `�•w�t+i':�:y{rr -., r�� -+. ,i 'y�� ''� v, s � ��+a ji 37 s•S 3 ``g. ,�,._ Y n.. �3? `i�;rw �'}� ;``�.4..,�s�:+RSa cy �, 1 ^� `St 4_. � s....'CIL_..r.L-..-...x.-.� .4�.�a>'i:.__. ..��-•:'..._...V...�.. .�,.s.1 ».�:. �•.!.. ..1�--` •'r PHOTO 33 - GUIDELINE # VII.4 �R O f� r v O V I A Z A + ... �f%R�") ,� -'lA iiy 5 p;t 4�5�'� a�j.3•'��ti� Jy � 5 M.Litt 0 APPENDIX S.LI'E DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDh_.LNES MATRIX (Primary Topics) Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S SITE PLANNING I . 1 X X X X X 1 . 2 X X X X X 1 . 3 X X X X X X X 1 .4 X X X X 1 , 5 X X X X X 1 . 6 X X X 1 . 7 X X X 1 . 8 X X X X X 1 , 9 X X X X X I . 10 X X X X X I . 11 X X X 1 . 12 X X X X X X 1 . 13 X X X X X X 1 . 14 X X X X X 1 . 15 X X X X X X 1 . 16 X X X X X 1 . 17 X X I . 18 X X X X X 1 , 19 X X X X X _ 1 .20 X X X X 1 . 21 X X X X 1 .22 X X X X X 1 .23 X X X X X X Primary Topic Abbreviations SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening I - Industrial S - Signs A - Architecture A - 1 (Primary Topics, Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S I . 24 X X X X X I . 25 X X X X X I . 26 X X X X X I . 27 X X X X X X I . 28 X X X X X I . 29 X X X X X X X I . 30 X X X X X X X I . 31 X X X X X I . 32 X X X X X X X I . 33 X X X X X X I . 34 X X X X I . 35 X X X X X LANDSCAPING II . 1 X X X X X II . 2 X X X X X II . 3 X X X I X X X II . 4 X X X X X II . 5 X X X X X X X X X II . 6 X X X X X X X II . 7 X X X X X II . 8 X X X X X _ II . 9 X X X X X II . 10 X X X X X II . 11 X X X X X II . 12 X X X X X Primary Topic Abbreviations SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening I - Industrial S - Signs A - Architecture A - 2 (Primary Topics Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S 11 . 13 X X X X X X II . 14 X X X X X II . 15 X X X X X II . 16 X X X X X II . 17 X X X X X II . 18 X X X X X II . 19 X X X X X II . 20 X X X X X II . 21 X X X X X ARCHITECTURE/ BUILDING DESIGN III . 1 X X X X X III . 2 X X X X X III . 3 X X X X III .4 X X X X III . 5 X X X X X X III . 6 X X X X X X III . 7 X X X X III . 8 X X X X X X III . 9 X X X X X III . 10 X X X X X X III . 11 X X X X X X III . 12 X X X X X III . 13 X X X X X X III . 14 X X X III . 15 X X X X X Primary Topic Abbreviations SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening I - Industrial S - Signs A - Architecture A - 3 (Primary Topics, Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S III . 16 X X X X X III . 17 X X X X RESIDENTIAL DESIGN IV. 1 X X IV. 2 X X X X IV. 3 X X X X X X IV. 4 X X X IV. 5 X X X IV. 6 X X X X IV. 7 X X X IV. 8 X X X IV. 9 X X X IV. 10 X X X X X IV. 11 X X X IV. 12 X X X IV. 13 X X X X IV. 14 X X IV. 15 X X X IV. 16 X X X X IV. 17 X X IV. 18 X X IV. 19 X X IV. 20 X X IV. 21 X X IV.22 X X X Primary Topic Abbreviations SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening I - Industrial S - Signs A - Architecture A - 4 (Primary Topics; Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S IV. 23 X X IV.24 X X IV.25 X X X IV.26 X X X X IV.27 X X COMMERCIAL DESIGN V. 1 X X X X X V. 2 X X V. 3 X X V. 4 X X V. 5 X X V. 6 X X X V. 7 X X X X X V. 8 X X V. 9 X X X X INDUSTRIAL DESIGN VI . 1 X X X VI . 2 X X X VI . 3 X X X X X VI . 4 X X - SIGNAGE VII . 1 X X X X VII . 2 X X X X X VII . 3 X X X X Primary Topic Abbreviations SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening I - Industrial S - Signs A - Architecture A - 5 (Primary Topics Guideline SF MF C I A P L FS S VII .4 X X X X VII .5 X X X X X VII . 6 X X X X VII . 7 X X X X VII . 8 X X X X Primary Topic Abbreviations SF - Single-Family Residential P - Parking . MF - Multi-Family Residential L - Landscaping C - Commercial FS - Fencing and Screening I - Industrial S - Signs A - Architecture A - 6 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Review of Draft Site Development Review Guidelines Cm. Burnham opened the new business and asked for the staff report. - Mr. Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. He indicated the guidelines are procedures for the, city to protect the public welfare and the environment. He presented a slide show of each major component of design criteria that defined the basic principles of Site Development Review and requested that questions be held to the end of each presentation. He indicated Staff was seeking input and direction from the Commission to forward to the City Council regarding the Site Development Review Guidelines . Site Planning Mr. Choy explained that the site planning policies combine the three major elements of developments : buildings, parking & circulation, and landscape & amenities . Applications are reviewed to ensure that they are compatible, and in proper balance with the existing or proposed area setting. Cm. North questioned the use of deciduous and evergreen trees . Mr. Tong explained that deciduous trees help provide shelter from the sun in the summertime and allow sunlight to filter through during the winter, whereas an evergreen tree might -also provide some protection from the rain. Cm. North stated there are 'certain types of oak trees that do not lose their leaves , nor grow as tall, called a brown oak. He stated if the purpose was to have a tree that provides a canopy of shade, then why not restrict it to one that does not lose its leaves . Mr. Tong explained Staff is seeking a balance between various elements and how well a particular tree would fit into the overall landscaping. Cm. North stated that from an economical point, most deciduous trees are less expensive. - Mr. Choy suggested having the deciduous trees located next to the building, whereas you would have shade in the summer and light in the winter. Cm. North stated the leaves of deciduous trees need to be raked and cti.sposed of, causing a lot of problems . Cm. Zika disagreed with Cm. North; he liked trees with leaves on them,. He also questioned the distribution of compact parking spaces and asked if there was a ratio of compact parking spaces for businesses . -------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-114 September 16 , 1991 [9-16 ] ATTACHMENT I Mr. Choy stated 35% of the required parking spaces for businesses may be designated for compact vehicles . Ms . O' Halloran indicated the Parking Ordinance does not address compact spaces but Staff has been allowing them at a 35% ratio; this number comes from the condominium guidelines established by the City. - Cm. Zika suggested that the compact parking spaces be placed further away from the front of the building. . Mr. Fong stated that Staff has attempted to intersperse the compact parking spaces with the regular size spaces so that there is a mixture throughout the parking areas . Cm. Zika stated that the problem is people will park a regular size car in a compact size parking space. Mr. Tong stated that the objective is to mix the compact stalls throughout the parking area to accommodate them and at the same time, discourage the larger cars from parking in a smaller area. Cm. Burnham asked what the difference in size was between a compact and regular parking space . Ms . O'Halloran indicated a compact parking space is 8 ' wide and 17 ' deep as compared to a regular parking space which is 9 ' wide and 20 ' deep. Cm. Burnham asked what the advantage is for compact spaces . Mr. Choy indicated that one more space can be squeezed into an area that may be required for a project. He also stated that car sizes are becoming smaller and more people are driving smaller cars . Cms . Burnham and North inquired as to the benefit to the City of compact parking spaces . Mr. Tong indicated that compact parking spaces utilize an area more efficiently such as providing for additional landscaping and pedestrian walkways . Cm. Barnes indicated she hopes that the City does not go above the 35% allotment, because many compact cars currently use regular size _ parking spaces . She also expressed her preference for using deciduous trees . She stated that many parking lots manage to clean up a lot of other things along with raking up the leaves . She asked what the impact would be by lowering the 35% compact car allotment, and inquired if landscaping would be sacrificed. Mr. Tong stated that landscaping is not necessarily sacrificed as you would be establishing a lower threshold. Cm. Barnes asked for clarification of double striping of parking spaces. