CCMIN092099 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swirl felt the concept was a desire for the neighbors to be able to review a plan in conjunction with the City's peer reviewer so there is some discussion about the design before final action. That process is possible and is what is done with major projects. That has not been done with an individual house design. Ms. Michelotti was concerned that this would set a precedent for other applications of one or more houses. Ms. Dennis indicated that when there was a Design Review Board, every application came before that Board. The point of hiring a peer review was to replace the Design Review Board. The Planning Commission seems to be missing that function and that was why the recommended peer review. There is value for the public to have access to a professional person to address their concerns before going to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ayala felt the path added a complication to this application and perhaps the design review could resolve the issues. Mr. Swirl felt the path was a separate issue from the design of the house. Ms. Dennis suggested rewriting the condition to require PUD development plan design guidelines shall be modified to require that the house designs for all new houses shall be submitted to review by a City peer reviewer. The Planning Commission can always review it if it wants to. Mr. Tarver asked how notification would be handled. Mr. Swift said there is still an approval process. He assumed Councilmember Dennis' motion would mean the Zoning Administrator would be the approval body. The notice for hearing would be as currently exists. The additional step would be the peer review of the plans prior to the hearing. Ms. Dennis clarified that people are noticed of a pending decision; are invited to review the plans; and if there is a controversy, there is often a neighborhood workshop. The hearing is open to the public, but in the process there would be a peer review assessment of what was being presented if there was a dispute or suggestions being made, the neighbors would have the peer review to work with to talk about the issues. Mr. Tarver clarified that in condition #4 "to the Planning Commission" is being replaced with "to peer review and Zoning Administrator for review and approval". That would include notice to the neighbors, so if they don't like the plan, they can appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Michelotti encouraged the applicant to circulate the plans for the neighborhood to review and to make certain they are aware of what is going on. 14 09/20/99 Pleasanton City Council Minutes