08-11-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n Todd R. Iliff* Kevin W. D eV ore Ann M. Hale Iliff & Associates, P.A. Attorneys At Law I8-3 Phone: 612/922-4647 Fax; 612/922-478S August 4, 1997 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Charles D. Floyd Our File No. 1652.9701 Dear Mr. Gaffron: Of As you are aware, 1 am an attorney representing Charles and Joan Floyd, owners of the property located at 960 West Ferndale Road, Wayzata, Minnesota ("Property"). As you are also aware, I attended the City Planning Commission meeting held on Monday, July 21 1997 ("Meeting”). ’ At the Meeting, I spoke on behalf of my clients regarding their objection to the Application for Subdivision ("Application") of 1045 West Ferndale Road, Wayzata, Minnesota. Further, I requested that the Planmng Commission ("Commission") provide me with the criteria It used to approve the Application. In response, 1 was told the Application was approved because the property was just purchased and because the Commission makes its decisions on a case-by--ase basis. Moreover, one of the Commission members stated that property owners are left to negotiate freely amongst themselves and thereafter the Commission shall acknowledge any agreements that develop. In addition, we were told that we did not have grounds to object because my clients were not mentioned in the application. We disagree. We also disagree with the Commission’s approach to handling applications, such as the one in question here, based on how the land owners agree to the property’s usage. I understand that the Commission looks at these issues on a case-by-case oasis. However, I have also learned from experience that the Commission generally follows precedent from previous cases, which I do not believe it did on Monday. At the conclusion of the Meeting. 1 was confused as to how the Commission arrived at its approval of the Application. We strongly object to the precedent the City is setting and to the lack of the City ’s concern and action regarding the garage on the Skarp property, which IS obviously a public danger. Moreover, 1 was concerned that the Commission approved the Application without fully understanding the potential implications that may result in the future. I am referring to the additional properties that were referenced in subsequent correspondence m connection with the Application. Specifically, 1 am referring to the twenty (20) foot parcel Americana Bank Building , 5050 France Avenue South, Suite 240, Edina , MN 55410 * Certified by the Real Property Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association as a Real Property Law Specialist