14 Staff Report - Design Review AlternativesMEETING DATE: 4 03/00
ITEM NO. /
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
March 29, 2000
,,i)t.)...' MAYOR AND TOWN CO CIL
TOWN MANAGER
DISCUSS DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES<
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss Design Review alternatives.
BACKGROUND:
During the February 26, 2000, Town Council Study Session with the Planning Commission, there was discussion
regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of design review (i.e. Architecture and Site review) being performed by the
Planning Commission. Alternative processes used by other agencies were discussed. Staff was directed to prepare a
report discussing design review alternatives for the April 3, 2000 Town Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Section 29.20.140(d) of the Los Gatos Municipal Code states that "The purpose of architecture and site approval is to
regulate the height , width, shape, proportion, siting, exterior construction and design of buildings to insure that they are
architecturally compatible with their surroundings, ...." The City of Claremont in southern California uses the
Architectural Commission process discussed below. Claremont's Municipal Code states the purpose of architectural
review is "...to support the policies of the Community Design Element of the General Plan; to guide the design and
redesign of the City's physical environment to encourage excellence in architectural design; to protect and enhance the
community's character, sense of place, and the identities of Claremont's unique neighborhoods; and to promote the
public health, safety and general welfare of the community."
Cities and towns use various processes to meet their obligation of design or architectural review. The following discusses
some of those alternative methods. Irrespective of the method of design or architectural review used, cities and town
have determined that the review is a necessary part of the approval process for the agency.
Town Architect: A licensed architect serves as a reviewing official and has the authority to approve certain applications
or make recommendations to an approving body. This process is similar to a Zoning Administrator/Hearing Officer used
extensively for planning and zoning applications where decisions are made by an individual in a public hearing format
and are appealable to the Planning Commission or Town Council. This process necessitates an extensive Design Manual
which provides the basis of review. In effect, there is minimal discretion in that the project is "measured" against the
manual. However, no manual can effectively cover everyone's design preferences.
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: PAUL L. CURTIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: QV. Attorney Revised: 3/29/00 2:51 PM
Reformatted: 7/14/99
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES
March 29, 2000
Architectural Committee: This is typically a subcommittee of the Planning Commission whose members rotate onto
the committee. For example, of a seven member Commission, three members serve on the AC for a staggered period
of time. Meetings are held separate from regular Planning Commission meetings thereby freeing Commission meetings
for more general land use discussions. Full Planning Commission member meetings may be reduced (e.g. one meeting
per month) because the general land use items are fewer. Appeals of AC decisions are typically made directly to the
Town Council because of the Commissioner membership on the AC. An advantage of this process is that sitting Planning
Commissioners provide a continuity of policy from Planning Commission to design review. In some ways, this would
be similar to Planning Commissioners serving on the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC).
Architectural Commission: This process requires a separately Council appointed Commission. Attached is information
from the City of Claremont in southern California who has used the Commission process since 1958. Claremont is
similar to Los Gatos in many ways including its historical buildings and neighborhoods, community character and
extensive citizen involvement. Membership consists of design professionals (e.g. an architect, designers, historic
preservation expertise) and citizen representatives. Appeals are made directly to the City Council. This process requires
appropriate staffing, both planner and clerical, specific meeting schedules and a coordination of decision -making with
other city commissions and committees. For example, the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit for
a particular use generally approving the site plan. The Architectural Commission then approves the specific design of
the buildings, colors, lighting, etc. Occasionally, there can be conflict between the two groups in that the Planning
Commission may approve the CUP only if certain design features are required ("we wouldn't have approved the use
had we known that was what the final building was going to look like"). However, the series of reviews in Los Gatos
(e.g.'DRC, Historic Preservation Committee, etc.) is similar in that each group makes a recommendation based on its
particular area of review responsibility. For example, the Historic Preservation Committee may "approve" a second story
addition from the individual house's historic point of view but may not take into consideration the overall land use issues
of neighborhood compatibility that is in the purview of the Planning Commission. What is typically heard from
applicants at Planning Commission meetings is that the DRC or Historic Preservation Committee has "approved" the
project irrespective of the applicant being told in writing that the DRC or HP decisions are subject to the overall review
of the Planning Commission. The Architectural Commission process has the same opportunities for misunderstandings.
