A design review process of the city is established. The community development and sustainability department director shall have the authority to process site plan and architectural approval requests in conformance with this article.
(Ord. 1694 § 1; Ord. 2390 § 2, 2012)
The purpose of the design review process is comprehensive site plan and architectural review so as to determine compliance with this article and to promote the orderly and harmonious growth of the city and the stability of land values and investments and the general welfare; and to help prevent the impairment or depreciation of land values and the development by the erection of structures, additions or alterations thereto without proper attention to siting, or of unsightly, undesirable or obnoxious appearance; and to prepare for and help to prevent problems arising affecting the community due to the nature of existing and planned uses of land and structures, such as traffic, public, safety, public facilities, utilities and services, among others.
(Ord. 1694 § 1)
The city council finds that poor or inappropriate exterior design of improvements to real property adversely affects the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city by creating one or more of the following conditions:
(a) 
The desirability of other properties within the vicinity for the uses for which they are zoned is adversely affected;
(b) 
The benefits of occupancy of other property in the vicinity are impaired;
(c) 
Property values within the vicinity do not retain their stability;
(d) 
The most appropriate development of other properties within the vicinity is impaired;
(e) 
The maintenance or improvement, or both, of surrounding properties is discouraged with the result that these properties degenerate and there is an accompanying deterioration of conditions which affect the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the inhabitants of the city at large;
(f) 
The proper relationship between the taxable value of real property in the vicinity and the cost of municipal services to these properties is destroyed; and,
(g) 
The unsightliness which exists causes a decrease in the value of surrounding properties.
(Ord. 1694 § 1)
(a) 
All new multifamily projects and mixed-use projects that may be approved through a ministerial review process shall comply with the Citywide Objective Design Standards. This shall include, but not be limited to, projects seeking approval under Government Code Section 65913.4 ("SB 35 projects"), Government Code Section 65852.24 ("SB 6 projects"), and any other existing or future section of state law or this article that requires ministerial approval of multifamily residential or mixed-use projects.
(b) 
All new multifamily projects and mixed-use projects that may be approved through a discretionary review process but that are nonetheless required by state law to comply with objective standards shall comply with the Citywide Objective Design Standards, as well as any existing objective standards applicable to the project. In the case of a conflict between existing objective standards applicable to a project and the Citywide Objective Design Standards, the Citywide Objective Design Standards shall prevail. Such projects shall comply with all necessary discretionary review processes and applicable subjective design standards to the extent permitted by state law.
(c) 
The city council may adopt and amend the Citywide Objective Design Standards by resolution.
(Ord. 2665, 8/27/2024)
The function of the director shall be to review the following, with respect to all structures except artwork, single-family dwellings (except as otherwise directed in this section), and accessory buildings, unless specified otherwise elsewhere in this chapter:
(a) 
Siting of all structures as designated upon a site plan, except for wireless telecommunications facilities, which shall be reviewed in accordance with Article 40.29 of this chapter;
(b) 
Landscaping, fencing, other screening as designated on a landscape or sprinkler plan featuring all existing trees and shrubs and proposed plantings;
(c) 
Design of all circulation and parking and loading facilities for automobiles and bicycles;
(d) 
Location, design and screening of garbage and recycling facilities;
(e) 
Details of fencing, and of public work items such as curb cuts, curbs, gutters, sidewalk design, drainage, fire hydrants;
(f) 
Location, design and intensity of all exterior lighting;
(g) 
Location and design of addressing system or graphics and mail delivery system;
(h) 
Location and design of all required open space areas;
(i) 
Exterior elevations or perspective drawings of structures featuring building height, description of all building materials, building colors, screening of utility meters and mechanical equipment;
(j) 
Design, placement, dimension, colors of all proposed signs and exterior graphics as limited by the sign section of the zoning ordinance. This shall include building materials, lighting systems and intensity of signs and temporary signs and shall apply to all temporary as well as permanent signing;
(k) 
Review of sign variance applications pursuant to Sections 40.33.010 to 40.33.120 of this chapter upon proper administrative review procedures as identified in this chapter;
(l) 
Review of design and placement of facilities for physically handicapped;
(m) 
Review of prefabricated, or otherwise constructed, accessory buildings in terms of colors, location and design;
(n) 
Review design of parks and greenbelts in cooperation with the recreation and park commission;
(o) 
Review of any other external feature deemed to be materially important to the site or building design;
(p) 
Proposed projects that meet the criteria adopted by resolution for minor improvement projects shall be processed in accordance with the procedures adopted in the resolution;
(q) 
Review of garage conversion applications for exceptions to parking standards for single-family and duplex dwellings, pursuant to Section 40.25.115;
(r) 
Projects within the Davis downtown and traditional neighborhood overlay area;
(s) 
Review of increases in allowable floor area ratio for single-family and duplex dwellings pursuant to Sections 40.03.060, 40.04.060 and 40.06.060 (area, lot width, yard and open space requirements for R-1, R-2 and R-R zones);
(t) 
Review of increases in the allowable height of atrium and courtyard walls for residential dwellings pursuant to Section 40.27.060;
(u) 
Review of new construction of single-family dwellings, duplexes, or two-family dwellings that are two or more stories;
(v) 
Review of all additions to single-family dwellings, duplexes, or two-family dwellings that increase the gross square footage of the dwelling by more than 40 percent. For purposes of this calculation the base square footage shall be that on record as of the effective date of this ordinance.
