Laserfiche WebLink
110 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr explained the history and creation of this Board. <br /> The majority of the Council at that time felt that if this body was -- <br /> going to exist it should be a commission and therefore, she <br /> concurred in its action. She has appreciated having the input of <br /> these design professionals over the years. However, the workload <br /> of the 1980's has passed and the City will probably not have that <br /> amount of growth any time soon. She felt that many times the <br /> approval process is delayed because the applicant does not do <br /> enough research and this will continue to happen whether there is <br /> a Board or not. Ms. Mohr asked staff if there would be any <br /> requirement for the length of time for an applicant to make the <br /> corrections that staff requested. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift reiterated that staff has recommended that it call <br /> two to three professionals to review the projects without having to <br /> meet the advertisement requirements. Therefore, the process could <br /> move quicker than it currently does. He described an average work <br /> session and Design Review Board meetings with public attendance. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if this Board was redesigned as an informal <br /> consultant advisory panel would there be more people used than just <br /> the five or would the list be of a limited number. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift thought that it would be advertised for those who <br /> would be interested to create a broader list than the number that <br /> is on the Board now. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner felt that the design professionals have made a <br /> positive impact on the quality of development and they also have <br /> assisted and directed staff. She believed that staff provides one <br /> view on a project and the architects provide another. She felt <br /> that the City needs that balance. Ms. Scribner requested the <br /> public hearing process be eliminated because it only delays a <br /> process. She was in favor of 1) advisory consultants, with the <br /> minimum of three people and maximum of seven; 2) workshop scenario; <br /> 3) no staff reports; and 4) those comments from the consultants <br /> will be incorporated by the applicant and brought back for <br /> consideration before the Planning Commission. She indicated that <br /> most cities who have had the same problem with conflict of interest <br /> have solved it by having an informal process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico was not in favor of eliminating the Design Review <br /> Board. He felt that the Board was essential in the approval <br /> process. He believed that the conflict of interest problem can be <br /> solved. The City can advertise more broadly and make a more <br /> diligent effort to find private sector and lay persons that could <br /> be valuable members. He felt that a seven member board with no more <br /> than three private professional doing business in the City would be <br /> appropriate. <br /> <br /> S/2/93 6 <br /> <br /> <br />