Design Review by Planning Commission: This is currently used by Los Gatos and others (e.g. Saratoga). This process
provides maximum continuity in applying land use policy to design review. With the committee assignments of
Commissioners, the design review process (i.e. Architecture and Site) provides Commissioner input as members of
Historic Preservation, CDAC, Architecture and Hillside Standards subcommittees. This report will not attempt to
evaluate the current process as it should be well-known.
Planning Commission Study Sessions: The Los Gatos Planning Commission can now schedule study sessions with
applicants at its discretion to discuss details of a project. A primary objective of the meeting is to open discussion in an
informal setting with the neighborhood, staff, applicant and commissioners. However, the study session process can also
be used when details of design review need to be worked out and alternatives discussed in a more informal setting than
can be accomplished at a formal public hearing. If it is determined at the public hearing that more time is needed, the
item can be continued to a study session, details worked out in an informal, but PUBLIC setting, then continued to a
regular Planning Commission meeting. These study sessions are regularly scheduled meeting dates since it is assumed
that items will be referred. This requires more meetings for the Commissioners and staff but typically shortens the
meetings (e.g. more shorter meetings, fewer long meetings, fewer continued items).
CONCLUSION:
All of the above processes work. Which one works best depends upon the agency and the extent of detail, availability
of staff and commission/committee volunteers. With the pending adoption of the General Plan and the anticipated
workload of Implementing Strategies (i.e. action items) requiring special studies to implement the revised policies, the
Planning Commission agendas and time will be filled with general land use planning items. In situations where the
Planning Commission is extremely busy, the Architectural Commission process seems to work well. However, it does
remove a major role from the Planning Commission and requires additional staff resources.
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES
March 29, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
None. This is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
1. City of Claremont Architectural Commission Information
2. City of Claremont Architectural Review Process
PLC:mdc
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\DSNREV
C/7Y of C44 - '-toivr
ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
Sections:
2.42.010 Powers and duties.
2.42.010 Powers and duties.
The architectural commission strives to
enhance the quality of life of the residents of
Claremont by guiding the design and redesign
of physical elements and ensuring the harmo-
nious composition and preservation of visual
aspects of the city. The commission, through its
review of development projects and recom-
mendations on design issues, protects the city's
character, sense of place and unique physical
environment; maintains the image of Claremont
a a community of neighborhoods; encourages
the preservation of the city's architectural, his-
toric and cultural resources; ensures the
beautification of streetscapes and public areas;
and promotes the public health, safety and
general welfare of the community. In imple-
menting this charge, the architectural commis-
sion will:
A. Be a liaison among the community, the
colleges, applicants for development, and the
city government pertaining to design matters.
B. Review and mak., determinations as
necessary on requests c individual resi-
dents, developers, and city officials relative to
architectural and community design issues.
C. Biennially review and identify community
design issues and beautification programs in
order to advise the city council on appropriate
work plan items for incorporation into the city
budget.
The architectural commission's respon-
sibilities include:
A. To fulfill the mandate given the commis-
sion by the city council by this code, the city's
general plan, the city's land use and develop-
ment code, and other city ordinances.
B. To encourage the successful
intermingling of natural, manmade, and planted
features in the community;
C. To foster the strong sense of place and
local identity in the community;
D. To encourage well designed new con-
struction and other development that builds
upon the existing positive physical characteris-
tics of the community;
E. To make decisions on development
proposals that promote and protect the unique
identity of residential neighborhoods within the
city;
F. To encourage excellence in architectural
and landscaping design, and utilize the review
criteria in the land use and development code to
ensure that new development is consistent with
the integrity and character of the area in which
is it located;
G. To encourage citizen participation in de-
sign matters and serve as an independent
vehicle for gathering citizen comment;
H. To identify, consider and mitigate the
environmental impacts of any proposals and
projects that come before the commission for
review;
I. • To foster communication among appli-
cants, the community, and the city, and when
necessary mediate among competing interests;
J. To encourage developers of new pro-
jects creating urban impacts to offset them by
participating in programs to provide greenbelts,
open spaces, street landscaping, utility under -
grounding, and public art;
K. To recognize, through an awards pro-
gram, outstanding achievement in architectural
design, landscaping and building rehabilitation;
L. To promote public art that enhances the
2-11
aesthetic and rt iltural quality of the community;
M. Tc artistry and innovation in signs
that improve the appearance of the buildings
and neighborhoods in which they are placed;
N. To promote the installation and main-