(Ord. 1694 § 1; Ord. 1940 §§ 10, 11; Ord. 2066 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2110 § 5, 2003; Ord. 2155 § 4, 2004; Ord. 2358 § 3, 2010; Ord. 2390 § 2, 2012; Ord. 2548 § 3, 2019; Ord. 2558 § 3, 2019; Ord. 2677, 11/4/2025)
In carrying out the purposes of this article with respect to the external design of buildings and site plans of all proposed new buildings, structures or uses for which site plans and architectural review is required, the following principles shall be applicable:
(a) 
Review of architectural character shall not be so restrictive that individual initiative is stifled in the design of any particular building or site or that substantial additional expense is required. Rather, it is the intent of this article that the review exercised shall be the amount necessary to achieve the overall objectives of this article;
(b) 
Good architectural and landscape architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building or site for its purposes; upon the appropriate use of sound materials, good relationship with other structures and the character of the city; and upon the principles of harmony, preparation and design in the elements of the building or site;
(c) 
Good architectural and landscape architectural character and site planning design are not, in themselves, more expensive than poor architectural character and poor site planning design, and are not dependent upon the particular styles of architecture; and
(d) 
Review of sign graphics shall be based upon suitability of the sign colors, placement, design to overall building design and adjacent sign themes. The community development and sustainability department shall consider the extent, design and location of all temporary signs in the review of sign graphics.
(Ord. 1694 § 1)
Three copies of accurately scaled drawings shall be submitted with three copies of the application form. The number of copies of such plans to be submitted shall be established by the director. The community development and sustainability department may require submission of amendments to an application before, during or after its review period to reflect more detailed information reasonably necessary for staff to make its determination.
If a new structure or an addition to an existing structure is proposed, where the addition or new structure will be located within the tree protection zone or tree canopy of a tree of significance or landmark tree as defined in Section 37.01.020, and Sections 37.03.010, 37.03.020 and 37.03.050, a site plan shall be submitted that accurately depicts the location of all mature trees on the site, including the type of tree and diameter of the tree at breast height (DBH), and the height and size of the tree canopy which may be within the building envelope. At the discretion of the community development and sustainability department in coordination with the community services director, an arborist's report may be required for any tree(s) on the site which may be affected by the proposal in order to determine whether the proposal will damage the existing tree(s).
(Ord. 1694 § 1; Ord. 2020 § 6, 2000; Ord. 2099 § 6, 2002; Ord. 2390 §§ 2, 3, 2012; Ord. 2677, 11/4/2025)
The review procedure for all applications may consist of a preliminary plan and a final plan or just the latter. The community development and sustainability department encourages a preliminary and final plan in instances of large or complicated development projects.
Preliminary review by the community development and sustainability department has the following purposes:
(a) 
Indicate to the applicant major areas of deficiency and good design;
(b) 
Instruct the applicant as to sections of the project which are unacceptable or need minor revision; and
(c) 
Inform the community development and sustainability department on the scope of the project of the final review stage.
(Ord. 1694 § 1)
A site plan and architectural (design review) application shall be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the director, planning commission, or city council pursuant to the requirements of Article 40.39 of this chapter. Such application may be approved only if the following findings are made:
(a) 
The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the general plan, complies with applicable zoning regulations, and is consistent with any adopted design guidelines for the district within which the project is located;
(b) 
The proposed architecture, site design, and landscape are suitable for the purposes of the building and the site and will enhance the character of the neighborhood and community;
(c) 
The architectural design of the proposed project is compatible with the existing properties and anticipated future developments within the neighborhood in terms of such elements as height, mass, scale, and proportion;
(d) 
The proposed project will not create conflicts with vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian transportation modes of circulation; and
(e) 
The location, climate, and environmental conditions of the site are adequately considered in determining the use of appropriate construction materials and methods. Sufficient conditions are included with the approval to ensure the long-term maintenance of the project.
(Ord. 2067 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2390 § 2, 2012; Ord. 2677, 11/4/2025)
The procedure for appeal of a design review determination shall be as established in Section 40.39.050 of this Code.
(Ord. 1694 § 1; Ord. 1890 § 2; Ord. 1975 § 5, 1999)
The design review approval of a site plan and architecture subject to Article 40.31 of the Davis Municipal Code shall become null and void if substantial construction in good faith reliance on the approval has not commenced within a thirty-six-month period subsequent to such approval. Such expiration date may be extended by the director for one or more periods not exceeding a total of eighteen months upon a showing that circumstances and conditions upon which the site plan and architecture were approved have not changed. Any such extension by the director shall be processed in accordance with the requirements of Article 40.39 regarding administrative approvals.
Notwithstanding such extension, the holder of an approved site plan and architectural review may request tolling of the term for which the approved site plan and architectural review is valid due to litigation challenging the approval. The tolling request must be submitted in writing to the director prior to the expiration of the term of the approval. The request must establish to the satisfaction of the director that the subject litigation challenges the grant of the underlying permit, or the environmental determinations relating to its approval, and has been filed by a plaintiff or petitioner other than the permit holder. In response to this request, the director may grant a litigation tolling period. The tolling period shall be calculated from the date the action is filed with a court of competent jurisdiction until such time that the court of final jurisdiction enters its final disposition of the case and all appeal periods have expired or such time that the litigation has been dismissed.
(Ord. 1847 § 4; Ord. 2390 § 2, 2012; Ord. 2572 § 24, 2020; Ord. 2677, 11/4/2025)