Laserfiche WebLink
ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES v Commi s s i one rs Berger ~ Horan • HOV i ngh ~ Mahe rn ~ and <br />Chairman M i the 1 ott i <br />NOES . None <br />ABSENT . Commissioner Hoyt <br />ABSTAIN c None <br />Re s o tut i on No _ PC - 8 9 - 5 2 wa s entered and adopted recommending <br />approva 1 o f Ca s e PUD- 8 5- 1 6- iM a s motioned _ <br />RZ -8 9- 7 C it o f P1 easanton <br />App1 i cat ion o f the C ity o £ P1 easanton to amend the z on ing <br />ord finance in order to establish an arch itectura 1 review board _ <br />Mr _ Swift presented the sta £ £ report wh i ch i nc 1 sided two sta £ £ <br />report s from previous C i ty Counc i 1 meetings _ <br />Comm i s s i one r Hov i ngh stated that in de fens e o f the i t Board and <br />others ~ a 1 1 proj ect s Piave been designed by architects _ He <br />therefore ~ i s not sure that an a rch itectura 1 review board wou 1 d be <br />a panace a fo r the C ity _ Further ~ C ity Counc i 1 ha s the r fight to <br />appea 1 any decision made by the Design Review Board and P1 ann i ng <br />COmm 1 S S 1 On _ <br />Comm i s s i one r Berger pointed out that s eve ra 1 project s were turned <br />down by the P 1 an i ng Commission and that i t s den i a 1 wa s 1 ate r <br />overturned by the C ity Council _ <br />Commiss iover Mahern asked i£ at staff 1eve1 there is anyone who is <br />an a rch i tect _ Mr _ Swift reviewed the staff • s qua 1 i f i cat i ons <br />i nc 1 ud i ng one degree i n a rch ite cture a s we 1 1 a s undergraduate wo rlc <br />by others _ Commissioner Mahern a s aced i f any o f the sta f f <br />mentioned were 1 ands cape a rch i tact s _ She a s ]cad what i s 1 oolced fo r <br />when h i r i ng staff _ Mr _ Swift answered that a broad spectrum o f <br />various to 1 ant s i s 1 oolced for i n the overa 1 1 composition o f the <br />department _ <br />The pub 1 i c hearing wa s opened _ <br />No one addressed th i s matter _ <br />The pub t i c hearing wa s c 1 o s ed _ <br />Comm i s s i one r Berger stated that having design pro fe s s i ona 1 s on the <br />Design Review Board makes more sen s e than creating another <br />structure Po r which sta f f w i 1 1 have to provide support _ She s aid <br />she d id not want a dap 1 i cat i on o f e P Port s w ith th i s regard _ She <br />fe 1 t the Board perhap s shoal d be en 1 a rged ~ commissioners rep 1 aced <br />through attrition with design pro fe s s i ona 1 s or •• de -appoint •• <br />existing commissioners to f i 1 1 th i s des ign rev i ew pro fe s s i ona 1 <br />need _ <br />- 1 3 - <br />