PC 04/26/89 - Laserfiche WebLink

by the mayor _ She a sked the Commission i f they wou l d l i ke the peop 1 e £unct i on i ng a s an a rch itectura 1 review board on 1 y or whethe r or not they wou 1 d dea 1 with fence s and othe r matte r wh i ch routine 1 y come be fore the Design Review Board _ Commissioner Mahern stated a lot o£ discussion of architectural review board came about becaus a o f the surpr i s e i n appearance o f the Prometheus multi -family un it s i n the north end o £ town _ They 1 oolced f ine on p 1 ans and the £u 1 1 s ca 1 e o f the deve 1 opment wa s not anticipated a s 1 oolci ng 1 il~e i t now does _ A 1 of o f d i scus s i on re 1 at i ng to th i s came out o £ the 1 a st e 1 ect i on _ Commissioner Horan asked i£ the follow commissioners would be s at i s £ i ed w i th two pro £e s s i ona 1 members being added to the Design Review Boa rd and have that body expanded from three to f ive _ He a s Iced i f that wool d s at i s fy the C ity Council _ Commi s s i one r Mahern commented that th i s wou 1 d be a good idea _ Commissioner Horan then suggested that perhaps th i s body cou 1 d work on e 1 evat i ons , co 1 ors , mode 1 s , etc _ Commi s s i one r Mahern reiterated she £e 1 t Commissioner Horan • s suggestion to be a good idea _ The Design Review Board wool d be expanded by two pro fe s s i ona 1 s who wou l d s it w i th the three -person Design Review Board _ Chairman Mi the l ott i a s lced how the Commission £e 1 t about design review matters that come to the P1 ann ing Commission _ Chairman M i the 1 ott i a s3ced sta £ £ at what point an a rch i tectura 1 review board wou 1 d get i nvo lved _ D i s cus s i on then ensued regarding We 1 1 s Fargo Bank which wa s considered tonight and the fact that sta f f had worked w i th the architect to rev i s e the i t £ i rst subm i tta 1 becau s e i t wa s not i n keeping w ith what P1 e a s anton want s to s ee _ Commissioner Horan suggested that if an architectural review is to be advisory that they cou 1 d s i t at sta £ £ tab 1 e a nd have input at hearing wh i 1 e not a ctu a 1 voting on a prof ect ( just a s a 1 ternat e commissioners do now ) _ Commissioner Hov ingh suggested that the board consist o f three person s and i £ a vot e end s at two to one i t be k i clced up to the P1 ann i ng Commission for a decision _ Comm i s s i one r Berge r d i d not afire e with this _ Counc i lmember Ben Ta rver sp olce to the Commission _ He £e 1 t the matter aros e out o f a reaction to a few bad deve 1 opment s _ Overall ~ the C i ty • s proces s worKS we 1 1 _ There nave been s ome atrocid es in North Pleasanton aril houses on the hi11s in P1 e a s anton _ He fe 1 t , however , the subj ect to be reactionary to thos e instances _ Techno 1 ogy ha s come a 1 ong way and Counc i 1 membe r Ta rve r suggested that perhap s techno 1 ogy coul d be used to show the City what a prof ect w i 1 1 1 oo3c 1 i Ke when comp 1 eted _ Counc i lmember Ta rver s aid there i s a strong opinion that s even peop 1 e a re not needed to approve architecture _ Cha i rma n Mi the 1 ott i a s ]ced i f everyone agreed to expand the Design Review Board by two pro fe s s i ona 1 s _ Comm i s s i one r Hov ingh - 1 5 -