24 Staff Report - Design ReviewCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 16, 2001
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 08/20/00
ITEM NO. ,)4
CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE &
SITE APPROVAL APPLICATIONS.
RECOMMENDATION:
Institute a pilot program utilizing an architectural firm to critique and evaluate the architectural
design of the proposed projects as part of the Development Review Committee process.
BACKGROUND:
On February 26, 2000, the Town Council held a study session with the Planning Commission.
Among other topics, the effectiveness and efficiency of the current design review process was
discussed. Architectural review is currently performed by the Planning Commission for most
projects while the Development Review Committee reviews minor or smaller scale projects.
Alternative processes used by other agencies were discussed at the study session. Staff was directed
to prepared a report discussing design review alternatives. These alternatives were presented in a
report to Council on April 3, 2000. The Town Council considered the information and then tabled
the matter for future discussion.
The Town's design review process was again discussed last Spring during the Joint Town
Council/Planning Commission Retreat. Staff was directed to look at alternatives that evolved from
the discussion and to bring a recommendation to the Town Council for consideration. One of these
alternatives includes instituting a pilot program that would focus on architectural review by an
architectural firm that would critique the design of the proposed projects.
DISCUSSION:
For many years, Los Gatos has recognized the importance of design review in ensuring that projects
are built to promote excellence in architectural design and enhance the physical environment of the
community. In addressing the importance of design review, Section 29.20.140(d) of the Los Gatos
Town Code states that, "The purpose of architecture and site approval is to regulate the height,
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: OIL Attorney Clerk Finance Community Development
Revised: 8/16/01 9:59 am
Reformatted: 5/23/01
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
width, shape, proportion, siting, exterior construction and design of buildings to insure that they are
architecturally compatible with their surroundings, ...". To ensure that this purpose is met, the
Town Code establishes a procedure where, for most applications, the Planning Commission has final
approval authority over architecture and site applications. Currently, the Planning Commission is
responsible for design review of all single-family homes in the HR and RC districts and commercial
buildings. In addition, the Commission reviews applications on referral by the Development Review
Committee (DRC) and Director of Community development or that have been forwarded on appeal.
The Planning Commission discusses details of architectural design of projects in a comprehensive
way at the public hearing with little or no opportunity for dialogue or discussion of alternatives with
the project architect. As a result, the process does not allow for evaluation of impacts by the
architect of changes resulting from discussions and/or changes approved at the Planning Commission
meeting. This process also results in longer meetings because much of the discussion is focused on
the architectural details. Staff has researched a number of processes utilized by jurisdictions in
California for purposes of evaluating possible alternatives to the process currently in place in the
Town. The following is a summary of the various methods available to communities with discussion
of how they might work in the Town of Los Gatos:
1. 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. The process can be similar to a
Zoning Administrator or Hearing Officer where decisions on planning and zoning applications are
made by an individual in a public hearing format and are appealable to the Planning Commission
or Town Council. This process generally necessitates an extensive design manual that provides the
basis of review and requires making findings. In effect, there is minimal discretion in that the project
is "measured" against the design standards set forth in the manual. However, no manual can
effectively cover everyone's design preferences. Additionally, this places full discretion on one
person, and can result in more appeals as it is easier to challenge the decisions of one individual over
those of a group. One way of addressing this is by using an architecture firm to serve as a design
critique board. However, this method would require all the architects in the firm to become familiar
with the Town's design policies and standards, and each application would necessitate a review by
these professionals. At an average of approximately $120 to $150 per hour for each architect, the
cost of a design review could be very high.
An alternative method of using the Town Architect is to have all applications requiring design
review forwarded to an architect or architectural firm on contract with the Town for review/critique
of projects. The architect or architectural firm provides evaluations and recommendations on the
projects to the Planning staff. These recommendations are forwarded to the DRC as conditions of
approval of the project. Under this alternative, the DRC has final approval authority on site and
architecture applications. Final decisions by the DRC may be appealed to the Planning Commission.
