Laserfiche WebLink
340 <br /> September 16,1992 <br /> Councilman Moser recalled that no payments were to be made <br /> prior to completion of construction and acceptance of the <br /> theater as complete by the Council. <br /> Mr. Cushman assur d C it that the lease payment wouldnot be <br /> made until the project was complete and accepted. <br /> Poll was called with all councilmen voting yes. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> • <br /> APPEAL-SUBDIVISION ALTERATION f1-91(KJORSVIK) <br /> President Gipson stated[his is a public meeting tO review the <br /> appeal of Gene Lilley concerning subdivision alteration 61-91. <br /> The City received an application from Mr.Walter NSorsvik Par`a <br /> seven-lot subdivision'alteration; the Hearing Examiner•xeviewed <br /> andapproved the altexation•on June 19,1992: Mr: Gene Lilley <br /> asked for reconsideration <br /> nsideration of the Examiner's decision, stating <br /> that the City does not have the m r the funds to manage <br /> and maintain trees and vegetation inan <br /> Environmentally <br /> Sensitive Area for protection of views ofadjacent property <br /> The x a <br /> reconsideration was denied by the Examiner on July <br /> 17,ee <br /> 1992. On August 6, 1992, Appellant Gene Lilley filed an <br /> appeal on these same issues. <br /> Council has the following options: 1) deny the appeal and )C <br /> uphold the Examiner's decision).2) remand the matter beck to <br /> the Examiner for furtherconsideration; 3) hold a public <br /> hearing,modify,remand,or reverse the Examiner's decision. <br /> President Gipson reminded Council that the purpose of the <br /> eetingto determine whether a substantial a in the <br /> record may a not to conduct a hearing on the merits of the <br /> subdivision'alteration. <br /> Don Wood, Planning Staff, reviewed the application and the <br /> theBal process. Staff recommends approving a motion to deny <br /> appeal, upholding the cdecision to approve the subdivision <br /> al texati on. decision <br /> Lilley, 5120 Seahurst, the appellant','said he felt the <br /> process was not user-friendly. He requested that Council.hold <br /> a public hearing to review the Examiner's decision. <br /> Cl <br />