Laserfiche WebLink
280 July it,IMP <br /> Paul Miller, member of Silver Lake Action Committee, stated the <br /> Hearing Examiner's decision did not include adequate mitigation in <br /> regards to the Shoreline Trail, the loss of the St. Peter house, <br /> tree retention,protection of the water quality,we ponds,density, <br /> perpetual maintenance of school access, wetland preservation, <br /> ingress and egress'and parking. He asked that Council find that an <br /> error in fact or law may exist and schedule a public hearing for <br /> further consideration. <br /> Brad Cattle,attorney for the applicant,BaYridee PrePeStlea, steted <br /> that ample time and review has been given to this project. The <br /> applicant has been sensitive to the needs of the community and has <br /> 0. agreed to conform to the requests and requirements of the various <br /> , t entities. He stated there was no error In the Hearing Examiner's <br /> decision. <br /> 'SP <br /> Mr. Cattle stated that Resolution No. 3072 removed all <br /> considerations except for traffic, and an Environmental Impact <br /> Statement focusing on the traffic issues was prepared at the request <br /> of the Council. The traffic study was done by Dave Enger, a <br /> responsible official who has also done traffic studies for the <br /> • City. The content of that study has been satisfied with mitigations <br /> required in the conditions established in the Hearing Examiner's <br /> decision. He asked that Council uphold the Hearing Examiner's <br /> Ms ' decision and deny the aPPeels. <br /> tv`J' Councilmember Overstreet asked about the maintenance of the school <br /> access easement. gr. Cattle said the applicant would voluntarily <br /> offer a letter of commitment to maintain the easement. <br /> I <br /> s: ' Moved by Councilmember Overstreet,seconded by Couneilmember Pope to <br /> find that no substantial error in the fact or the law exists and the <br /> appeals of the Hearing Examiners decision on Shoreline Permit (SPA <br /> 87-80) for Shelter Pointe as proposed by Bayridge Development are <br /> Mm; denied. <br /> =c11M7mbgl=ow"X vole'd lunigflig:ntIMembenieayeand Ugn <br /> rjj,ti'1: who were excused. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> , <br /> RESOLUTION <br /> Moved by Councilmember Overstreet, seconded by Councilmember Langus <br /> OP to adopt Resolution No. 3197, Bayridge Development Shoreline <br /> Substantial Development Permit as follows: <br /> Oeyelcp:=TX s7Pg=g:Sautsst:NtafnDetrlcoPmInt1:::Mit7an:""9' <br /> WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Hearing <br /> Examiner on July 12,1908,march 23,1980,and May 18,IMP;and <br /> a deciXEnRVIt hereby attached; <br /> made findings, conclusions and <br />