1989/07/19 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

279 July 19,1989 councilmember Overstreet asked Mr. Iles to comment on his participation in the proceedings. Hr. Iles stated that they discussed any comments made by Councilmember Overstreet in regards to the Silver Lake area and in his opinion, they were generic in nature and that CounAlmember Overstreet has not pre-judged the project and is entitled to participate in the proceedings. Councilmember Overstreet stated he is a strong advocate of the appearance of fairness doctrine and feels that he can participate impartially in these proceedings. Gerry Levine, Planning Department, presented slides reviewing the project and stated the Silver Lake Action Committee and Dorothy Vandeventer are aggrieved by the Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision of May 26, 1989 and his earlier decision of AprilSr Development to allow construction of 188 multiple family units on a 0.27 acre site. The appellants have requested that City Council review the Hearing Examiner's decision. Key issues of concern are the Hearing Examiner's authority, drainage, restrictive covenants, xl, tree preservation, school bus turnout, traffic, shoreline access, wetland, density, St. Peter's house, and public parking on site to mitigate public parking demand in the Silver Lake area. 6W.Ervine state the purpose of the hearing is to examine the record of the Hearing Examiner proceedings and,if Council determines that no substantial error in the fact or law exists in the record, the appeal would be denied. If Council determines that an erroneous procedure or en error in fact or law does exist,than Council shall either remand the proceedings to the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration, or schedule a public hearing to 1) modify the decision of the Hearing Examiner or 2)reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner. Acting President Pope reviewed the procedures that would be followed for the deliberations an the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decisicm on Shoreline Permit(S1.18 61-88)to allow construction of a 188 duelling unit apartment complex called Shelter Pointe proposed 4n:g:41; 21;,er"tarc:11:noLeit::,%!ga221; rox8o8 for the....le and then thc aPPlacent's representative given an Opportunity to present testimony ror consO deration. At that time the Council. would then determine whether an error in fact Or law exists in the record; if not, the appeal would be denied. If yes,the Council will ei,er remand the proceedings to the Hearing Examiner or schedule a public hearing to modify the decision or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner. Dorothy Vandeventer, 2012 129th PI SE, expressed her concerns that insufficient mitigation is required of this project to reduce the impacts to environmentally sensitive Silver Lake and the life quality of the residents of the surrounding community. She centented there were errors In fact or law in regards to the hearing examiner's authority, drainage, restrictive covenants, tree preservation, school bus turnout, traffic concerns, shoreline access,wetland and density.