Laserfiche WebLink
houses on these particular lots to come back to the Commission to be reviewed <br />rather than through staff-level approval. She indicated that she finds it odd that, if <br />there is a condition for a re-grading application to be heard by the City Council, the <br />Planning Director has an application go through the Zoning Administrator process <br />rather than through the process found in the original City Council's wishes. She <br />compared the City Council to the CEO and stated that if the Council wanted to <br />review something, such as the grading of certain lots, regardless if it was decided by <br />a City Council of 20 years ago, that's what needs to be done. <br />Mr. Roush stated that he cannot speak entirely for why Mr. Iserson did what he did <br />and that his assumption would be that Mr. Iserson looked at the intent of the <br />condition, which seems to be an issue of the privacy concerns of those downhill <br />residents. He added that he thinks, as Mr. Dolan had earlier indicated, that in an <br />effort to try and resolve the issue at the lowest possible level without having to take it <br />to the City Council or the Planning Commission, Mr. Iserson made a judgment call <br />that he would try to work with Mr. Jeffrey and the Johnstons and other affected <br />neighbors at a staff level or Zoning Administrator level to try and resolve the issue <br />without elevating it further than that. He indicated that regardless of whether it was a <br />good or bad idea, it was a judgment call on Mr. Iserson's part, and there seemed to <br />be acceptance at least at some point from all affected neighbors that this would be <br />an appropriate way to proceed; unfortunately it did not turn out the way Mr. Iserson <br />hoped it would. He stated that without speaking for Mr. Iserson or justifying what he <br />did, Mr. Roush felt it was well intentioned but did not work out in this particular case. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired if the City Council was informed through a memo or <br />some other way that a lot was being re-graded in error and there was a former City <br />Council action to have these reviewed by the City Council. Mr. Roush replied that <br />he did not believe this has happened. <br />Chair Blank stated that he felt it was reasonable to try and get all the parties together <br />to try and resolve the issue. He noted that between the end of January and the first <br />Zoning Administrator hearing of April 16, 2008, it appears that permission was given <br />for the pool and that at least one party thought there was permission given for the <br />wall. He inquired if there were minutes or notes produced from those actions or <br />record of discussions that took place during the three to four months when things <br />were happening. Ms. Amos replied that there is no record or meeting minutes <br />during that time period because what took place were internal conversations with <br />staff; no official public hearings were held. <br />Chair Blank asked Ms. Amos if she was under the impression that the wall was <br />approved in January 2008. Ms. Decker explained that the City had a change in <br />project planners for this application. She noted that Ms. Amos is not the original <br />project planner. With respect to whether or not there were notes and/or minutes and <br />whether or not these decisions were memorialized, she explained that the Director's <br />instruction to staff regarding various decisions made are not always memorialized <br />via email or written notes. She stated that the Director has the authority to make <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 21 of 33 <br />