Laserfiche WebLink
i-'V <br />KeNMffTII MCilfBEtlfCri • <br />ROVALD I. <br />nU«9VLL M ‘triTMCr • <br />jAMfve M <5ft®»TiT» <br />w CLIFFOPC' <br />MIEWIt a JOURinv*** <br />Ja CE >iQaD9V <br />PAUL V wmiOiTftOM <br />PATmCK K UOItAR <br />, " . r r I •- c;« <br />M II H H i:n K w >. sPK>:«'r: ltd <br />i**i . Ta r<U AX r;;i L <br />MiyVf! APOL»‘f Ml VMC A <br />\ it4 'Oi Ji <br />f • V ,i j !•, <br />PC^l^ TO M I \ N r. A >jf)» »fc; <br />i*A ^•l^L .* o«>i' <br />»tli Ma I'L C ‘^NYOCR* <br />.»A .'\ t s A w F I L N* E rr <br />J'.HN »- 9ltC.LII1 <br />L» <br />NAWt>ALL O AFCAt c <br />MOWAWn I AACfe <br />danicl c . 1*1 t,mxi : ho <br />vl K I ^• r ................ <br />Ka TMPI9TMF m rtOM <br />fOHK r liUnrp <br />•Alio AOAimn rn <br />p«actic » im wimomcim <br />• ••ALto ASMifTan tt% m9ACtirn <br />ttt wfAAtxirais m •*••*« m ««*■<*▼•May 21. 1^91 <br />Thomaa J. Barrett <br />POPHAM. HAIK, SCHNOBRICH <br />3300 Piper Jaffray Tower <br />22^ South Ninth Street <br />Minneapolis, MN 55402 <br />& KAUFMAi;, LTD. <br />Ra:Smith's Bay Marina <br />Conditional Us# PerT.! c/'Var iance <br />1960 Shoreline Drive, Orotiu <br />Our Pile No. 28/23825 <br />Dear Tom: <br />1 acknowledge receipt o£ your letter oC May 15, 1991. First <br />of all« I object to Mr. Nettles again trying to get this back on <br />the City Council agenda. As I understand it, none o£ the council <br />members who voted for this proposal liave asked that it be reconsi- <br />deredf it was just the ones who voted against the proposal. I do <br />not think It Is procedurally proper to again reconsider it. <br />This further delay has only caused more confusion out in the <br />marketplace as to what r.v' client can or cannot do with his pro* <br />porty. 1 would euruise that Mr. Nettles may have a hidden agenoa <br />to cause those delays by threatening litigation. <br />I would also point out that Mr. Nettle#, in his May 9, 1991 <br />letter to Mr. Bernhardson, states, "It directly affects my pro­ <br />perty and that of my neighbors. It further delays the return of <br />this property to residential zoning." If you will recall, Mr. <br />Nettles voted against this proposal at least twice while he was on <br />the council and only disqualified himself for a conflict of inter­ <br />est on the last vote. From my recollect lot: of the facta, he was <br />the one who started this whole issue relating to my client's pro­ <br />perty. He should have disqualified himself from any consideration <br />while he served on the City Council because of this admitted <br />conflict of interest. <br />^T. PA.VL OFFICII: RilOO W0S4i.n TflAnF r.PVTCn Fi^UL. AIN” nniCil