The architect or architectural firm is required to become highly familiar with all applicable Town
guidelines, policies and standards related to architectural and site design. The level of involvement
can vary depending on how much staff support is available to work with the architect. For instance,
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
some communities only require that the Town Architect review or critique plans and provide written
comments to staff that are then forwarded to the decision -making body (Zoning Administrator,
Architectural Committee, Design Review Committee etc). The town architect has little involvement
in discussions or meetings with the applicant or project architect or presentations to decision making
bodies. Others see the Town Architect as an extension of staff and involve him/her in all aspects of
the design review, including meetings with applicants and attending public hearings, as deemed
appropriate by the Community Development Director. Communities that use peer review by an
architect (Dublin, Pleasanton and Sunnyvale) typically require a deposit fee for design/architectural
critique to cover the costs associated with this type of review. Additional costs may be incurred
depending on the complexity of the project. Alternatively, there may be a tiered fee structure where
small residential projects require a lesser fee and larger, more complex project require a larger fee
to ensure all design review costs are recovered by the jurisdiction. Currently, the Town of Los Gatos
does not have a development fee cover the cost of architectural review by an outside consultant.
Staff's preference would be to have a firm with several architects on board to provide
architectural/design review for projects in Los Gatos. In this way no one architect would be
responsible for all projects thus potentially eliminating any one design bias by an individual that may
not necessarily respect the Town's expectations of design excellence. This level ofreview could also
be provided by an urban design firm with professionals schooled in principles of urban design. A
way to determine if there are firms that can provide this type of service as well as the actual cost of
peer review by more than one architect or urban designer in a firm is through the Request For
Proposal's (RFP) process. This process would also help determine the cost recovery fee for
architectural review by an outside consultant or firm.
One of the benefits of this process is that it has a design professional, with greater understanding of
design relationships and opportunities, providing suggestions and input to staff, the
applicant/architect and the decision makers. With an architectural professional under contract, there
is always assurance that there will be someone with the professional background and experience to
provide design review. This is not always available with Town staff or commissions or committees
where membership is dependent on volunteers in the community. This process would also help
remove the discussion of architectural details from the Planning Commission meeting and provide
a more appropriate forum for discussion and evaluation of design alternatives for a project with the
project architect. Once architectural and design issues are fully evaluated, the project can proceed
to the DRC with a recommendation by the Town Architect and staff. The Planning Commission will
continue to review Commission -level projects, but will focus more on issues of consistency with the
General Plan and neighborhood concerns rather than issues of design articulation. This process
would remove a major role from the Planning Commission. However, it would help shorten
meetings and would allow the Commission to focus on land use decisions and policy and legislative
issues. In addition, all projects may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or could be
referred to the Commission at the discretion of the Director of Community Development where
issues of privacy or visual impacts are identified by DRC or raised by the public.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
2. Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
This is typically a subcommittee of the Planning Commission whose members rotate onto the
committee. For example, in a seven member Commission, three members serve on the ARC for a
staggered period of time. Meetings are held separately from regular Planning Commission meetings
thereby freeing the Commission meeting for more general land use discussions. The full Planning
Commission member meetings may be reduced in frequency (e.g. one meeting per month) or
meetings may be shortened because the discussion is focused on general land use issues. Appeals
of the ARC decisions are typically made directly to the Town Council because of the Commissioner
membership on the ARC. The City of Los Altos uses this method of design review.
The City of Cupertino recently amended its Municipal Code to create a design review subcommittee
of the Planning Commission. The City uses the services of a contract architect to provide input
related to design issues which are then forwarded to the subcommittee. These evaluations are passed
on to the Planning Commission, as appropriate. This process is intended to allow preliminary
feedback to applicants which allows staff to work out design issues before forwarding
recommendations to the Planning Commission subcommittee. It also stresses the importance of
having a design professional available to provide input on matters of design review. Attachment
2 is a sample report by the contract architect to the subcommittee.
An advantage of the ARC 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).
A disadvantage of this process is that it requires a detailed set of design standards and guidelines or
a design manual and adds an additional layer to the process which can potentially lead to some
confusion. A design manual is required to provide specific criteria for evaluation of projects by the
ARC. What is typically heard from the applicants at Planning Commission meetings is that the ARC
has "approved" the project irrespective of the applicant being told in writing that the ARC decisions
are subject to the overall review of the Planning Commission. In addition, this process requires
additional staff support for meetings including preparation of agendas and staff reports.