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-115 September 16 , 1991 [9-16 ] Mr. Tong indicated that double striping does not effect the parking space size . However, he stated it does effectively help people park their cars within the designated space. Cm. Barnes expressed that the City of Dublin has very adequate parking, and felt a lot of our parking lot problems are due to an insufficient amount of shopping cart rack spaces . Cm. North concurred that there should be more shopping cart rack spaces . Mr. Tong indicated that the space saved by utilizing the compact parking stalls could be used for a shopping cart rack. Cm. Barnes reiterated her request to have more shopping cart racks . Mr. Tong indicated that shopping cart racks would be something to consider as a Site Development Review guideline as the City does not have a shopping cart rack ratio at this point. Cm. North asked if there was a ratio for handicapped parking spaces . Mr. Choy indicated that handicapped parking spaces was handled through the State Title 24 requirements . Mr. Tong concurred that handicapped parking spaces was handled through State law and that there is an actual schedule put out by the State and enforced through the Building Department, both the number as well as the physical signage dimensions . Cm. Rafanelli asked if grading the site -for proper drainage falls under the Site Development Review guidelines . Mr. Tong indicated that is something that is checked primarily by the Building and Engineering Departments . The Building Codes require that there is positive drainage around the house at the time it is finalled. However, the homeowner may not account for proper drainage in their landscaping. Cm. North suggested that we make a grading design for spas , patios, and swimming pools to conform to the original grading design. Mr. Tong felt that those three items don' t necessarily affect the _ grading. Cm. North felt that the drainage requirement should be enforced. Mr. Tong indicated that he meant to say that the Building Inspection Department enforces the drainage requirements . He felt the homeowner his a responsibility to provide for positive drainage whether or not a permit was issued. Cm. North indicated that if the City doesn' t ensure the drainage is adequate, then who is suppose to do this if it effects the neighbors . The only recourse the neighbor has is to go to civil court. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-116 September 16 , 1991 [9-16 ] Cm. North indicated he felt it was the duty of the City to protect all of the citizens when a building permit is approved. Cm. Burnham asked if there was a difference if you build a pool or plant shrubs and have your water drain into three neighbor' s yards . Mr. Tong felt the main difference is the order of magnitude. A spa or gazebo is typically an over the counter permit which can be issued with a minimal amount of paperwork. They are considered accessory structures and are a matter of scale. He indicated if a homeowner is putting in a room addition, then the City' s existing policies are that the Building Inspection Division will require the positive drainage because it is part of the Building Code. He felt that a large percentage of drainage problems are created by the landscaping, with the exception of the sprinkler permits as there are no building permits whatsoever for 99% of the landscaping. Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. North as to why the City is allowing homeowners with level properties to build higher than his neighbor. He felt the City was saying it is the homeowner' s responsibility to have positive drainage. Mr. Tong indicated from a practical standpoint, it gets extremely difficult to enforce that type of detail on relatively minor permits . The drainage on spas , gazebos, and swimming pools is looked at as an automatic responsibility of the property owner. If the property owner creates a problem for themselves or their neighbors , then it is the responsibility of that property owner to take care of the problem. Cm. Barnes indicated she felt that responsibility belongs in the courts and not in the City. Mr. Tong indicated the City is looking towards an educational program through the Building Department to educate the owner/builder in terms of the various codes ; and hopefully, the item of drainage will be discussed during those educational sessions . Cm. North felt that when a permit is issued, the City should attach a notice to the permit indicating that drainage is the property owner ' s responsibility. He felt that this was not a difficult problem when a permit is issued and stated, at present, we assume the property owner is aware of this . - Mr. Tong stated that advising the property owner of his responsibility pertaining to drainage is something that is not a standard matter. However, he stated it could be mentioned to the Building official for consideration. Cm. Burnham asked if there was a minimum tree clearance" Mr. Tong indicated the rule of thumb is to stay out of the drip line . When there is encroachment into that drip line, the City tries to minimize the effects . ---------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting pCM-1991-117 September 16 , 1991 [9-16] Cm. Burnham commented on the 'Good Guys ' parking lot in the Enea Plaza Center which looks nice but you don't know where to drive in or out . Cm. Burnham asked if there was a way to not allow landscaping on the end of a parking strip. Mr. Tong indicated that an effective way to deal with this is to add an additional one-foot wide stepping plate and minimize the landscaping at the end stall , instead of the standard 6" curb; this gives an additional all weather surface area. He indicated the landscaping in those parking areas should account for the door swings and the height of overhangs . Landscape Design Mr. Choy stated that landscape design should exhibit a theme or concept throughout the landscaping, rather than just randomly placing trees and shrubs around the site. Cm. Rafanelli felt there should be something in the guidelines about using drought resistant shrubs and trees where appropriate . Mr. Choy expressed that the Planning Staff now has an Intern who has a degree in landscape architecture and Staff might be able to call upon some of his expertise to develop an appropriate tree and plant list for the City of Dublin. Mr. Tong commented that a recently passed State law indicates that by 1993 every land use jurisdiction will be required to have an ordinance which provides for water conservation through landscaping. He stated that the Planning Staff and the Dublin San Ramon Services District Staff have met to begin looking at what type of ordinance would be appropriate for water efficient landscaping purposes for the City. Cm. Barnes indicated her preference of predominantly live ground cover as indicated in Item #10 . Cm. Burnham asked if the City has a rule about cutting trees that have reached a certain size. Mr. Tong stated that there was no such rule . He indicated that some cities do have what is called a ' heritage tree ' ordinance, whereby, if a tree reaches a particular size or is of a particular species , it - then is given some significance to the City and there are permits established for removal of that tree and what type of replacement would be necessary, if any. Cm. Burnham felt that the City needs something like that for future development on the hills . ;l Mr. Tong stated that when an Applicant comes in for Site Development Review, they must indicate the existing trees on their site but there is no ordinance which would prevent them from removing some of those trees prior to filing an application for Site Development Review. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-118 September 16 , 1991 [9-16] Cm. Burnham asked if the City could do anything about removal of a tree prior to filing for Site Development Review. Mr. Tong indicated there was nothing the City could do under the existing ordinances . Cm. Burnham asked if the City could look into a proposal for a heritage tree ordinance . Mr. Tong responded that Staff would look into it. Architecture and Building Design Mr. Choy indicated the intent of architecture/building design policies are to provide a sense of entry or focal point and are more directed towards standards of quality and compatibility of the design than achieving a uniform appearance. Cm. North questioned #12 , page 24 , if permanent landscaping is required for a building that may only exist three months . Mr. Tong indicated that if the structure will remain for any length of time, then the City would require some permanent landscaping; if the structure will remain for a short duration, i .e . construction office, then permanent landscaping is not needed. It is just a matter of degree. Cm. Barnes commented on item 9 , page 24 regarding building color. She felt, at times , the City needs to accept certain ' signing ' of the building and noted Red Lobster and Circuit City as examples . She would like to see a little more imaginative use of color in buildings . Cm. Burnham asked for an example of a "signing" of a building. Mr. Choy stated that this policy was intended to develop some sense of balance of landscaping and architecture, rather than having the building stand out by itself . Cm. Burnham asked if what Mr. Choy was indicating was something like Casper's hot dog, designing the building to look like a hot dog and a bun. Mr. Choy concurred. Cm. Burnham commended Staff for what they have and have not passed with regard to architectural design. "Residential Design Mr. Choy explained the primary theme in the residential design section includes maintaining and improving the appearance and safety of neighborhoods . ------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-119 September 16 , 1991 [9-16] Cm. Zika questioned item 12 , page 29 regarding automatic garage door openers . Mr. Choy explained that the intent was to discourage residents from parking in areas that have insufficient parking space and to encourage residents to utilize their garages . - Cm. North suggested posting ' no parking signs ' because patrons utilize their garages for storage and park in the driveways anyway. Mr. -Choy stated that would depend on the design of the project. Mr. Tong explained that if the drive way request is for less than 20 feet, Staff typically asks for a roll-up garage door and automatic opener as a condition of approval . Cm. Barnes asked if the City can designate how wide carports are in multiple living dwellings since she felt that the carports were a little narrow. Cm. North asked if carports have the same 8 foot requirements as garages . Mr. Tong stated that carports are standard size stalls . The City does not allow compact size carports . Cm. Barnes commented about the lack of vehicle accessibility presently experienced in existing two-car garages . Mr. Tong stated the City has implemented the two-car parking requirement on single-family dwelling units and that residents are not required to park their car in the garage. Cm. Burnham asked if a State law exists whereby one cannot legally park their car in their driveway overnight. Mr. Tong commented that he was unaware of any such law; however, he did indicate a law whereby cars cannot be parked on the street longer than 72 hours without being moved. Cm. North questioned if the law states anything about the adequacy of on-site laundry facilities in multiple family residential units , as stated on page 31, item 20 . Mr. Tong stated that is more of a Planned Development guideline . Cm. Burnham asked if these are the guidelines that are presently in effect. -Mr. Tong stated that these are draft site development review guidelines brought to the Commission for discussion purposes and input . After the various concerns of the Commissioners are addressed, they will be formally brought back to the Commission. Cm. Burnham asked if the City had any current guidelines . -------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-120 September 16 , 1991 [9-16 ] Mr. Tong stated no; current site development review guidelines do not _ exist; however the City does have informal planned development review guidelines that it has been using for planned development projects . Cm. North requested that the Commission have at least two weeks to _. review substantial amounts of reading materials . Three days is insufficient to read over a hundred pages of text. Cm. Barnes asked if residential/commercial lighting comes into the guidelines . She felt that adequate lighting was an item the City lacks in their residential areas . Industrial Design Mr. Choy stated the industrial design policies are for areas where industrial uses are interspersed with residential uses, whereby height and setbacks shall be compatible . There were no questions or comments, from the Commissioners . Signing Mr. Choy explained that Signing policies should be designed and scaled to relate to the building upon which it is attached and oriented to the entrance . He stated Staff is encouraging the use of original signs and reproductions of signs in historic areas . Cm. Burnham stated obviously these guidelines tie in with our sign ordinance . Cm. Zika commented he felt Staff was on the right track and liked the idea of encouraging the original signs . He commended Mr. Choy on his presentation. Cm. Barnes emphasized benches in shopping centers adds so much to the community. Cm. Rafanelli agreed with Cm. Barnes that our commercial places should be gathering places for the community. He also felt that the whole proposal was very well presented. - Cm. Burnham agreed with everyone and felt Staff was on the right track. He also commended Mr. Choy on his presentation. He did indicate, however, that he wished he had had more time to read each section more thoroughly. -M�r. Tong stated he felt the Commission has given Staff a lot of good insights and a number of concerns in areas that Staff needs to do more research on. He indicated that when the item is brought back to the Commission, more time will be given for its review. ----------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-121 September 16 , 1991 [9-16 ] Cm. North requested a minimum of two weeks for review of a document of substantial reading material . Mr. Tong stated California Building Systems has offered to make a slide presentation to the Planning Commission on community design guidelines for metal buildings . If the Commission is interested, _ Staff will make arrangements for a review at a future date . Cm. Barnes commented that she would be interested in the slide presentation for metal buildings . SUBJECT: PA 91-067 Ordinance Amendment Management Audit related to the Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review process and establishina a Zoning Clearance Process Cms . Zika and North began discussing the item without Staff presentation, indicating their concern that there was insufficient time to discuss some major significant concerns . Cm. Burnham asked if there were any outstanding concerns to clear up. Cm. Zika stated his major concern was the public ' s interest as to neighborhood proposals . He brought up Regional Ambulance . He has long been an advocate of notifying every resident within 300 feet of a planned item. Cm. North commented he would like to see as a requirement that a Conditional Use Permit and public hearing be required anytime a 24- hour business is allowed within 300 feet of a residential area . He stated that there are items that are decided by the Zoning Administrator and/or Planning Director which have no appeal process and felt that there should not be any action taken by a city official that cannot be appealed, excluding the City Council . Mr. Tong explained that those particular items are at the direction of the Council . The Council has indicated that they would like to see certain permits streamlined as an over-the-counter type application. These applications do not have an appeal . This is the direction that was given by the City Council regarding the Management Audit items . Cm. North stated he felt that there were several items that should or should not be appealable . Cm. Zika questioned why the items were being brought to the Commission if this is what the City Council wants . Mr. Tong explained that the Ordinance Amendment Management Audit "i,s presented to the Commission in order for the Commissioners to indicate their concerns and comments which are then presented as a recommendation to the City Council . Whether the Council follows the recommendation or not is the Council ' s prerogative . ----------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-122 September 16 , 1991 [9-161 Cm. Barnes asked if this item was on a special time requirement . Mr. Tong indicated there was no specific time constraint. Cm. Barnes requested that this item be continued in order to give the Commission more time to thoroughly read and comment on the Draft _ Amendments . At the request of the Commission, Item 9 . 