Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> FAX 612 ~87 208:] lJa13'k & Wiseman 141 008 <br /> f.Io/I;;:/H~ 1;;:; ;J-' <br /> architectural fees, and attorney fees. <br />. During the June 3, 1992 Planning COmmission meeting, the <br /> City lIloved my approval down the agenda and then after my case was <br /> introduCed, a Motion was made to vote on a construction <br /> moratorium immediately, before they addressed my project. The <br /> moratorium was not even on the agenda and was quite a surprise, <br /> to say the least. That is the first point at which I had heard <br /> of any consideration whatsoever of a construction moratorium or <br /> any other delay or problem in reinstating my site plan approvaL <br /> It also seemed quite peculiar that they didn't discuss the <br /> moratorium until after the other construction related agenda <br /> items were dealt with, and then immediately before my item. <br /> Nobody at the Planning Commission meeting was surprised to <br /> hear about a moratorium, and everyone on the Planning Commission <br />. as well as city employees, were fully aware of what was being <br /> discussed. It was of no surprise to anyone with the city, but <br /> it was fully a surprise to myself and other observers in the room <br /> that are not connected with the city. <br /> I believed that since I had complied with all the prior <br /> issues the City had raised and, the site plan had already been <br /> approved, "reinstating" the site plan approval was merely a <br /> fomality. I went along with the City's suggestion that the <br /> approval be "SUspended", instead of extended in December of 199~. <br /> At the request of Kathy Iaga, I did still complete the <br /> application for reinstatement. I also submitted another fee for <br /> the reinstatement, and I talked to a number of people at the <br />. city, none of whom indicated any problem or concern with the <br /> 4 <br />