3. Design Review Commission (DRC)
This process requires a separately appointed DRC. Among the communities that use this method
is Claremont, in southern California. Attached is information from the City of Claremont that 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. architects, designers, historic preservation
expertise) and citizen representatives. Appeals are made directly to the City Council. This process
requires greater staff support, both from planners and clerical staff, 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 (CUP) for a particular use, generally
approving the site plan. The DRC then approves the specific design of the buildings, colors,
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
lighting, etc. Occasionally, there is a conflict between the two groups. For example, the Planning
Commission may approve the CUP only if certain design features are required yet the project design
has already been approved by the DRC. 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 but may not take into consideration the overall land use
issues of neighborhood compatibility that is within the purview of the Planning Commission. This
process has the same opportunities for misunderstanding as described in the discussion above
regarding the ARC. The primary disadvantages of a DRC is the staff support that is required and
the additional layer of review process.
4. Design Review by Planning Commission:
This method is currently used by Los Gatos and other communities (e.g. Saratoga and Belmont).
This process provides maximum continuity in applying land use policy to design review. With the
committee assignments of the Commissioners, the design review process (e.g. Architecture and Site)
provides Commissioner input as members of Historic Preservation, CDAC, and Architectural
Standards/Hillside Committees. Decisions by the Planning Commission are appealable to the Town
Council. Some of the disadvantages of having the Planning Commission involved in design review
is that it increases the number of projects reviewed and number and/or length of meetings.
Additionally, it calls for the need to have design professionals on the Planning Commission where
such volunteers may not always be available to serve. It also eliminates two-way conversations
about the design of the project since the public hearing format of the meeting precludes the
possibility of a "dialogue" between the project architect and the Commission.
5. Planning Commission Study Sessions (PCSS)
Many communities use Planning Commission study sessions to allow a focused discussion about
a specific project. The Los Gatos Planning Commission occasionally schedules a special study
session with an applicant to discuss details of a project. A primary objective of the study session is
to have an 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 return to a regular Planning Commission meeting. This requires more meetings for
Planning Commissioners and staff and requires the public and applicant to attend yet another
meeting. With the anticipated workload of implementing General Plan Strategies requiring special
studies to implement the revised policies, it is anticipated that study sessions will need to be used
to work on general plan planning items. Additionally, members of the Commission will be more
involved in subcommittee (General Plan, Architectural Standards/Hillside, Historic Preservation)
meetings thus increasing the amount of overall meetings with limited resources to staff them.
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
CONCLUSION:
All of the processes discussed have advantages and disadvantages. Which one works best depends
upon the agency, the detail that is involved and the availability of staff and commission/committee
volunteers. Given the anticipated workload related to General Plan implementation in addition to
ongoing development applications, Alternative 1, the contract Town Architect, appears to be a more
efficient and effective alternative for design review that allows for better front end work with staff
and the applicant before a project is deemed complete by DRC. The DRC can then take action on
the project or forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission, as it currently does. Design
review issues would be discussed by the Planning Commission only if the design is "fatally flawed"
(i.e. the design does not take into account issues of privacy, views, etc.) or if an application is being
appealed on the basis of its architecture. This will lessen the workload of the Planning Commission
thereby allowing it to focus more on land use related issues and general plan implementation
programs.
As a next step, staff suggests that the Town Council authorize the preparation of Request For
Proposals (RFP) to be forwarded to architectural and urban design firms. The RFP process will also
serve to determine the availability and cost of contract architect/urban design firm to provide
services as town architect and will provide specific information as needed for establishing a cost
recovery fee. Staff will return to the Council with a report identifying the preferred
architectural/urban design firm and any revisions to the ordinance required to revise the existing
process and the fee structure to cover architectural review costs.