tenance of landscaping in public and private
areas;
O. To pursue beautification programs that
preserve and enhance Claremont's specific
neighborhoods;
P. To encourage the preservation of sig-
nificant trees in public areas and on private
property;
Q. To encourage the use of drought -
resistant plants where appropriate;
R. To encourage the restoration and re -use
of older structures which contribute to
Claremont's character and sense of historic and
cultural identity;
S. To ensure the preservation of sites,
buildings and objects of historic and architec-
tural significance as physical representation of
Claremont's historic and cultural heritage;
T. To pursue incentives for the protection,
retention and preservation of cultural resources;
U. To encourage Claremont Heritage to
continue the survey structures, buildings, sites,
neighborhoods, places and objects within the
city to be included in the Register of Structures
of Historic and Architectural Merit of the City of
Claremont;
V. To promote the continuing education of
the citizens of Claremont about the heritage of
the City and its cultural resources;
W. To advise the city council on all matters
relating to the development and the architec-
tural suitability of all governmental buildings and
site developments;
X. To hear appeals of architectural review
decisions make by staff;
Y. To act as the board of appeals for
appeals of determinations made by the building
official regarding unreinforced masonry build-
ings and necessary structural alterations within
the scope of Chapter 58 of the Uniform Building
Code as amended by Municipal Code Section
15.04.045; and,
Z. To perform such other appropriate
duties related to design matters as may be re-
quested by the city council. (Ord. 97-10 § 5,
1997)
C/7Y of c64,e6-,x40./7-
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
CHAPTER 6 PART 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
610 INTENT
The City Council hereby finds that excessive similarity or dissimilarity, inappropriateness
or poor quality of design in the exterior appearance of buildings erected in any
neighborhood or in the development and maintenance of structures, landscaping, signs,
poor passive solar design resulting in excessive energy consumption, and general
appearance affect the desirability of the immediate area and neighboring areas for
residential and business purposes or other uses, and by so doing impair the benefits of
occupancy of existing property in such areas, prevent the most appropriate development
of such areas, produce degeneration of property in such areas with attendant
deterioration of conditions affecting the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the
inhabitants of the City of Claremont, and destroy the proper relationship between the
taxable value of real property in such areas and the cost of municipal services provided
therefor.
At the same time, a high level of quality in the design and redesign of the City's physical
environment can protect and enhance the livability and investment potentials of the City.
New development, properly designed, that does not detract from the quality and character
of nearby established development because of architectural style, scale or location, can
be a positive addition to the City's environment; historic and architecturally significant
sites, properly preserved and restored as physical representations of Claremont's
character, can enhance Claremont's historic and cultural heritage; and development with
proper consideration for energy conservation can contribute to the City's overall
efficiency.
It is the purpose and intent of this Part to support the policies of the Community Design
Element of the General Plan; to guide the design and redesign of the City's physical
environment to encourage excellence in architectural design; to protect and enhance the
community's character, sense of place, and the identities of Claremont's unique
neighborhoods; and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the
community.
(Ord. 91-9, 12/10/91)
6/1-1
Attachment 2
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
611 APPLICABILITY
A. Any new construction, exterior modifications to existing structures (not including
painting), building relocations, and changes in site features including, but not
limited to, parking areas, landscaping, walls, outside lighting (including increasing
the level of illumination) and signs shall be subject to the provisions of this Part,
unless specifically exempted from this Part.
The reviewing person or body shall determine if the proposed new development,
alteration or change conforms to the provisions of this Part and shall approve,
approve subject to conditions, or deny the proposed project according to the
procedures, of this Part.
Unless plans for buildings and structures, and all signs, luminares, landscaping,
irrigation and other features of the site for said building or structure have been
approved pursuant to the review procedures of this Part, no building permit shall
be issued for any building, structure or other development of property or
appurtenance thereto.
(Ord. 91-9, 12/10/91)
612 ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
Composition
An Architectural Commission is hereby established, which Commission shall
consist of seven members as follows:
One shall be an architect, licensed under the Business and Professions Code of
the State of California; two shall be members of the design professions; four may
• be appointed from the community at large.
B. Rules
The Architectural Commission shall adopt rules and regulations for the conduct of
its business. Four voting members shall constitute a quorum. Approval,
conditional approval, or denial of an application shall be by a simple majority vote.
6/1-2
Chapter 6 Part 9 Architectural Review
A tie vote on a motion to approve shall constitute a failure of the motion and a
denial of the application.
