Laserfiche WebLink
STUART L. FINNEY <br />ATTORNEY AT LAW <br /> <br />1401 Northwestern Financial Center <br />7900 Xerxes Avenue South <br />Interstate 494 at Xerxes <br />Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 <br />612-831-3400 <br />November 23, 1976 <br />CERTIFIED MAIL <br />RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED <br />Mr. Thomas F. Lewcock <br />City Manager <br />City of New Brighton <br />803 Fifth Avenue Northwest <br />New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 <br />Re: PRD No. 21--DaVerne Corporation <br />f] <br />Dear Mr. Lewcock: <br />I am writing to you on behalf of my client, DaVerne Corporation, <br />in order to set forth my client's position on the above noted matter. <br />Also enclosed are additional copies of this letter for distribution to <br />the Mayor and Council Members. <br />In early 1976 DaVerne Corporation (applicant) after consultation <br />with the City Planning and Engineering Staff made application to the City <br />of New Brighton for approval of PRD No. 21, which was a refinement of PRD <br />No. 18 which had. been previously approved by the City. At the initial <br />hearing on PRD No. 21 a number of questions were raised regarding the effect <br />of the project upon abutting lands and ponds. When this matter came before <br />the City Council applicant was specifically requested to obtain certain <br />additional data and answers to a number of questions. Further, the City <br />Council requested the City Engineering Department to provide an engineering <br />report analyzing pond-water level problems and provide a suggested solution <br />to these problems and in addition thereto the Council placed a moratorium <br />on the development until the engineering report was received. <br />Since the initial presentation to the City Council applicant has <br />attempted in all instances to cooperate to answer any and all questions <br />and to solve any problems. At each and every additional hearing before <br />the Planning Commission and the City Council new and insignificant matters <br />have been interjected into the proceedings to delay app.licant's project. <br />These delays have occurred not only in frustration of applicant but also <br />in total disregard of a petition signed by a majority of the affected <br />homeowners requesting approval of applicant's project. <br />Until receipt of the engineering report and the supplemental report <br />attached thereto I advised applicant that although there may be questions of <br />legality regarding the delays, awaiting receipt of the engineering report <br />