It is anticipated that once selected, as an initial step in the contract, the selected architect would meet
with members of the Town Council and Planning Commission to discuss the design review process
and the members expectations of the architect. In addition, the town architect would meet with
design professionals that do business in Los Gatos and DRC members to receive input from them
in order to gain greater insight into community design issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Not applicable: this is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The revised process would involve a revision of the fee structure to require a deposit for
Architectural Review and this fee would be cost recovery. An administrative fee would be structured
to cover staff time reviewing and coordinating the work of the Town architectural consultant.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
Attachments:
1. Town Council minutes - April 3, 2000 (one page)
2. City of Cupertino architectural evaluation sample (two pages)
3. City of Claremont Architectural Commission Powers & Duties (two pages)
4. City of Claremont Architectural Review process (17 pages)
BNL:DUMc/SD
N:\D E V \S UZANNE\Counc i 1 \Reports\FY2001-02\Design Revi ew. wpd
DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION/ARCHITECTURE & SITE
REVIEW (14.47)
Mayor Blanton stated that this was the time and place duly noted to consider the
effectiveness and efficiency of design review during the Architecture and Site Review
process.
Council Comments: There are opportunities for Council and staff education in planning
issues and historic review. Planning Commission annually attends conferences for
education and members are required to take architectural classes if they serve on the
commission. A Town architect can serve as a resource for the Commission and Council
for discussions of mass and scale. Staff can address ways of including interested parties
in the preliminary concepts before the final designs arrive at Council.
Greg Moss, 16788 Littlefield Lane, asked for neighborhoods to be included in the
beginning stages of projects and processes . The sooner the issues are discussed, the
sooner they can be addressed and the sooner the project can be completed.
Ray Davis, resident, spoke about the need to follow the Town Codes and to be
consistent.
Mayor Blanton asked that this item return to Council at the same time Council and
Planning Commission are holding their study session. He also requested that Council
study sessions occur 1 hour before the regular scheduled Council meetings, especially
on nights when a Closed Session is not agendized.
Attachment 1
June 28, 2001
Mr. Peter Gilli
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Lin Residence - 10228 Stelling
Dear Peter:
The overall ap-
proach to the design of
this home looks O.K.,
but the proportions and
details could use some
greater refinement. My
comments are shown on
the front and rear
elevations to the right.
In addition, it appears
that the windows
probably are set fairly
near the face of the wall
and there are few
window sills shown on
the application draw-
ings.
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
Roof / Column Cap
relationship is awkward
Proportion between
upper and lower portions
of window look awkward
1
Pilasters seem
a bit wide
Door frame between door
and transom not substantial enough
Window head seems too high -
See north elevation
Front elevation comments
Closeness of
wall to roof edge
is awkward
f
Heavy balcony over
kitchen projecting window
seems visuall incom.atible
Lt.
1114111111 '1II
Trellis seems Bay window is awkward -
insubstantial roof too high / no window
heads or sills
Rear elevation comments
TEL: 415.331.3795 FAX: 415.331.3797 180 HARBOR DRIVE .SUITE 219. SAP' ' ''• ^,.
Attachment 2
Lin Residence
Design Review Comments
June 28, 2001 Page 2
There are a number of refinements that might be considered. These are shown on the diagrams
below, and are probably self-explanatory. The one thought that I do think is important is to give some
more attention to the various windows. The utilization of a common flat arch form for the window heads
would do a great deal to give the design more unity. And, the lowering of the entry looks like it would
bring the design a bit more in scale to the newer adjacent house. Also, consideration might be given to
expressing the chimney more on the exterior. The photographs that I have don't show that area so I
can't tell whether this portion of the home can be seen.
Lower entry roof
Modify Use flat arch top
upper and for all windows
lower and openin.s
window
proportions
Consider
expressing
chimney on
side elev.
Add sills
to all windows
Reduce width of
upper pilaster from
this to this
Pull entry forward
Suggested front elevation changes
Pull wall back and
extend roof to right
f
Improve proportions Lower bay
of trellis members window roof
Consider eliminating
projecting window -
use regular window
Add projecting sills
to all windows
Suggested rear elevation changes
If you have questions concerning my comments or suggestions, please give a call.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon AIA AICP
President
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219. SAUSALITO. CA94965
CI7 Y of CL<l2CMo•,/r
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 cultura.; 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.
