Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissioner Wright said even though he had been looking forward <br />to being on Design Review, he agreed with Commissioner Hovingh <br />that five professionals might have better input. He also <br />recommended that the paper work be more concise. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahern commented that Mr. Iserson could attend the <br />Planning Commission meetings to answer questions, if necessary. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Michelotti, seconded by <br />Commissioner Wright that the Followup Report on the Joint Meeting <br />with City Council has been reviewed and recommend: <br /> <br />o That five professionals be appointed to Design Review <br />Board, including a position that may be held by a civil <br />engineer or a licensed professional as the fifth <br />member, deleting the position of alternate on the <br />Design Review Board. This would result in four <br />professionals and one appointee; <br /> <br />o That signs in the R-I-District be sent to Design Review <br />on a regular basis rather than approved by staff; <br /> <br />o That work sessions should not be prior to Design Review <br />meetings and should be scheduled separately, according <br />to the recommendation of the Design Review Board. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br /> <br />commissioners Hovingh, MCGuirk, Michelotti, <br />Wright, and Chairman Mahern <br />None <br />Commissioner Horan <br />None <br /> <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-91-46 was entered and adopted approving the <br />review and recommendations of the Followup Report on the Joint <br />Meeting with City Council as motioned. <br /> <br />COMMUNICATIONS <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />REFERRALS <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S INFORMATION <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />Minute. Planning co..i..ion <br />JUDe 26, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 10 <br />