Laserfiche WebLink
a s lced i f one o f the s e i nd iv idua i s wou l d be a l andscape a rcPi i tact _ <br />The answer wa s ye s by the other commissioners _ <br />Commissioner Mahern stated she wou 1 d be i n favo r o £ three peop 1 e ; <br />two a rch itects and/ o r one a 1 and scape architect ~ with a maximum <br />s i z e a rch i tectura 1 review committee o f £ ive _ Commi s s i one r Berge r <br />stated she agreed and fe 1 t there shoo 1 d be three P1 ann ing <br />Commissioners on the committee _ <br />Commissioner Horan then d i s cus s ed whether or not there shou 1 d be <br />1 i can s ed 1 andscape a rch itect s and a rch itects _ Commi s s i over Berge r <br />s a id th a recommendat i on shoal d be for professional s w ith <br />appropriate credent i a 1 s _ <br />The Commission then reviewed the sta f f report and scope o f <br />prof acts to be considered _ <br />A motion wa s made by Comm i s s i one r Berger ~ s econded by Commissioner <br />Horan that the Design Review Board composition be changed to be <br />composed o f two design pro fe s s i ona 1 s ( 2 a rch i t act s, or one <br />architect a nd one l a nd s cape a rch itect ) who w i 1 1 be added to the <br />existing Design Review Board _ Thes e two new members w i 1 1 be <br />acting in an advisory capacity for design review i s sue s o f <br />p roj act s be Pore the P1 ann i ng Commission ( tho s e not now going t o <br />the Design Review Board) _ S n s o doing ~ they wou 1 d attend the <br />P1 ann i ng Commission meetings and wou 1 d participate and make <br />recommendations on the fo 1 1 ow ing project s to the P1 ann i ng <br />Commission ~ a s the s e items are d i s cu s s ed at P1 ann ing Commission <br />hearings c <br />••NOrth P1 ea s anton•• C -O- S bu i 1 d i ngs <br />PUD C -O - S bu i 1 d i ng s <br />Pu D mu 1 t ip 1 e-resident i a 1 bu i 1 d i ngs <br />PUD S - F unit s <br />The s e i tams a re to be schedu 1 ed f i rst on the P1 ann i ng Commission <br />agenda _ <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES . Commissioners Berger ~ Horan ~ Hov i ngh ~ Mahern ~ and <br />Chairman Mi the 1 ott i <br />NOES c None <br />ABSENT a Comm i s s i one r Hoyt <br />ABSTAIN . None <br />Res o 1 ut i on No _ PC- 8 9 - 5 3 wa s entered and adopted malci ng a <br />recommendation to C ity Counc i 1 concerning the a rch i t ectura 1 review <br />board a s motioned _ <br />For clarification Mr_ Swift then asked the Planning Commission <br />wh ethe r i n the above motion i t i s i mended to extend the Design <br />Review function t o s ing 1 e - fam i 1 y house s not now reviewed by any <br />- 1 6 - <br /> <br />