C. The Director of Community Development shall serve as the official secretary to the
Architectural Commission. The records of all proceedings and the basis for all
findings shall be available to the Council and to the public.
D. The Architectural Commission shall meet at intervals, at least once each month, on
regularly scheduled dates.
Civic Center and Other Governmental Buildings
The Architectural Commission shall advise the City Council on all matters related
to the development of the Civic Center and the architectural suitability of all
governmental buildings and site developments.
F. Register of Structures of Historical and Architectural Merit of the City of Claremont
The Register of Structures of Historical and Architectural Merit of the City of
Claremont (Register) is a comprehensive historic resource inventory of sites and
structures in various areas of the City. Information in the Register provides a
valuable tool to City staff and commissions in conducting project reviews and to
the public for community education. Pursuant to the Historic Preservation Element
of the City's General Plan, the Register shall be updated and expanded
periodically to include appropriate resources which meet adopted criteria. The
Architectural Commission is responsible for adopting additions to the Register
pursuant to the procedures set forth by resolution of the City Council.
(Rev. Ord. 91-9, 12/10/91; Rev. Ord. 98-02, 2/10/98; Rev. Ord. 99-08, 9/14/99))
6/1-3
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
613 REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES
All new construction, modifications and site changes shall be reviewed as specified
below:
A. In all districts except RS, H, RR and E districts:
1. The Architectural Commission shall review:
a. All new development, including new buildings and structures, and
the landscaping, irrigation and other features of the site for the
buildings and structures.
b. All exterior modifications made to any building, structure or site
feature (not including painting), which the Director determines could
have a visible impact from the public right-of-way, impinge on the
privacy of developments in the immediate area, or result in
development incompatible with the architectural character of the
developments in the immediate area.
2. Staff shall review all other developments.
B. In the RS and H Districts
1. The Architectural Commission shall review:
a. All new single family residential development on five or more lots.
b. All non -single family residential development.
2. Staff shall review:
a. All new single family development on fewer than five lots.
b. All exterior modifications (excluding painting and re -landscaping) and
new additions to existing structures, and new detached accessory
structures.
6/1-4
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
In the RR Districts:
1. The Architectural Commission shall review:
a. New one story structures that exceed 18 feet in height.
b. Residential Unit Developments.
c. New single family development on five or more lots.
d. All non -single family residential development.
2. Staff shall review:
a. All new single family development on less than five Tots.
b. Exterior modifications (not including painting and re -landscaping)
and new additions to existing structures, and new detached
accessory structures.
D. In the E district:
1. The Architectural Commission shall review:
a.
/111 (flclJ lC1 all.l lllGlJlul ai 1GVIGYVO.
b. All new development, including new buildings and structures, and
the landscaping, irrigation and other features of the site for the
buildings and structures.
c. All exterior modifications made to any building, structure or site
feature (not including painting), which the Director determines could
have a visible impact from the right-of-way, impinge on the privacy of
developments in the immediate area, or result in development
incompatible with the architectural character of the developments in
the immediate area.
2. Staff shall review all other developments.
6/1-5
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
E. Architectural Commission Review as a Condition
In the RS, H, RR districts, Architectural Commission review may be a condition of
a Conditional Use Permit or a Variance.
F Signs in all Districts
All signs shall be reviewed as set forth in Chapter 4, Part 4.
G. Building Relocation
The Architectural Commission shall review all plans submitted with applications for
moving buildings within or into the City. Photographs shall be included with the
application showing all elevations, the structure proposed to be moved, the
proposed site, and the buildings adjacent to the proposed site. The commission
shall determine whether the building proposed to be moved will fit harmoniously
into the neighborhood wherein it is to be located. It may approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove the issuance of a permit to move said building.
H. Commercial antennas and wireless telecommunication facilities shall be reviewed
as set forth in Chapter 5, Part 6.
I. All master architectural reviews shall be reviewed by the Architectural Commission.
(Ord. 91-9, 12/10/91; Rev. Ord. 93-9, 4/27/93; Rev. Ord. 97-3, 2/11/97; Rev. Ord. 97-9,
6/24/97)
614 PROCEDURE FOR COMMISSION REVIEW
A. Application Filing
Applications for Architectural Commission review shall be made on forms provided
by the Department of Community Development together with any applicable fees.
The applications shall be accompanied by plans and exhibits as required by the
department staff.
