Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
M 1-85
POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. h ,ya„tl 'iii r, -�” .. .:' .. � -vp4 ' A'wxrt Mai' 1 u'�i bi. '�`, ' 'rT BrA,IDR'r�n,7ULLRICE LAMMERMAN M . -$ A.. ' Lot Lirle Adjustment See file MLF""' i . ' 5-85 If A' r 6trv: I fA1 {` 15,.E 7• • r lI 4 • .�r 5• . .. I N } t,t.'.;''''', ei ' Y ( 1 1'Altl I_;t)P.`.. I 1 1 ? C D OI COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY N N I„mber 18, 1985 AGENDA OF, A CEN DA ITEM ; DATE SUBMITTED! October 29, 1985 PREVIOUS .ACTION: ` ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Refund Request ._..W_... PREPARED BY: Keith Liden �;.. ,,..--- y yl REQUESTED 8Y: William R. Baldwin DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: tit 44-1/\------ \--''� C I TY ADMINISTRATOR: • POLICY ISSUE fr' INFORMATION SUMMARY A proposal for a Lot Line Adjustment/Minor Partition/Variance (M 1-85/ML,P 5-85/ V 9-85) was denied by the City Council. A modified proposal for only a Lot Line Adjustment (M 4-85) was approves by the Planning staff. , e The applicant then applied for a se fond. Lot Line Adjustmentt- (M 10-85) i voiving the same prdperty which was also approved is requesting a refund for the Line The applicant i� requ second Lot L,� Adjustment , application $220.00) . ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • 1. Refund all or part of the $220 application fee. 2. Deny the request. SSTEO AC•I Od Deny the Pequest. •b, •way+�...wau :" 4...r..„, t,vas« .,« mNs+�e.,. i.. M x f ,.?an•e, r ti• August 1, 1985 • . ;; William Monahan .'.:'t'........':',,:.', Director of Planning ; r'., . CITY OF TIGA, D ,:' ' Tigard, Ore(fon 97223 L: : This application is the same as lot line adjustment + p � approved.�>' ` MI�-85 submitted in April of this vF�ar. It was � r©ved ,; by Staff ar'd signed by you Mr. Monahan 4/26/850 This was part of MLP--585 - MI-85 , V985, which was I believe ' denied unjustly. These were 3 separate applications and should have been acted on as a separate applications, 'y,. ",' each on its own merits. As MI-85 did not violate any City codes I feel that it particularly should have ''s been approved on its own merits. i am hereby requesting review of this lot line adjust�- :r ment only I also ask that any fees so connected be 4. have to pay twice for the ''' waived, in that I ' should not hav same .) r .. t. r' Williait R Baldwin 1660 NW 143rd L 4,,.... , Portland, OR 97229 .:. ,,:, .',it s WiP c_.12/2,- ,,,, I w I'd c ', attachment l r„ 4 I..., r+ ' /, I. , .......w•t..,y�. wry. ,-w+�,>r•'+y'""'•M."te � �J •� '""�'"j;s i, J r' ' tt. , rt