Laserfiche WebLink
R t if ORE <br /> July 20,1988 <br /> 4 f, 1P <br /> } <br /> s,}' SHORELINE PERMIT APPEAL <br /> ' President Niva said thepurpose of this meeting 1s to hear the <br /> appeal by two property owners(,�i o f the Hearing Examiner's decision to <br /> approve Shoreline Permit allow a 224 unit apartment complex <br /> 1' @ called Lakes's Landing on Silver Lake. <br /> I The decision council ill b asked to make is whether or not the <br /> k" f' Hearing Examiner d erroneous procedure or that these was <br /> d substantial error-of-fact o error-in-law. If it is determined that <br /> x did exist, council can do O of two things, 1, remand the <br /> N-1I atter to the Hearing Examiner ore 2, schedule public e hearing. <br /> 6 e <br /> it Otherwise the council t deny the appeal. <br /> l,s She said the procedure ld be that staff would be introduced efirst <br /> for a brief presentation.w t the two appellants would be given <br /> 4 time to establish h by they believea error has occurred <br /> s <br /> Itlt submitted in their written statements and the h representative of <br /> F the developer will speak. <br /> 'i <br /> Gerry <br /> Ervine o4 the Planning Department said theit s bounded on <br /> the Orth by 110th St., on the south by S 52J, onv the west by <br /> � � Safeway antl on the east by t rd Or. S.E.so tM1ere axe single family <br /> yp homes Pmontvng the ea[ sitle DP the pwrodect antl same on the south <br /> Ali side. He then presented slides oP the ite. <br /> § }'. He said the silver Lake Action Committee and Dorothy vanderventer <br /> I�.�'. aggision a the Hearing Examiner tle 1 1 P May 2, 1988. <br /> 1 <br /> The decision as to approve a Shoreline Substantial Development <br /> P Permit for Mueller Development Co. for development 4 n apex Cment <br /> complex o 224 units on a 9.9 ace site. Th pPP 1 nts Contend <br /> 1 14' that an error-in-fact and an error-in law rwe 1 t therecord of <br /> Y� the Hearing Examiner's decision and they arequesting the Council <br /> r&�I reverse the Examiners decision on this proposal. Key v of <br /> d I{4 fl f concerns are storm drainage, water quality i Il Lake, density <br /> of development, wetlands maintenance, traffic impacts, shoreline <br /> 14y111.Y '. trail system and street improvements. f t <br /> �i,' He id staff concurs in the findings and decision o he Hearing <br /> Examiner and recommends that the council deny athe appeal and approve <br /> 11 � the shoreline permit. <br /> It 1dal <br /> F 9 PI standardem street <br /> etxxom asked about qui a dint No. tt, regardingS.E. full <br /> ql 3 {t^ . Candied s meat mens as specified <br /> required to 110th StWorks <br /> SE. end <br /> if <br /> ddltlonad improvements as specified pe est Public omrks existingto be ement oon1 110th St. t0 carry pthes[siansubje Prom the x stinglmprnvement 19th Ave. S.E. to the subsact property. This <br /> ed <br /> t vement may d cussions Pram the protect rte ty Nonmoe Schlicant.mp a n Putuee tliscussions between the city, county antl applicant.yesasked what was happening on rhes Creasing 0 <br /> !f . Ervine said that the city w asingg the c unty line and the <br /> city can't dictate what improvements are necessary but the city will <br /> attempt to negotiate the further improvements. <br /> �� III ! Councilmembex Stephenson suggested negotiations start with the <br /> ISMcounty immediately. He then asked of a policy had been established <br />{k SS. ,l about the cumulative impacts of raffic in this area and Mr. Ervine <br /> 1R said the <br /> traffic the <br /> impactsad arounduated Silver a traLakefic about study ayear ago atThellstudy <br /> t f I <br /> V <br /> i, <br />