Laserfiche WebLink
v , ° .0 <br />Architectural Review Board and Building Zoning and Development Committee were created <br />was due to the fact that the city did not have a Planning Director. He suggested that if Council <br />had a representative on the commission they could possibly eliminate the Building Zoning and <br />Development Committee. Mr. Spalding felt that the number of commissioners serving on the <br />board could increase to 9 members if the Architectural Review Board was combined with <br />Planning Commission. <br />Planner's comments: <br />Ms. Wenger found in her research that most neighboring communities have 5 to 7 members on <br />their Planning Commission. She thought of expanding the number of inembers to higher than <br />7, but was concerned that it would become difficult to have a quorum. She found that in most <br />communities both the Mayor and Council had representatives appointed to serve on Planning <br />Commission. She spoke to the Planning Director of Fairview Parlc who combined the <br />Architectural Review Board with Planning Commission. He told her that there were no down <br />sides to the change. There seems to be better consistency having individuals with design <br />experience on the board from the beginning. Ms. Wenger felt that often recommendations <br />made by the Architectural Review Board get lost in Planning Commission or there is no one to <br />follow through with their recommendations. The only means the Commission currently has to <br />receive the Boards recommendations is through the interpretation of the minutes or relying on <br />her to distinguish whether or not applicants have met the Boards recommendations, but she is <br />neither an architect nor landscape expert. She stated that for example an issue which arose in <br />2004 concerning a proposal in which Mr. Zergott's recommendation to place screening around <br />a dumpster area was completed. However, after the changes were made, Mr. Zergott noticed <br />that the plants used to create the screening did not grow dense enough to provide the proper <br />screening. Therefore, for future follow through, consistency and proper representation, the city <br />would be well served to have that type of representation at this stage of the Boards and <br />Comrnissions. <br />Board members Comments: <br />Mr. Spalding felt that both an architect and landscaper would be needed on Planning <br />Commission. Mr. Yager agreed and voiced that as an architect who has taken classes at <br />Harvard which were landscape orientated he could barely give advice on plants or where plants <br />should go. He would be considered on the highest end of an architect being educated in <br />landscaping and he wouldn't begin to know or profess to know enough to give advice on <br />landscaping. Mr. Koeth stated his concern would be that if the architect or landscaper were not <br />present at a meeting it would put the commission in an awkward situation. Although he knows <br />the Planner has now established a pre-submission conference which will need to be continued <br />to make the recommendations work. He believes that the number of applicants allowed on an <br />agenda would have to be closely watched or limited. The meetings will run longer due to more <br />detailed reports given. Mr. Yager suggested having a separate table for City officials to sit at <br />such as the Forester, Fire Chief, or other City Officials that may attend the commissions <br />meetings to discuss or advise the commission. <br />Planner's response: <br />Ms. Wenger believed that the applicant's first meeting with Planning Commission would be a <br />cursory review, whereby the commission would request specific city officials attend the second <br />meeting to address specific issues. She suggested that Planning Commission can recommend a <br />Council member join Planning Commission, but they could not change the way Council <br />operates. Therefore, the commission could only recommend Council look at possibly <br />3