Laserfiche WebLink
II <br /> April 15,1987151 <br /> I <br /> TM1e[Tanning DeDertment contently that the P 10"n,errors In fact " II] <br /> axis In the Heexing Examiner's decision: <br /> 1. The Examiner erred in stating that Anderson has refused <br /> to participate in the short platwhen he has in Pact =.� <br /> agreed to participate. <br /> 2. The Examiner erred in stating that safety hazards on I f <br /> Third Avenue will result from future improvements to } <br /> Third Avenue. In Pact the Traffic Engineer has stated (I 1 RIS'. <br /> that the traffic hazard will be created by Bou land's <br /> subdivision. <br /> 3. The Examiner erred in recommending alternatives to <br /> solving this problem (LID, street improvement <br /> ordinance)which are not viable. I1v,q 11 <br /> he P1 1 g p tment requests that CM1e City Council find that the ,Hilo <br /> E ami d tl reimpose Cpndl tions 64 d d5. 2on I <br /> ,rI {{{ <br /> 0 rr111 Bastian P 602 Fisher Business k 3500 188th SW,Lynnwood '`gyp`jpN� <br /> 8037 Attorney for Mr.Bourland, t t d that the Hearing Examiner's <br /> decision fair tl equitable and in accordenct with local andsta ( ' <br /> • to la, Mr.Bourlandis more than willing t=pa his Pair sare 2 <br /> for theimprovements sbut St 1 impossible t equine him to make <br /> improvements on property h doesof M Anderson may agree to <br /> participate but t e"Fort Knox^asking price. <br /> The City also ons a portion of the right of way which is Included <br /> In the property considered for improvement. The City cannot be a " <br /> aggrieved party as the Hearing Examiner is a part of the Cit and <br /> the Cite cannot challenge its own sprocedures. In addition,to be an �' <br /> aggrieved party,financial loss must be shown. <br /> C uncllman ve[st rear st etetl that now hey De the time to consltler 1P �( <br /> tM1e F1annin Department can be an aggrieved party. <br /> Jim Iles, Assistant city Attorney, stated that the City can be an pq� <br /> aggrieved party and can appeal'the Hearing Examiner's decision based b' .V <br /> upon the Hearing Examiner Ordinance and the Hearing Examiner Rules. 1 <br /> It is he responsibility of the City to mitigate safety hazards and g f( <br /> ti not take <br /> lossppropriate action could expose the City to potential ! 1t <br /> Moved by Councilman Overstreet, seconded by Councilman Stephenson <br /> �`A <br /> y <br /> that staff is appropriately,through City and State statute, a party 3Mrj <br /> to bring an aggrievement a Council will continue to the issue with p i 'I <br /> that determination made. <br /> Roll <br /> o1 was called with all councilmen voting yes except councilman <br /> Pope who was excused. <br /> Motion carried. l. <br /> Councilmen StepM1enson Baked about the liability oP the Ctty 1P they Y f <br /> not mitlgoate the safety M1azaxtls wM11cM1 will be created witD the r' <br /> development f this subdivision. ' <br /> f1 1 <br />