6/1-6
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
B. Reapplication
A person may not file and the Department of Community Development shall not
accept an application which is the same as or substantially the same as an
application upon which final action has been taken by the City of Claremont within
12 months prior to the date of said application, unless accepted by a motion of the
Architectural Commission or City_ Council._._____
C. Architectural Review Fees
Fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council.
D. Application Screening
Upon receipt of an application for Architectural Commission review, staff shall
review the application and inform the applicant as to the completeness of the
submittal and of additional materials required, if any. Department staff shall also
determine whether the proposed development is in accordance with the review
responsibilities of the commission specified in this Part.
Notice Requirements
1. Master Architectural Reviews
When an application is deemed complete for a master architectural review,
the matter shall be set for a public hearing to be held by the Architectural
Commission. The Director shall give notice of a hearing pursuant to
Government Code Section 65091. Notices shall include the date, time and
place of public hearing to be held by the Architectural Commission, a
general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a general
description of the location of the subject property as specified in
Govemment Code Section 65094. Notices shall be sent not less than ten
days prior to any action taken on the application.
2. All other applications
Upon receipt of a complete application, if the Director determines that
proposed development could have an adverse impact on existing
development or result in development incompatible with the architectural
character of development in the immediate area, notice of the development
6/1-7
Chapter 6 --art 1 Architectural Review
shall be mailed to all owners of properties that could be affected. The
notice shall state that the application will be reviewed by the Architectural
Commission. Notices shall be sent not less than ten days prior to any
action taken on the application by the Architectural Commission.
F. Commission Review and Decision
All those development proposals requiring Architectural Commission approval shall
be forwarded to the Architectural Commission for their consideration at their next
available meeting, considering any required environmental review and public
notice requirements. The hearing may be set for a later date with consent of the
applicant.
The Architectural Commission shall act expeditiously on all applications. The
commission shall determine if the proposed development conforms to the
provisions of this Part and shall accordingly grant approval of the application, grant
approval subject to conditions, or deny the application. The conditions of approval
shall be filed with the Council and a copy mailed to the applicant.
G. Conditions of Approval
1. Conditions of approval may be applied when the proposed design does not
comply completely with the required review criteria and shall be directed
towards bringing said design into conformity with the criteria.
2. Any non-compliance with any condition on an approval by the Architectural
Commission shall constitute a violation of this Code.
H. Application Denial
When a proposed application does not meet the required review criteria, and
cannot be conditioned to comply with said criteria, the application shall be denied.
The applicant shall be notified of the criteria which are deemed not to be met.
(Ord.91-9, 12/10/91; Rev. Ord. 93-7, 4/27/93)
6/1-8
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
615 REVIEW OF PLANS
A. Optional Preliminary Review of Schematic Plans
The applicant may submit to staff or the Architectural Commission a preliminary
site plan, elevations, sketches or other schematic plans for preliminary review,
comments and general direction before submitting plans for approval.
Review of Plans for Approval
The applicant shall submit for approval all plans determined necessary by staff or
the Architectural Commission to assure that the proposed project meets the
applicable review criteria of this Part. The applicant may also choose to submit the
final detailed plans at this time.
If final detailed plans are not submitted at the time of approval of the proposed
project. the approval of such project shall be conditioned on the approval of the
final detailed plans
C Final Detailed Plans
Final detailed plans shall include all plans reviewed and required by the
Architectural Commission and other plans and specifications staff may determine
to be reasonably necessary for a complete review and understanding of the
proposed development.
1 Final detailed plans not included in the review per paragraph B above shall
require formal action by staff or the Architectural Commission.
2 For projects approved by the Architectural Commission. the final detailed
plans shall be reviewed by staff to determine consistency with the approved
plans, excepting. however, staff shall refer to the Architectural Commission
any final detailed plans that, as a condition of approval, were required to be
referred back to the commission for review.
3. Any decision on final detailed plans may be appealed pursuant to the
procedures of this Part for appeals.
6/1-9
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
D. Changes to Approved Plans
fit
Any changes or revisions to approved plans shall be subject to approval by staff.
Whenever staff determines that changes and alterations to plans approved by the
Architectural Commission are significant or could materially change the quality and
character of the proposed project, such changes and alterations shall be referred
to the Architectural Commission for review.
(Ord. 91-9. 12/10/91)
616 COMMISSION REVIEW CRITERIA
A General Review Criteria
The Architectural Commission may approve an application only if all the following
criteria are met:
1 The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code
and other applicable ordinances and regulations insofar as the location and
appearance of the buildings and structures are involved.
