Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Ip;'-ts <br /> June 8,1988 219 <br /> COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT <br /> Moved by Councilmeeber Morrow, seconded by Counctlmember Overstreet <br /> to authorize the Mayor to ecuteaagreement with the <br /> State of Washington Parks end Recreations Commission for a boatinr <br /> safety program. <br /> Roll was called with all counCllmembers voting yes. <br /> Notion carried. <br /> AGREEMENT AMENDMENT I. <br /> Moved by Counctlmember tangos, seconded by Counctlmember Gipson to �. <br /> authorize the Mayor t execute an amendment to the agreement with <br /> the University of Washington for a restoration study of Silver <br /> Lake. The amendment_1s a no coat amendment extending the project <br /> completion date to August 31,1888. <br /> Roll was Called with all oouncilmenbers voting yes. � <br /> II4 8[I <br /> Notion carried. 4 i191 <br /> Y <br /> AGREEMENT jl <br /> "i'.. <br /> Moved <br /> tangos, s bPe Counctlmember Stephenson <br /> toa authorize the <br /> Mayor t sign g e nt with Betescs, Nash k jl <br /> Hall Architects Parchitectural. 1 1 remodeling portion s1I jsk <br /> of the Service nt r building. t <br /> Roll wascalled with all councllmembers voting yes. h S 1I� <br /> Motion carried. f�oG <br /> F <br /> APPEAL <br /> �I1 V <br /> Mary Cunningham, Planning Staff, stated that Evergreen neral Hone �l�1 <br /> Is aggrieved by the Hearing a Examiner's decision P April 15, 1988 <br /> which denied the motion for reconsideration of his earlier decision <br /> of March 21, 1980. The decision denied a Special Property a '� <br /> Permit Pox Evergreen Funeral Home to construct a crematorium, e <br /> base: <br /> n the fact that the Applicant did not demonstratea public need afar `�y <br /> the proposed addition. The Applicant contends that an error-in-fact 111.; <br /> and an error in law exists in the record of the Hearing E aminer's I'} <br /> decision. <br /> Ns. Cunningham stat d the Hearing Examiner Ordinance specifies that <br /> the City Council in a public eting must Consider an appeal 0,the Y J,,l <br /> Wearing Examiner's d i i The City Council hes three alternative ]1' . <br /> actions it can take <br /> 1. It can deny the ePPeal:: rft�.. <br /> 2. It can remand the matter back to the.Hearing Examiner <br /> Por further consideration; <br /> 3. It can find that errors in Pact or errors to law may <br /> exist and set a ublie hearing to consider the matter ' <br /> t , 1 <br /> more Pully. After the ublic hearing, Council may <br /> modify or reverse the Hearing Examiner's deCiston. <br /> +� <br />