Attachment 3
necessary on requests from individual resi-
dents, developers, and c fficials 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
---.. ........ v, ,.r ...-,..., u, yuoiitr vl t1 IC 1..V11 fl 11Ul ,
M. To ir,vite artistry and innovation in signs
that imprc le appearance of the buildings
and neighborhoods in which they are placed;
N. To promote the installation and main-
tenance of landscaping in public and privatr
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 Structure'-
of Historic and Architectural Merit of the City c,
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/TY of C-4EeMo,rr
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 4
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
A. Composition
An Architectural Commission is hereby established, which Commission shad
consist of seven members as follows:
One shall be an architect, licensed under the Business and Professions Code of
the State of Califomia; 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
ti
Chapter 6 Part 1 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.
The Architectural Commission shall meet at intervals, at least once each month, on
regularly scheduled dates.
E. 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
f
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.
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.
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
C. 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 lots.
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. All master architectural reviews.
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.
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.
. E. 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
Govemment 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
Government 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 Tess 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
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 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
5. 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.
7 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.
9. 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.
3. The proposed project will not unduly impinge on neighbors' access to Tight
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 1 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 light 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
Town Council Minutes August 20, 2001
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
TOWN PLAZA RENOVATION/PROJECT 0107/PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONTINUED
Speakers continued:
John Spaur, 1913 Los Gatos -Almaden Road, Architect for the Plaza Bell, asked to be included in the
process and decision making especially since he has a commitment to and special interest in the bell.
Ray Davis, resident, spoke against the use of fountains in the park due to health hazards associated with
recycled water. He also requested restroom facilities in the park.
Council Comments:
Mr. Glickman he would like to see a people park that can be used, seen and enjoyed by all. He does
not want the park to seem exclusionary. He would like seats to sit on and not necessarily boulders
unless they invite people to sit on them. He would like to see more children using the park rather than
efforts to exclude the children. The fountain should be a safe interactive fountain and not like the one
that is there now which is slippery, has things growing on it and children climbing all over it. He
believes the clock could be moved somewhere else and he would prefer not to have any more meetings.
Mr. Attaway asked for a site visitation and would like the people who had been active on this
committee before to be included in this present planning.
Joe Pirzynski would like more time to work through this project and be able to include all the major
stakeholders. He would like greenscape emphasized and hardscape deemphasized. He would like to
see an interactive fountain.
Mrs. Decker wanted to see a great park that would invite people to gather. She would like to see a
cohesive whole and not a piecemeal project. She feels the fountain must go, and the bell tower could
be settled at the Forbes Museum as an historic piece of the Town's past.
Council Consensus that staff will follow up with the comments from Council and supply Council with
resource materials and an on site meeting. Staff report was accepted for filing.
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WORK PROGRAM FOR YEAR 2001-2002 (23.31)
Bud Lortz, Community Development Director, gave an overview of the work that has been done and
noted the 43 items which are planned for consideration this year.
Ray Davis, resident, reminded Council that he believed the Tree Ordinance needed to be modified.
Motion by Mr. Attaway, seconded by Mrs. Decker, to accept the work program for the implementation
strategies that are in progress or will be started this year. Carried unanimously.
Mr. Glickman would like consideration and work done on the following items: L1.2.4 and L1.8.5.
He believes houses should be a size that is appropriate to the lots and the neighborhood in which they
exist. He does not think it is wise to support having a maximum town house size nor does he believe
that on a twenty acre parcel the homes should be limited to a particular size although the obtrusiveness
can definitely be considered.
ARCHITECTURE & SITE APPROVAL/DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES (24.31)
Bud Lortz, Community Development Director, gave an overview of the pilot program. The consulting
firm will need to understand the basis and background of Los Gatos and be able to assist applicants and
staff through the planning process to meet our Zoning regulations and General Plan.
Ray Davis, resident, spoke against this proposal believing that the consultants will be working for
themselves rather than for the town.
Motion by Mr. Attaway, seconded by Mr. Glickman, to institute a pilot program utilizing an
architectural firm to critique and evaluate the architectural design of the proposed projects as part of the
Development Review Committee process. Carried unanimously.
TC:D 13 :MM08200 1
8