PC 09/10/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

7. MATIERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS . a. Design Review Committee Survey Results Mr. Iserson presented the survey results to the Planning Commission for its review. He noted that copies of pertinent Planning Commission and City Council staff reports previously prepared regarding the design review process were also included. Commissioner Barker asked for clarification as to who pays Mr. Larry Cannon, the City's consulting architect. Mr. Iserson advised that funds are collected from the applicant, Mr. Cannon submits invoices to the City, and the City uses the applicant's funds to pay Mr. Cannon. Commissioner Barker thanked staff for the information. She noted that she questions the talents of the Planning Commissioners to do the design review of projects. She advised that she would like to see a new design review board. She stated that she doesn't like the approach used by Danville having two Planning Commissioners also serving on the design review board. She would like it to be an appointed body, but they don't need to be professionals, just people who could show they have good taste. An alternative would be to send projects to the Civic Arts Commission, in that those are people who have a more artistic eye. She noted that she has heard a lot of complaints regarding the color and design of the Promenade project and the swimming pool complex. Commissioner Barker stated that she would like to be relieved of the burden of doing design review, and would like to see a different board formed. She noted that this would expedite Planning Commission meetings and allow the Planning Commission to be more focused. She commented that she would like to see the design review board reinstated. . Commissioner Wright advised that the City's Design Review Board was disbanded due to the additional time required to process applications and the conflict of interest issues that resulted. He noted that these reasons are still valid. He stated that he believes what we have now is very workable; staff and Larry Cannon provide an adequate review. He commented that he thinks the system works and he would like to see it stay the same. Commissioner Kumaran stated that he doesn't feel it hurts to see a different way of doing things. He thanked staff for taking the time to prepare the information. He noted that he wants to protect the Commission's time, but he sees that while the purpose and intent is genuine, he understands after listening to Commissioner Wright, the outcome sometimes defeats the purpose and intent. He stated that he believes the Planning Commission is doing a reasonable job of working with the resources it has available to it. He noted that the process with a design review board could cause the process to get lengthened rather than shortened. He suggested that this issue could be revisited at a later time if it is determined that this process is not working. Commissioner Lutz stated that he felt the information provided a useful review, especially for the new members of the Commission. He noted that he had an experience with the Design Review Board and that it did not give him much confidence in that the perception of conflict of interest was overwhelming. He noted that he believes the consultant process is working well and is a good negotiating strategy with the applicants. He suggested that consideration be given to reviewing potentially contentious issues at a separate meeting from design issues. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 September 10, 1997 .