2 was continued to the November 4 , 1991 Planning Commission. Cm. Burnham questioned nonappealable decisions by city officials . Mr. Tong explained this was discussed at the study sessions regarding the Management Audit . Mr. Tong explained that certain decisions by city officials occur every day. However, he stated that someone can request the Council to change the Council ' s ordinances/resolution. The main focus of the management audit study was to streamline operations , making it more efficient, while maintaining the effectiveness of good decision making. Cm. Burnham agreed but stated he felt there exists a gray area in regards to the ambulance operation in a residential area. He felt that the ambulance operation was legally in there but was also breaking the law by exceeding the noise level within a residential establishment . Cm. Zika stated that emergency vehicles were exempt from the noise level ordinance by the State of California and therefore, none of the above applies to them. Cm. Burnham asked if all of the underlined reading matter are changes or additions to the ordinance . Ms . O'Halloran stated they are the major changes . Mr. Tong reiterated that this item will be brought back to the Commission as a study session item. Commission concurred . OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong stated that at the September 23, 1991 City Council meeting, the City Council will consider the housing related ordinances that the Planning Commission had recommended for action. This would include the second readings of the Rental Availability Ordinance, the JL -Construction planned development rezoning, the Density Bonus Ordinance, and Chevron Conditional Use Permit . --------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-123 September 16 , 1991 [9-16 ] Mr. Carrington stated that it could be. In the eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the ultimate Dublin Boulevard could go by another route; however, the western location is fixed. Cm. North asked if there was an intent to build this road right now or was this just to dedicate the land. Mr. Carrington stated there was intent to build the two-lane road now and we could see a completed two-lane road within a year. Cm. Zika stated that since Alameda County doesn't want to deal with the hospital located in the road' s path, the road alignment is not up to par. Cm. Zika said if the Commission approved the resolution, is the Commission adopting the alignment as shown in Exhibit A. Mr. Carrington indicated that all the resolution says is that the proposed alignment is consistent with the plan. Cm. Zika was concerned that if the road was built and eventually into a six-lane road, it may cost more to fix the road alignment at a future date . On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 = 57 REPORT BY. THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AS TO CONFORMITY OF LOCATION, PURPOSE AND EXTENT OF THE LANDS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR THE TWO LANE ACCESS ROAD AND THE HACIENDA DRIVE EXTENSION WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN SUBJECT: Review of Draft Site Development Review Guidelines Cm. Burnham opened the unfinished business and asked for the staff report. Mr. Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. He stated after receiving the Planning Commissioner' s comments and making any necessary revisions or clarifications, Staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission at a future date. Mr. Bill Golden, Executive Director of California Building Systems Institute, presented a brief slide presentation on metal buildings . He stated that not all planning commissioners and planners are always pleased with metal buildings . Mr. Golden commented that metal buildings do not impair the use and development of neighboring properties : Secondly, the buildings follow basic principles of good design, harmony, continuity, proportions, simplicity and balance . Thirdly, they provide variety and create -------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-137 November 4 , 1991 [ 11-4] ATTACK, 7. interest; and finally, metal buildings make good use of building sites . They take advantage of the natural topography. Some guidelines that are basic to metal building systems are those things that contribute to a pleasant environment and maintain property values, important details and insure orderly, harmonious development. The metal building' s materials and finishes include factory applied coatings for wall and roofs that protect against cracking, chipping, fading, and peeling for at least 20 years . Mr. Golden thanked the Commission, Staff and Mr. Choy for allowing him to make his presentation. Cm. North commented that Mr. Golden had some nice looking buildings . Mr. Golden stated that there were several metal buildings located right here in the Valley. Mr. Choy asked for comments within the first section of the Site Development Review Guidelines titled Site Planning. Cm. North suggested underling the changes instead of bolding them as it is easier to read. He requested a definition of ' adequate ' as per No. 8 on page 30 . Mr. Choy stated that staff ' s intention was to attempt to keep the guidelines general in nature; staff did not want to specify a set ratio; the guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the zoning ordinance and planned development guidelines . Adequate would depend on what was being proposed and how large an area it was serving; it would be up to the developer to demonstrate that what he has proposed is adequate to serve the needs of the future residents . Cm. North felt that ' adequate' does not tell you anything and gives no guidance; he felt staff should be more specific . Cm. Burnham indicated that the whole report was meant to be a guideline. Mr. Choy commented that along these lines, all the "shall ' s" have been changed to "should" as these are only guidelines or recommendations . Cm. Burnham felt the guidelines were very informative and points you in the right direction. Cm. Barnes commented that she really liked the pictures . Cm. Zika liked the illustrations and stated he felt Mr. Choy did a very good job. Cm. Rafanelli 'agreed and stated the whole document was very well done . Mr. Choy asked for comments regarding the inclusion of the routing criteria within the guidelines . He stated that it would be more appropriate to include the routing criteria within the "Layperson' s Guide to Applying for Site Development Review" Handout. -------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-138 November 4 , 1991 [ 11-4] Ms . O'Halloran stated the handout describes what site development review process is and what the necessary steps are; and that it could also be included as an Appendix to the guidelines which would be included when the guidelines are purchased. Mr. Choy stated staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission at a future date. Cm. Burnham complimented Mr. Choy on his presentation. Cm. -Rafanelli reiterated that it was very well done. SUBJECT: PA 91-067 Ordinance Amendment Management Audit related to the Administrative Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review process and establishing a Zoning Clearance Process Cm. Burnham presented the unfinished business and asked for the staff report. Ms . O' Halloran presented the staff report to the Commission. She stated this item was continued from the September 16 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the Commission additional time to adequately review and discuss the proposed Ordinance Amendment . