Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> FAX 612 4,j7 2u8:J llalJ'l{ '" Ii' 15 eman Ii] 008 <br /> Uoi12/~i.:. 12; ;j;: <br /> architectural fees, and attorney fees. <br /> . During the June 3, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, the <br /> city moved my approval down the agenda and then after my case was <br /> introdUCed, a Motion was made to vote on a construction <br /> moratorium iln.mediately, 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 /> dis=ssed. 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 1991. <br /> At the request of Kathy Iago, I did still complete the <br /> application for reinstatement. I also submitted another fe.e. 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 /> - <br />