CCP 06-15-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jerome Filla, Esq. . June ~2, 1992 Page 2 would be to plaCe his project on the Planning Commissions agenda. He reviewed the financing commitment schedule and determined that be would be able to timely close and comply with the City request for Planning Commission approval. He fully expected at this point that the approval was merely a formality required to reinstate his "suspended" project. The suspension occurred as a result of his conversation in December, 1991 with City staff which l",d him to believe that no further extensions would be required if he agreed to "suspend" his application. The City never indicated to Mr. Foster that he would be required to fully reapply for building permit approval. Mr. Foster placed calls to the city and was told to reapply for an extension and did so, as requested. He was contacted by Mr. Bergly and was informed that an.extension was not necessary, but should have the Council in effect "suspend" his proposal. Therefore, Mr. Foster thought that he had COme to an agreement with the City, and did not even attend the December 30, 1991 Council meeting at which this proposal was discussed. Therefore, Mr. Foster continued in his efforts to obtain a loan commitment. . At no time prior to the Planning Commission meeting on June 3, 1991 did Mr. Foster receive any indication whatsoever of a pending moratorium or any indication that his project would not be approved, even though he had numerous contacts with the City .staff. During the month Of June he had expended $22,000.00 of non-refundable monies attempting to meet the financing commitment closing date of June 12th. If Mr. Foster had expected anything but full Council approval, he surely would not have expended these sums. These expenditures are documented in the attached affidavit of Mr. Foster. It appears that the December 10, 1990 meeting did not authorize the issuance of a building permit, but did approve the site plan. In reviewing the ordinances and Mr. Bergly's memo of December 30, 1991, in which he cites section 7(e), he has lumped together a number of projects. However, I believe that the memo did not state the correct code requirements. In section 7(e) of Mr. Bergly's memo, it references building permit issues, and appears that the Council's December 10, 1990 meeting can authorized the site plan and not the issuance of a building permit. It contemplated Mr. Foster's compliance with additional items. This is inconsistent with Mr. Bergly's and the council's position that the permit expired in December of 1991, since the permit was never authorized to be issued. Therefore, no extension was ever necessary, and no action was required by the . Council on December 30, 1991.