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide Staff direction concerning the Draft Management Audit related Ordinance Amendment and continue to a future Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Burnham asked if there was any type of recourse for uses which could be subject to Zoning Administrator approval as shown on Attachment 4 . Ms . O'Halloran stated the Applicant could appeal any action taken. She stated the Conditional Use Permit process would be similar in terms of noticing and holding a public hearing. However, some uses would be acted upon by the Zoning Administrator and others by the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator meetings are held during the day on week days . Just as the Planning Commission' s actions are appealable to the City Council, the Zoning Administrator ' s actions are appealable to the Planning Commission. Cm. Rafanelli commented about the lack of public input with the Zoning Administrator/Planning Director making decisions . : Ms . O'Halloran stated the Conditional Use Permit items that are proposed for the Zoning Administrator to take action on would still need a public -hearing so there would be an opportunity for public input. The only items that would not be subject to appeal or have the public input would be Zoning Clearances . The Commission may want to take a look at the items in the Zoning Clearance and Zoning Administrator categories and provide input. -------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1991-139 November 4 , 1991 [ 11-4] Mr. Tong indicated th— on December 2, 1991 the C—aission continued the election of officers and recommended that the Commission elect a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. Cm. Barnes nominated Commissioner George Zika to be the Chairperson. Commissioner North seconded the motion. By a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Zika was appointed Chairperson. Cm. Barnes nominated Commissioner Ralph Rafanelli to be the Vice- Chairperson. Commissioner North seconded the motion. By a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Rafanelli was appointed Vice-Chairperson. The meeting was turned over to Commissioner Zika. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 91-099 Hansen Ranch/Bren Company Development Agreement (to be continued to the January 21 , 1992 Planning Commission meeting) Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was recommending continuance of this item to allow Staff to complete the analysis for the Staff Report. Since the Negative Declaration has been prepared and noticed for this project, Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing and continue the item to the January 21, 1992 meeting. Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked if there was any public comment. Being none, the item was continued to the January 21st Planning Commission meeting. SUBJECT: PA 91-067 Dublin Municipal Ordinance Amendment Management Audit (to be continued to the January 21 , 1992 Planning Commission meeting) Mr. Tong indicated that the Commission had continued this item from the January 6 , 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Staff was recommending continuance of this item to the January 21st meeting in - order to review and incorporate the City Attorney' s comments into the Draft Ordinance Amendment. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 21, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. SUBJECT: Review of Draft Site Development Review Guidelines (continued from the November 4 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1992-2 January 6, 1992 [ 1-6min] __'ARACHW '3 Mr. David Choy presenL,=!d the staff report to the �,.,,nmission. He indicated' that this item had been continued from the November 4, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. He indicated that the guidelines were created to provide Staff and Applicants with general design direction. They are to be used in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance . Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Site Development Review Guidelines . The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Draft Site Development Review Guidelines . SUBJECT: PA 88-144 Western Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , Prezoninq, Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (Continued from the' December 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting For this public hearing, discussion is limited to Chapters 4 through 7 of the Specific Plan) Ms . Brenda Gillarde gave a brief review of the previous meeting as well as Chapters 4 through 7 of the Specific Plan. An adjournment time of 10 : 30 p.m. was discussed and approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission indicated that the January 6th meeting would be continued to January 14th to continue the discussion of the West Dublin Specific Plan. Ms . Gillarde indicated that if there was sufficient time left, there would be discussion on the General Plan Amendment at the January 14th meeting as well . The Planning Commission reviewed possible meeting dates after the January 14th meeting. It was decided to. continue the January 14th meeting to January 29th. The Planning Commission and Staff discussed the letter regarding the Morris property. Ms . Silver, City Attorney, had reviewed the letter. She indicated that a bike path was considered a public right-of-way and therefore the property could be taken for that purpose. A General Plan Amendment was the appropriate exercise to follow for planning purposes . Ms . Gillarde gave a brief overview of the planning process for the - project. The first meeting involved land use and traffic circulation. She indicated that there was a concern regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. Possible alternatives were also mentioned. Ms . Gillarde emphasized that the West Dublin project would go through many public hearings . There would be no decisions made at this meeting. The City Council would need to review the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report before any final decisions were made. There would be plenty of opportunities for the public to voice their comments and/or concerns . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting PCM-1992-3 January 6, 1992 [ 1-6min] J i h y ie .p�:7 q Y•y�pt ;^. S4 _if•� y +� _ .r l t t. »s • r/ ,. .M 1. ,.• ./ ia+ lit Ka 7 '.t f�: � µJi,•. r ly'• tr`'��k�.t�lSl ql��•• r� ��• ,rte .xr ���', iti���; •+p+"� � � t 4°ty+�� '7•*'� �sa^ ::r- }:? 1cx ��Sn >`,�'•,y .�r,rz t^Lh1 a• 'y+ x "tY ^fr1r'\ ,yy �t f.- °' °'' 1 a p S J/'yZ.n xk'r..yN.tt+7s 14 s rCFhadt.•r @0 t t rlr, 1„j�'�.=dry F a y,a �Y t.y, ns- —�iO 7 °�'Syyb C`1r ytr�L -r Y`' ii rltp fiA•�t 7 t � ° mi r" . r uJS1 `S s s r •. � k R:s a f j r y< ( ° r- 4+ �' C �� , 164 l i r ;@ t 1 f !Y ♦FS'z tltt { fir] 5�t�p, ,tl ,.t i1 \ky 1 t;1�dr�t�4 r�.,�3 �' dI•F Fy�idY�<C\.�iEL`i i z, "'v,W ik z °i �a"yi2t •�C ?. riC-`(�. s+,, S'• ..t '{,,r d• X t�rti-a 4' -N �""'ii>��it rrta,�d;• V ry..� y i +'I'1p+�a1Ss./1"K ait��. tf�' '}.,.rr ,�yA�(�tyl'�zr{ t,,r�•�,, tt�`� st, .; Ttr,ta lF 11, Tt ,(•f ljlt?a ^4'\ l�ttpr'P /+ Y/11��r { 1�b�y •R+.� `,3t? I4t.�.a} }}� i.t�3.tCy +"; Tf M �Vc r,>^ ,.,` �jY as�yyttl�S�r, kF kti r4 i, q� t �tbj''st{h \ } 7+.f). rtSi. i . 4dT , t`�t ra r d)µ- `� t t•j�, f, i+ T (�. Y, 't. t 1•.r �r yl}.. t+•�t,i'f,t{i .�1 1.< i r1a( .t � � �� rF , }•�Y 4` N- r"n :Z r Ftr,. J4•ta,i{{�, e f 1. {^ xr rF n t r � 1'}a j J t) + 1 ''� ht r ti v ri P 1` 1 •i�'} Z' 2 ; �{q(za't�}ti i. .1°t>�nr`+iv\t�Y 4-\r`• 1 �.rr��� y p,Fk�R�,�tY �°1£�'r�*c �`yr }�h\4 I1 l i" t i J J1 t 4•.j ltf - ; tl'1 t, ,ji4^;,y ys.>.4 N*y - i + ,� � '�ry f a -� r ;�.3•n4.d aS�y L t •�'ct \ o t�! tt.; i� r "'y 1,I, �t� < r 4+ t:r �5 � 4e \`-� 1G?�, pr jZr tE j f?z.s••�tSb{i]� 't{�r• f{p\ 7'tx All '� • l.!f ( �, �� es t�l lr V,{+"Fvv a �i L�a s,; ,f't {r ivy v�jT a �' t h i a✓, PP ()'1t�W`� ` � I ' t�i fr i4 /\ ] 'y 1°✓TIhL 4 � y�� �r J a f� r./it♦ a ltF.r`���"'}Iht /tP�� , .Vty}�iti ♦�.,..��,�! PFD' { -.'ta �� tt, a 1 Wi1� u64. + ��•a. Y t t 13 ,� K C' k��r Iv +1 tr�6"t Yy 1 r�� 'tt 0 a 1r4;'+. •t f;�� � �,,�+ �Skrj,k ty rt`af�t`?..� ,�.w M-,�� ,31 �itii-�S.+r 4`�V.,'• r� � Y i �, l r Mee 4 it •rf rf`( +� i -T:'',, .r .I ♦.l-�•.�_.U_.,-r..� ,',. . ..`.{?,a# 3•. S:S z}i s.L.,_.Tr.`.3 �ti.:�t�.ye.'t:' --`r These guidelines are about architectural review 2. Is the building suitable for its use?Does it relate and aesthetics—about buildings that are good to its surroundings?Are materials appropriate to the neighbors. building site? Although all buildings are evaluated under the 3. Has the project met other city requirements? same criteria, metal buildings are given special. 