2 The proposed site is physically suitable for the type of development being
proposed. and the proposed project is consistent with the integrity and
character of the district in which it is to be located.
3 The proposed development is compatible with existing development in the
surrounding area. in terms of scale, .height, bulk, materials, cohesiveness
and colors. and the design of the project contributes to community
appearances by avoiding both excessive variety and monotonous
repetition.
The proposed development's exterior design and appearance is of a quality
and character which is compatible with surrounding development (unless
the area is physically deteriorating or blighted), and is not so at variance as
to be materially detrimental to the appearance of the other development
and cause the nature of the local environment to depreciate in value.
6/1-10
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
The proposed development will be compatible with future development
planned for in the general area, especially in those instances where
buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being
part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or
immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which
indicates building shape, size or style, and the proposed development will
promote a harmonious transition in terms of scale and character if between
areas of different land use designations.
The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs,
landscaping, luminaires, and other site features provide for adequate and
safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and the visual effect of
the development from view of the public streets will not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare.
The proposed building and site development is designed to provide for
energy conservation through the use of architectural features, landscaping,
interior design, and solar and wind orientation.
8. Landscaping plans show that adequate consideration has been given to
water conservation through the use of drought resistant plants, irrigation
techniques, or other means.
The proposed development will not unduly impinge on neighbors' access to
light and air, or cast a shadow over a solar energy system in violation of
Chapter 16, Part 1.
10. The proposed development will not have an adverse environmental effect
on the surrounding development, and any noise, lighting or other
environmental effects from the project will be consistent with the
environmental protective standards in Chapter 5, Part 3 of this Code, and all
mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, storage and loading areas shall
be screened consistent with the regulations in Chapter 4, Part 6.
11. The proposed development meets the intent of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
6/1-11
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
B. Additional Criteria For HC District
For projects in the HC District, the following criteria shall be used in addition to the
criteria of Paragraph A:
1. The proposed development is designed to preserve existing trees to the
greatest extent possible. Removal of existing trees shall be prohibited
except where necessary.
2. The proposed development is designed to provide privacy to the resident
and to neighboring properties in terms of separation and orientation of
dwelling units and construction materials.
3. The proposed use of materials, colors and textures, and the relative
juxtaposition of these materials and the structures are harmonious with the
architectural character (as differentiated from architectural style) of the
residential developments contiguous to and facing the proposed
development.
4. Accessory structures are designed so as to preserve significant trees, the
privacy of neighboring properties, and the character of the neighborhood;
and in a style which is architecturally compatible with the primary structure
and the structures in the immediate area.
Guidelines for Development in CV District
Approvals for new development and modifications to existing structures and sites
in the CV District shall be subject to the finding that the proposed project is in
conformance with the Claremont Village Design Plan in addition to the criteria in
"A" above.
6/1-12
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
D. Sites Listed on Register in AV Districts
For sites in the AV Districts that are listed on the Claremont Register of Sites of
Historic or Architectural Merit (Register), all modifications to structures and sites
shall be subject to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings in addition to the criteria in "A"
above.
(Ord. 91-9, 12/10/91)
617 STAFF REVIEW
A. Staff Review and Notice of Development in All Districts
1. Before issuance of a building permit, the Staff shall review the location,
design, configuration and impact of all development proposals requiring
staff review, to determine compliance with the intent of this Part and
conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances
and regulations. Staff shall also review all such projects for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Claremont's
local CEQA procedures.
2. The Staff shall require such plans and specifications it determines
necessary for a complete review and understanding of the proposed
development.
3. If the Director determines proposed development could have an adverse
impact on existing development or result in development incompatible with
the architectural character of development in the immediate area, notice of
the development shall be mailed to all owners of properties that could be
affected. The notice shall state that staff is reviewing the development
proposal. Such notices shall be sent not less than ten days prior to any
action taken on the proposed development by staff.
B. Staff Review and Notice of Development in RR District
All new development and modifications shall be reviewed and noticed according to
the procedures set forth in the Rural Claremont Architectural and Landscape
Standards.
6/1-13
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
C. General Criteria for Staff Approval
The Staff may approve a development proposal only if all the following criteria are
met:
1. The proposed project will not significantly impinge on the privacy of
development in the immediate area.
