PC 01/27/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

duties be modified. In further response to her questions, Mr. Swif stated that should the Board be eliminated, the Zoning Administrator (who is Mr. Swift 0 some other delegated staff person) and/or the Planning Commission would assume the du . es of the Design Review Board. Mr. Beougher indicated that in the event the Zoning Administrator hould approve something the Planning Commission did not like, it could be appealed by the ommission. Commissioner Mahern stated that she felt the reasons the Economic Development Committee gave for wishing to disband the Design Review Board were invalid. She said in comparison to other cities, the approval process for applications was very timel and that the cost of the fees was below that of most other cities. She felt the only real pro em was for those professionals who sat on the Review Board and subsequently could ot talk with staff about cases they were representing because of the State's ruling on contlic of interest. In response to Commissioner Michelotti's comments, Mr. Swift sta Commission took over the Design Review Board's duties, that basi and straight-zonings would go before the Commission. that if the Planning y only new buildings "- Commissioner Wright stated that he felt the Planning Commission w uld have a difficult time doing what the Design Review Board did, in that architects and landscape architects had more expertise in the design area. He knew that staff was very kno ledgeable, but did not think they had the range of expertise on design as the architects. Mr. Swift noted that staff is not trying to downgrade the value of th however, he felt that with staff and the City's landscape architect, still be handled with skill. Design Review Board; ke Fulford, cases would THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Michael Goldsworthy, 633 Abbie, stated that as a past Design Revie Board member he did not have the opportunity to speak on this issue before. He said he r igned from the Board because of the new statutes on conflict of interest which virtually wo ld not allow him to practice his profession of architecture in Pleasanton. He noted that t e Economic Development Committee's goal was to cut through red tape and s up the approval process. He stated he has been in practice for 25 years, and he felt leasanton was head and shoulders above any other town for a fast, but thorough approval pr ss, usually no more than six and one-half weeks on a fast pace. Other cities usually take ix months. He felt that eliminating the Design Review Board would not speed up the tim ng process. He felt that it would, in turn, make it more difficult for the Planning Commi sion to make major planning decisions, and also have to decide on colors, landscaping iss es, etc. Planning Commission Minnles January 27, 1993 Page 9