4.Will it contribute to the quality of life in the attention. community? These guidelines examine building design, the 5. If it is a stock building—even with colors relationship of buildings to the neighborhood, and design that have a national marketing theme— parking, landscaping,signs and other features that does it fit the city's desire to enhance community make buildings good neighbors. image? They are from recognized principals of design, 6. Does it minimize interference with the planning and aesthetics: harmony, continuity, privacy,quiet and views of its neighbors? proportion, simplicity and balance. Building and site design should also minimize We encourage creativity, new ideas in the use of traffic problems and provide for the safety and building materials and innovative construction security of users and the public alike. methods which add richness and harmony; we expect 7. Is it interesting to look at? Monotony in form, creativity from metal's exceptional flexibility. detail and siting should be avoided. Design Guidelines For Metal Buildings is about . Buildings should avoid large expanses of blank helping to assure projects that strike a balance between the developer's preference and public metal walls, for example. 9 i interests. . If the project s large, complex and on a The following are some considerations that will sensitive site, does it use design teams that include influence this city's architectural review of building and landscape architects and engineers? individual projects: 10. Does the project recognize 1. Has the developer METAL IN the relationship of land used sensitivity and values to aesthetics j that will strengthen a functional common sense to design ARCHITECTURE. he city's and attractive DESIGNING FOR PUBLIC economic project? base? ACCEPTANCE }7+ j t -y . 3 It is the intention of these guidelines to provide a This city is changing its ideas about the clear idea of the city's design criteria without architectural characteristics of its buildings. dictating design. Although other standards of design have been Sometimes, however, the importance of the permitted in the past, they may not be accepted today city's standards has not always been understood or in the future. by builders and owners. This is particularly true of A meeting with our planners before completing metal building projects, which often present difficult project plans can help you understand these new problems with appearance. concerns and perceptions about our built Some of these problems that occur frequently are environment. illustrated in the pages that follow. -Many of them can be elimi- nated if the developer is sensitive to the area surrounding the site. Developers should recognize that the city is not only concerned about architecture and landscaping, but also , about the effect of the project on the ` appearance and economic base of the neighborhood. ti Contents Designing for Public Acceptance . . . . . . . . 2 Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Fundamental Design Guidelines . . . . . . . . . 4 Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Site and Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 The Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Windows and Doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 j 4 ; C. Improve appearance with steeper roof slopes LMATERIALS AND FINISHES A. New buildings with metal siding or metal and integrated fascias, darker colors, concealed fasteners, parapet walls and other treatments. roofs should have factory-painted finishes. D. Screen unsightly mechanical equipment B. Metal building components for renovations with parapet walls, mechanical recesses,or other or additions should be coated with materials that conform to industry standards for such uses. means. Roof vent color should match that of the roof. C. Untreated metal siding or roofing should not be Used. 3.WALLS D. Panels without color should not be used. An A.Use factory applied paint finishes on exterior exception is Galvalume/Zincalume roofs if these metal walls. light colored surfaces enhance the project and do not have an unfavorable effect when viewed from public B. Reduce visual prominence of fasteners by streets or from other surrounding areas. using architectural panels, wall systems with con- E. Material of less than 26-gauge should not be cealed or color-coded fasteners or other types of used. metal wall panels. F. Architectural panels should be considered in C. Note that exposed fasteners may actually add design-sensitive areas. to the attractiveness of structures. D. Use wall colors that are compatible with the neighborhood. 2.ROOFS E. Protect outside and inside metal walls from A. Reduce negative visual effects of roofs with aggressive manufacturing,vehicles, corrosion and regular maintenance. abuse. Use bollards, land- B. High-visibility roofs FUNDAMENTAL scapKe wainscoting. can be a pleasing Keep stored things part building DESIGN GUIDELINES f inside an design.n. d out. FOR METAL BUILDING �. Lr.::� = J_ �' �� .�yr. •�'�;�,.. „ti.,� r.:,;,; ' _ `"_� � - I The quality of your 3/Make the presentation drawings can help your attractive with photographs, 1/ Ke Steps Project be understood. perspective drawings, color 1/Submit professional renderings or color-keyed To roj ect drawings that are clear and blueprints. atrtractive. 4/It is helpful to submit a Approval 2/Note all materials sample board of the materials and colors on the original and colors that will be used drawings. in the project 5 E. Use architectural detailing to reduce the landscape materials that reduce the apparent size of massy appearance of long uninterrupted wall surfaces walls that are unusually high, or that provide relief and excessively high walls. Horizontal color bands, for long and uninteresting walls. varied wall planes, and landscaped areas with plant- ings of correct scale are other ways to overcome &SPECIAL ASSISTANCE these problems. Technical assistance in the use of metal in F. Downspouts should complement or match architecture is available from the California wall colors or be concealed within the walls, unless Building Systems Institute, Inc., 1531 Argonne they are used as a legitimate architectural detail. Drive,Stockton, CA 95203. (209) 948-9333. Included are sources for coating 4.ARCHITECTURAL PANELS roof and wall panels, insulated wall panels,seismic A. Site-sensitive metal building projects may properties and architects with special expertise in the require metal walls with more attractive panel design of metal buildings. profiles than are available �� 44 with standard s E industrial metal panels. ' B. Most have con- i l i Wr r �'i�x ;; 4 3i. cealed fasteners and coatings with 20-year warranties. C. Other recommenda- tions to ensure wall and ( lI roof panel appearance and longevity are available through the planning staff. Your own ideas about panel options are also welcome. is 5.ENTRYWAYS A. Main entryways should be clearly defined and smoothly integrated , with building and land- ; scape designs.They should be designed to serve as focal points and pleasant invitations to visitors. B. Pleasing effects can be achieved with canopies,roof overhangs, recessed areas and frame- line extensions. 6.WINDOWS A. Windows should be considered as design and as functional elements of the building.B. The use of store front window systems is a simple way to improve metal building appearance. 7.OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS A. The use of architects is strongly urged.Their contribution can make the difference between an unacceptable project and one that adds to the owner's investment and that of the community. B. The use of professional landscape designers is equally important to insure the selection and placement of the right trees and shrubs, the use of 6 " 2/Site and Environment THIS. . . ............... u t . 1 Y t A • i t Jd _ d x ��' •-� � I .__._._.:...._ .may �a� �:•_ �41-1 ����tit � �,>; a�• �`�`r. ry{ry�'i -�4�i, f»:.vti� —l.` _ ��•l'lr� u. d � 4 V�.�i����"•e'. T .��.��}-:.. °' �G...•.e+•.. �^s7 7�5'�`A"'�`�.y`t-� f3 s�' 'w- .�, �.,�v�is' q�,'�`•s $r� �' � 1 � � 1 S, !n • iY � �� ` T s-� � � t � S i L' I • 1 _ 1 •�� � -�.� d �y x sft.. .�y� „! to t/`.tip, `��� � • � ����yvw��g11y'Q�JG.'9�z-U�' `h�' '3.o•L. � 5. w s♦ t .pwcr.�4C r;. �jy�'1„�, j S •,+ 't L� ..rnrg+'. ,4.dFr_'cx � r � + fs rG,t " t ...n sssya✓n. a,.h�7 "-?'wn' •.�'{'r3�_��..�{�• yi`� -rte- � t:}��£r�'�',F1f�t c .a J-_ •-a, 1✓{ j ���S{�y�w,..{�1dGl t- �`� Ip fy. Nqi 4; �t t y -tr 1 1 W�tr 44444 MM�`� ' y�,�, " .yg77 L Yf[' �Si Pi t xf/£�'� >, �!•�'�'j,Y �t 3 y1 7 h�'�(11�(G. .(,1��Pp''1��({.' +.� �r�y�ti m, ��R�"§'kF�t,�n ..�7 ..qT '�{`a'u..r r>�3"`°�`1�}r 6�-l•».��X 4i,,���a�F F�". 'kg'ckF d first J�`F 7K � ya§"wx' �r��i,�y+��t,�-•�y �tR�� L�.�;oe�'�'�r,•*ki,� ty tk ,i•. }it� t. f -y.J:fir'•. �S�W.atr +-�..,*'+n.*�•1^ .:k.:� #.,_ y°°aw'.'v.; '::n..a�`'^.-'�.� 1� :' } i ♦�"+`Z�1 r .r U' > r��tr z "'hi�r 71�.�. 4'�.t'svtz "� �.; .._:s �,�-. �r+lt°� s -c j�, �srx a�7�°3�su"� �*rt+ r y�.