CC PACKET 05101988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 there is at least one garage built over the space where any such• 2 roadway would ever be built. 3 Mr. Childs concluded by saying that even if the Council in 1967 had 4 intended to build the connecting roadway to Silver Lane, no one ever 5 went ahead and got the right-of-way so now the one-eighth of a circle 6 road easement shown on Mr. Nordahl' s property is the only one the City 7 has in that area. 8 Mr. Soth told Mr. Nordahl if he were to gain access to Silver Lane, he 9 would have to acquire easements from the owners of Lots 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 10 , and 11 to do so. The City Attorney also told the property owner 11 that as long as he owned the lot on Fordham Drive, he had legal access 12 to that street from the back of his (the property owner ' s ) own 13 property, but when Lot 4 was sold, a landlocked piece of property was 14 created. He also told Mr. Nordahl he could have sold Lot 4 subject to 15 an access easement. 16 Mr. Soth guessed that when the Council in 1967 had in mind was that if 17 the three very deep lots, 8 , 9 , and 10 , were ever subdivided for 18 development, a road would probably have to be provided between the old 19 and new parcels. He said the City did what it could during that period 20 by getting a road easement on Lot 5 when it was subdivided but that 21 was as far as the City could go until the owners of the rest of the 22 undeveloped properties cam in to have their properties subdivided. He 23 perceived that with the Erickson addition already built up, the only 24 option the City had today would be to require the townhome developer* 25 to provide a public street through their development. 26 In reference to the 1973 North End Study, Mr. Childs pointed out that 27 the 1980 Comprehensive Plan showing multi-family housing for that area 28 had superseded that earlier study. 29 Council Reaction 30 Ranallo looked at the North End Study and suggested the division line 31 might have been drawn in after the study was completed because it was 32 not done in white like all other planned streets had been. He also 33 pointed out that the line didn' t even extend the full distance to Mr. 34 Nordahl' s property but veered off instead to the railroad property. 35 Mr. Nordahl said access to his property from along the railroad track 36 would be impossible because he property was 20 feet higher than the 37 tracks. 38 The Councilmember observed he had the same type of situation with his 39 own property which he had purchased with an extra 70 X 100 feet to be 40 used for backyard while his family was growing up. He said that parcel 41 would be landlocked if he ever wanted to sell it and he would not 42 expect his neighbors to give up their own property to give him an 43 access. And, the City would certainly have no responsibility to take 44 an easement from them either. • 6