Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Moved by Casey to grant Mr. <br /> `, Hau's request for a waiver of$787.50 in fees related to his project for a new <br /> residence and second unit at 13901 W. Edith Avenue. <br /> MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Siegel <br /> and passed by the following roll call vote to deny Mr. Hau's request for a <br /> waiver of $787.50 in fees related to his project for a new residence and <br /> second unit at 13901 W. Edith Avenue. <br /> AYES: Mayor Pro Tern Tryon and Councilmembers Johnson and Siegel <br /> NOES: Councilmember Casey <br /> ABSENT: Mayor Hubbard <br /> Dr. Hau, applicant, stated that he did not see the difference between the City <br /> Attorney's time and the Director of Public Works' time; the appeal policy <br /> had not been established when the appeal against him was filed; and he <br /> did not believe he had been treated fairly. <br /> 7.2 Request from Mr. Noghrey for Extension of his Site Development <br /> Permit <br /> Mr. Noghrey, applicant, explained to the Council the financial conditions <br /> which were the basis for his request for a one year extension of his site <br /> development permit for a new residence which had been originally <br /> approved in August of 1989. He had requested a two year extension but he <br /> was changing that now to a one year request for extension to June 1993. <br /> Mr. Noghrey also commented the neighbors were the same as when he <br /> originally applied for a site development permit and they had no <br /> objections to the project. <br /> MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Moved by Casey to approve a <br /> one year extension of Mr. Noghrey's site development permit for a new <br /> residence at 27870 Fawn Creek Court to June 1993. <br /> Tryon asked if the neighbors had been notified and was advised that they had <br /> not been as this was not a public hearing. She was concerned about this <br /> policy in general but in this case she knew the area and that the neighbors <br /> concurred with the project under discussion. Johnson commented on the <br /> financial difficulties of the owner and Siegel noted that the procedure had <br /> changed since the original application for this project and it had not <br /> originally been reviewed by Council. The applicant's proposed maximum <br /> use of floor area was also discussed. <br /> hlw May 6, 1992 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> 5 <br />