�M'i a•-war+'�i+�5.,�•'!f s�"��4i'V�,t'i Fy r i v 4jY t 1 tr � 3• as°����=��; $,y, t•tta�i tai�3 e�w�+ s `� }{.yin� ._...,� c-.+� t ! z 8 The building exterior can be softened with curved includes walls,roofs,windows, corners;a strategy that also • doors,outdoor signs and graphics adds character and dynamism. 3/ Building and equipment placed on or near Blend compatible colors in a the building. single facade to add character FormStark and monotonous and variety and to reduce rectangular forms are seldom building scale. appropriate for any but the most utilitarian buildings and sites, The direction and interval -- and those without high public of joints and ribs and visibility. roughened exterior finishes of architectural metal wall panels Break up the monotony of are ways to establish rhythm single,uninterrupted wall and produce character and planes by staggering vertical relief. Qvalls and using roof overhangs. When a large building is Staggering planes along an introduced into a setting of f -- exterior wall creates attractive �. smaller buildings,smaller forms 1:Y n y , ,. ' �A• pockets of light and shadow. and elements can be arranged Surface variety for exterior harmoniously to reduce its scale. Y— aualls can be achieved with The use of contrasting colors pilasters and deep reveals at in varying wall planes can also construction joints add variety and interest to Large rectangular forms large,dull structures. THIS. . . ! S G or- i i m, 4 �` i- t 1 i` r E r J; I M r��2Ti t tt • ^^I^'.r � r .I°-}r�~ � ` -' �° ....�� �..1 , + _';,tea a3c•' KY� i •Y ®_.___.^ I I l 1 Oi's`;'s✓t,, : I � r _ yMY4•I�— _ is.. _F 9 Exterior wall and roof other materials—masonry,brick, combination is not appropriate surfaces should harmonize with concrete,wood,etc.—can be to the building. one another and with their combined attractively with metal Bollards,traffic barriers, surroundings. Choose colors, walls to add variety and define landscaping,coatings and other patterns,textures and finishes scale. protection are also available for that enhance the design. Free-standing outbuildings exterior metal walls. Ribbed metal panels can should use forms,shapes and Interior walls should also be create distinctive patterns that materials that blend with the protected from stacked emphasize and counterpoise to main structure. merchandise,forklifts and other create variety and define scale busive operations. without a change of materials. Leaning materials against a metal walls can be discouraged The use of residential by bollards, curbs,and 4 details and materials on com- landscaping. Paved surfaces mercial or industrial buildings is and laivns running right up to usually not appropriate,as is the metal avalls are not aesthetically mixing of unrelated styles and pleasing. features—a colonial front on a large industrial building,for While contrast between example. materials can create visual Curved corners can soften interest and define scale,avoid n material changes simply for their and add dynamism.Varying colors and wall surface textures own sake. Some materials combine well,either because not can produce diversity. they differ too much in color, In design-sensitive hands, pattern or texture,or because the . "NOT THIS VA RM ` - I , ,1�y ,,r ' �t ty�+Y..r_Tear 4 t.'rg •.�� sr^�_- ` I al }Y44 hlillllil� ���i' liil;ii ► llil _d SOLUTION: 1 ; ` 'I �� 1 :iii AVOID STARK AND MONTONOUS FORMS I 1 I 1 • a y?t� .'� ,1,7��9� a- i:' t. , h r. � � t T ;i 's �y �yi t-j3 �'` '"�;��-`�"'�-A•'*^-�"-:s�=`�"'`w..�.r'r+c�.4�ey�K `� � is � L } � f ! t �ff,' sa�t i 't� �S - . �� !�rt Z y•r�', c v s�fl f t r r ti i�� G� {. i i�'!�''f Z,1` '! ,m, r �,,•skt.� ♦ i'-ti i t(�'�j{�'�ii*�s"L� { �7{ 't t�. j 3�. � ' � z�l�• , � t � �:} �� rx aLcs{,t$' ��.3- � ! r �,.�! ti t_ �• �3 �"� d rF:lf... �� �, � +f � ,� -��rf�4�f�+. cam: tifi.�•,�+, r,, - rn.a�� sr��.+{r .�•�'R"", \\ 1 t i� ��j°��h.'},= Vii. t x t+-•X11 r.'� �:Yt'f::±:4::.� t, �,i}::. ryw.'r�^`; \.; ,f..+S. .:,F �r:f:3K E•_A:. :A }•...C,If>s,.. F+L _ v c iw 2` z r 1 Y "•'' �t t' .r:C .. :. s1 - i 11 Avoid long walls small windows into horizontal composition—exterior appear- emphasize main entry doors. monotonously punctuated with bands. For contrast and shade, ante,proportion,harmony and Clearly define paths to the windows and doors, or create recessed window open- scale. main entry door. openings dwarfed by walls. ings under overhangs. Give entrys a sense of Glazed areas should be pro- Windows and doors should shelter by using overhangs and portioned to the scale of the not be located for interior simple recesses.Protected will or elevation. To add requirements only,but treated doorways also create a sense of interest in large walls,group as part of the architectural entry. Use a wall or eave to . . .NOT THIS Run l ;nl�' dill I�I'� liil:i ; li Ili SOLUTION. TREAT WINDOWS AS PART OF THE BUILDING'S elements in exterior walls. The shape and slope of roof DESIGN Roof colors should also be forms can enhance character COMPOSITION coordinated with other colors and scale. And they can be on surrounding facades. used to blend with the appear- Variety in roof shapes and ante of surrounding buildings. forms can add character and diversity—and still be ':ompariblewith the neighbors. •ti 1. / ' iJ— � � � #{$• . rvE�! . a 4s tt t S - � '. r�� ��r nE�?,la. �,i'r," �tR? ftiF�k+� ��.�,y`�/G- �.•. .S: tc ` �''"' �t i�f i r t.4t { s� ?"''4') n5 •ryy� t'M r _ �.�� r'f� 1 �.;l r 5=, �".�is 5 x �"�• s E � k�1`!..'E _ t r J��f .�f.j >. B .y�:�r` •s :, j C �,y--- --,^"""�. e yt t �c, � �F � t ,, r.�.�'Tr t S y� S is`4t �i�`, .:, t 5�J',`.{�'�+? •�. ��'h .:� g , �, ;w t. t s .a E �� ,; 4`` i�'• � K t,3iNi -�Yy�`t�;,t',E i .r'�. `���'a!�"4.re I __ _— ti-d`" y,; r!-� N RES ln 1 `.r t ♦ � � Q�a Et I i � ,y'C.ryr Et• y 75 -.�". ftfi - mow•. '.c��o 1• E.. rs �� , >t.; �. I d I�•�Z'R4►i��..�—" � � ° ,_.....,,� Ott, 1 av i,x P L t^��, �1..�—,T',y f°s.��`�!' ;�• R.,,, h.. - 5 �tw...z�;a t , �, 1Y r4ry{��,�j ylpj�v` �"-,�,.nv,:.h:.�:.4«�f ti5..�o�j;��.*'n i' �, `,,,'1{A�����` p2 �_�?I"�r?k���;�y., f/ •��r i I 13 Conceal outdoor utility building in an unobtrusive building materials and colors connections and equipment— location. Reduce visual exterior can provide security and heat pumps,air conditioning runs of piping,ducting and concealment. compressors,humidifiers etc.— wiring. Include trash enclosures in with architecturally compatible Outdoor utility hookups and site designs,open to trash screens and enclosures. equipment should be out of trucks,but not prominently Connect above-ground general view. Screening open to view. electrical telephone wires to the structures that blend with . . :NOT THIS Aim I nnl Y. 11111 1 Y i�• �.� f am III I, III_it, I Ai� EM SOLUTION: CONCEAL architecturally attractive. effective message.Use symbols UTILITIES, Sign colors should be that are easily recognizable. compatible with building colors. Keep overall shape simple to OR BLEND Light background with dark avoid detracting from message. THEM IN lettering is best visually.Use no more than rnro primary colors, Letters should not occupy more with a secondary third color as than 75%of the sign area accent or shadow detail. Use easy-to-read styles that fit Fewer words make a more the business and the building. 1 .. Import Caancs r Truck Parts Center -Y r • �lA r 1 11. �r 1 - } 14 Use a balanced mix of trees, ing)can reduce the apparent shrubs and ground cover building mass and height and with reasonable maintenance conserve energy- 8/ Landscaping ' energy- requirements) Distribute landscaping and shade for parking and open throughout the project:in spaces. parking areas,at the base of Earth-berming(mounding building walls to break up hard earth upward toward the build- edges between paving and walls. THIS. . . V ; JOP 00 :t i i r R; Chalking- A process by Facade -An accessory to - which finishes develop a enhance the appearance of Glossary of Terms loose powdery surface from a wall, or to cover eaves or decomposition of the paint gables. binder, principally from Fluorocarbon Coatings - ultraviolet rays. Thermoplastic coatings Concealed Fastener - based on resins made by Screws or other metal wall polymerizing polyvinyl fasteners that are not fluoride, or plyvinyl fltlo- visible. ride, or polyvinylidene fluoride. Lanndscape at trash Landscaping should not be Conserve water.Use native, enclosures and property line used to mask a sub-standard low-maintenance and drought- walls.Landscape around the site building design. tolerant plants and minimum (10 to 15 feet wide along public Landscaping helps buildings turf areas. streets) to allow for mounding blend with their surroundings. shrubbery and trees that soften Plants,shrubs and trees add and enhance the public's view variety and reduce the appar- of the site. ent scale of large, blank walls. . . :NOT THIS SOLUTION CREATE A NATURAL PRESENCE sT9f' �3 yam.