2. The proposed project will not be visually offensive from the public right-of-
way or from neighboring properties.
The proposed project will not unduly impinge on neighbors' access to light
and air, or cast a shadow over a solar energy system in violation of Chapter
16, Part 1.
4. The proposed project will not result in a land use that is incompatible with
other land uses in the district.
5. The proposed project will not result in noise, lighting or other environmental
effects which would be in violation of the environmental protective
standards of Chapter 5, Part 3.
6. The proposed project will not result in development that is incompatible with
the character of the existing development in the area.
D. Additional Review Criteria For Two Story Development in RS and H Districts
Two story buildings, buildings with a height of more than 18 feet, and second story
additions in the RS and H Districts shall also meet the following criteria in addition
to the criteria in "B" above.
1. The proposed development is compatible with existing development in the
surrounding area in terms of scale, height, bulk, materials, cohesiveness,
and colors.
6/1-14
Chapter 6 Part I Architectural Review
2. The proposed development's exterior design and appearance is of a quality
and character which is compatible with the surrounding area, and is not so
at variance as to be materially detrimental to surrounding development and
cause the nature of the local environment to depreciate in value.
3. All building elevations of the proposed development are architecturally
treated in a consistent manner, including the incorporation within the side
and rear building elevations of some or all of the design elements used for
the primary facades.
E. Staff Conditions
The staff may apply any conditions on a development proposal that it determines
necessary to insure compliance with the required review criteria, the intent of this
Part, or conformity with any applicable ordinances and regulations insofar as the
location, height, size and appearance of the buildings and structures involved.
F Staff Referral
If staff determines that a proposed project it is authorized to review pursuant to this
Part does not meet the required review criteria in Paragraph C or D above, staff
shall refer the proposed development to the Architectural Commission for
architectural review.
(Ord. 91-9, 12/10/91)
618 APPEAL`OF ACTION
Any decision by staff or the Architectural Commission, or any condition imposed by the
staff or the Architectural Commission, may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures in Chapter 6, Part 8, Appeals and Council Review. Filing of an appeal shall
suspend the issuance of a building permit pursuant to the decision until action is taken on
the appeal.
(Ord. 91-9, 12/10/91)
6/1-15
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
619 EXPIRATION
A. General Project Approval Timeframes
Any approval (excepting master architectural reviews) granted under the
provisions of this Part, including approvals granted pursuant to the Rural
Claremont Landscape and Architectural Standards, shall be valid for two years. If
necessary building permits have been issued and construction work is
commenced on an approved development project prior to the expiration of the
approval, the approval will remain valid provided construction continues at a
commercially reasonable pace, in light of all relevant circumstances, as
determined by the Director of Community Development.
B. Extension of Time
An extension of time beyond the two year time limit may be granted by the
reviewing person or body who issued the original approval, upon written request
from the applicant, when a finding can be made that the applicant could not avoid
the delay.
C. Development Projects Approved Prior to the November 30, 1989
1. All development approvals granted prior to November 30, 1989, under the
provisions of this Part, will expire January 1, 1991 or two years from the
date the approval was granted, whichever occurs later, unless the
development approval was for a shorter time period by conditions of
approval. If necessary permits have been issued and construction work is
commenced on an approved project prior to the expiration of the approval,
the approval will remain valid provided construction continues at a
commercially reasonable pace, light of all relevant circumstances, as
determined by the Director of Community Development.
6/1-16
Chapter 6 Part 1 Architectural Review
2. All development approvals in the RR Districts granted under the provisions
of the Rural Claremont Architectural and Landscape Standards prior to
January 9, 1992 will expire January 9, 1992 or two years from the date the
approval was granted, whichever occurs later, unless the development
approval was for a shorter time period by conditions of approval. If
necessary permits have been issued and construction work is commenced
on an approved project prior to the expiration of the approval, the approval
will remain valid provided construction continues at a commercially
reasonable pace, in Tight of all relevant circumstances, as determined by the
Director.
D. Time Frames for Master Architectural Reviews
Master architectural review shall be approved for a reasonable length of time as
determined by the Architectural Commission to be necessary to implement the
components of the master architectural review, but no less than 5 years.
Extensions beyond the duration set forth at the time of approval may be granted by
the Architectural Commission at a noticed public hearing, upon written request
from the applicant, when a finding can be made that the applicant could not avoid
the delay in implementing the master architectural review.
(Ord. 91-9, 12/10/91)
6/1-17