Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br /> Page 82 <br /> was facilitated by Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center. Additionally, all correspondence <br /> by interested parties has been maintained as part of the administrative record, and was <br /> reviewed and considered by the Zoning Administrator in issuing the permit. <br /> Several property owners were initially concerned with the project when the application <br /> was first submitted, and all interested parties were kept apprised of the review process <br /> at all steps. Upon the Zoning Administrator's issuance of the Notice of Official Action <br /> (Attachment 3), a copy was sent to interested parties, specifically, four other parties in <br /> addition to the appellants and the applicant. However, except as to the appellants, the <br /> City has not received any further communication from interested parties regarding this <br /> application. <br /> c. Applicunt.s x�ould have,further demonstrated that the PlanningDepartment, fram it.s <br /> senior munagement t�� the planner and zoning administrator responsible for reviewing <br /> Applicants' proposal, ignored these inputs and concerns, and, ira practical fact "rubber- <br /> stamped " Applicants ' pr�oposals. <br /> i. Applicants will acknowledge that Jill Elcas, Planning Department Heud, will <br /> naartttain that the Planning Depart»tent required numerou.r changes in Applicants ' <br /> plans, but Applicants will show that the c.�ssentially objectionable elements <br /> �•emained after their review. <br /> ii. Appellant Marc Warsowe will testify that Chpistapher Rugers, Planner, and Blake <br /> Lyons, Zoning Offrce��, made a site visit to Appellants' house <br /> (a) looked out of the windows und stood on the deck that would he visually <br /> impacted by the Roof and agreed that the Roof tivould be, indeed, both <br /> overwhelming visually and out of place in the neighborhood. <br /> (b) looked at the prnpo.red placement of Applicunts' deck and agreed that someone <br /> standing on ihe end of the proposed Deck could Ivc�k directly znto Applicants' <br /> bedroom windotivs. <br /> (c) ob.served the Tree and stated that it appeared l:ealthier than the redx�ond <br /> Applicant.s sought to preserve. <br /> iii. Notwithstanding, the Planning Department granted Applicants permission to <br /> proceed with the Deck, the Rvof, and the Tree. <br /> Staff Response: As previously mentioned, Attachment 2 provides a chronology of the <br /> project review process, which highlights the multiple opportunities afforded to interested <br /> parties to participate in the City review process. Project review included evaluation of <br /> items of concern including, but not fimited to, correspondence and alternative design <br /> suggestions provided by interested parties. <br /> l4 <br />