+b.- t^• 1 A Galvalume - Aluminum- Pilaster - A projection and fuse to a continuous Standing Seam Roof- zinc alloy coated steel. Ap- from a masonry wall film. Metal roof system with proximately 55% alumi- intended to support mem- Roll Forming Used in panel sidelaps interlocked num and 45% zinc, applied bers or reinforce the wall, formino metal strip. The to form a watertight joint, by continuous hot dip. architecturally. metal is run progressively without through-fasteners. Mil-Unit of measure Plastisol Coatings - through rolls of definite Step In Eave Height- equal to 0.001 inch. Used Thermoplastic coatings settings that bend the strip The condition where a to describe paint film consisting of finely divided to a final contour. lower building is attached thickness. polyvinyl chloride resins Soffit-Underside to a higher building at the Parapet Wall—that part of to suitable plasticizers. covering, usually at a roof end walls. a vertical wall extending During the baking process overhang. above the roof line. g the resin particles are solvated by the plasticizer S California Building Systems Institute, Inc. 1531 Argonne Drive, Stockton, California 95203 (209) 948-9333 C71 D t , Aq ,, , � z -x�',�.-J';`:✓ '-+der'" Copyright 1991 California Building Systems Institure,Inc. CITY OF DUBLIN CHECKLIST OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) On a case by case basis , a City Planner will place a checkmark ( ) next to the information required to be submitted. The City Planner may- determine that specific information is not needed to process a particular application. If the City Planner decides to waive certain information, the City Planner will initial the waived information and keep a copy of the form for City records . Incomplete application submittals will not be accepted unless a Planner has signed a submittal requirement waiver specifically identifying those items waived. Incomplete or inaccurate information may result in processing delays or denial of the project. An example of a situation in which a Planner might waive certain submittal requirements : Site Development Review request for a site with an existing building where no roof mounted mechanical equipment or changes to the roof are proposed. In this situation, the Planner may waive the requirement for a roof plan. To comply with State law the following represents a comprehensive list of information which must be submitted prior to acceptance of an application for a Site Development Review: GENERAL INFORMATION: Project Street Address/Location: Project Name: Project Description: Zoning District: Applicant Name: No . of Copies 1 . Application Form including address and 1 signature of property owner(s) and applicant. 2 . Completed Environmental Information Form including 1 signature of property owner(s) and applicant. ATTACK / /submitls - 1 - September 3, 1991 3 . Application Deposit (cash or check payable to City N/A of Dublin in the amount of $ _. ) . Contact ' Planner to determine amount to submit. Fish and Game Environmental Filing Fee: Environmental Impact Report ($850 . 00) N/A Negative Declaration ($1,250 . 00) N/A County Administrative Fee ( $25 . 00) N/A Initial Study Fee ($25 . 00) N/A Environmental Impact Report N/A Special Studies (traffic, noise, etc . ) N/A 4 . Written Statement/Brief description of proposal 1 indicating whether the project is located on a hazardous waste and substances site (pursuant ' to Government Code Section 2 . 65962 . 5) . If the site is included on a list of hazardous waste and substance sites, the list shall be specified on the statement. 5 . Preliminary Title Report/Property Profile to document ownership 1 prepared within three months of application submittal . 6 . Public Notice Materials : a . reproduced copy of Alameda County Assessor' s 1 parcel map showing project parcel (s) outlined in red and a 300 foot radius drawn from the perimeter of the site drawn in blue; b. list of names and addresses of current property 1 owners within 300 feet of site typed on labels; and C . one set of self-addressed envelopes with postage 1 for all property owners within 300 feet of site. 7 . Vicinity Map showing site in relation to nearest 1 cross streets . 8. Site Plan drawn to 1" = 20 ' scale and fully 10 dimensioned ( folded, 9" x 11" maximum) . The plans must be prepared and signed by licensed civil _ engineer, surveyor, architect, or designer. The plans must graphically and understandably describe the proposal . The plan must show the following: a. north arrow and scale; b. dimensioned property lines and adjacent streets; C . location and setbacks of all existing and proposed structures on the site; d. location and dimensions of existing and proposed parking, driveways and loading areas; /submitls - 2 - September 3, 1991 e. location of all easements; f . landscape areas, walkways, fences, retaining walls ; g. location and dimensions of proposed paving, freestanding light standards, fences, walls, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment and utility meter screens; h. proposed pedestrian, vehicular, and service points of ingress and .egress, paths and walkways , loading docks, and maneuvering areas; i . location, species, size and proposed disposition of all existing trees; and j . summary of development calculations including site area, gross and net floor area of all buildings, number of parking stalls required and proposed, lot coverage allowed and proposed, and when appropriate, number of beds, students or dining seats . 9 . Grading Plan showing existing (dashed line) and 10 proposed or finish grade (solid line) contours at two foot intervals, boundaries of all cut and fill areas, cross-sections of site where topographic changes exceed 5%, and direction and path of drainage on, through and off the site ( indicate any proposed and existing drainage channels or facilities ) ( folded, 9" x 11" maximum) . 10. Preliminary Landscape Plan showing locations of 10 proposed plant materials( folded, 9" x 11" maximum) , including the following: a. plant palette with the name of the proposed plants (both common and botanical) , quantities, spacing and container sizes; and growth rate. b. locations of proposed plants, berms , concrete curbs, paths , fencing, and miscellaneous structures ( including above grade utility structures such as PG&E transformers ) . 11. Building Elevations, fully dimensioned and drawn to 10 _ a 1/8" = 1 ' scale of all sides of all proposed structures . Elevations must include building materials, colors, trash enclosures, fencing and roof screening details . 12. Colored Buildinq Elevations . 1 13. Color and Material Palette indicating the proposed 1 finishes of all exterior materials ( including roof and walls ) and color samples of paint or manufactured products to be applied on the building exterior (including fascia and trim) . /submitls - 3 - September 3, 1991 14'. Floor Plans, fully dimensioned, drawn to scale, 10 showing exterior doors and windows, stairways, mechanical rooms and hallways ( folded, 9" x 11" maximum) . 15 . Roof Plan drawn to scale showing the direction 10 of slope of roof elements and location of mechanical equipment, ducts and vents ( folded, 9" x 11" maximum) . 16 . Reduced copies ( 8 1/2" x 11" ) of each plan 2 17 . Traffic data specific to the site or proposed project: traffic generation rates, peak hour counts, trip distribution and similar information. 18 . Special information or information in such a form N/A and number as may be required by the Planning Department. For help in understanding this information, please contact: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF CITY OF DUBLIN 100 CIVIC PLAZA DUBLIN, CA 94568 (510) 833-6610 /submitls - 4 - September 3, 1991 r .n y'4' "�,.4 � •�'T.,r A,� d� � ,�'^. � �x=•� � � ,�:�j� � a�x 2�a�Y,�s �' P HO TO V a3 x N. V ATTACOW 6 PjG �o Z eyr 1 g ff DTO 3Z • �m J•W ..a�.;ySA•�� • u�tt � Vii i��u� r, { �� �6 a r� 'ir�'��iitiipy9' Yl 1 .Fey �. ., A R F &•.e P# r 37 VtIAI .......... a �°R wr � f d�y� a���e(�'0. ��,��S�d���`»�"�a �•e 77• �+ t�3 � �� R. mF $'t NiY g�i1 ,!1 3 16, A ,�' ..ax`bxa°T 'sr slaw a* s! � k+. t