CC PACKET 05101988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Enrooth told Mr. Nordahl he certainly would have thought his attorney • 2 would have advised him that his abstract did not provide for any 3 easements for a road in the first place. He also noted that it had 4 taken 21 years for the owners of lots 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 , who all 5 might have land they might want to develop to raise concerns about 6 access to their properties . 7 Sundland pointed . out that besides having to dedicate their property 8 to the City for a roadway, the property owners between Mr. Nordahl ' s 9 property and Silver Lane would also be agreeing to being assessed for a 10 street as well as sewer and water lines which now runs between $35. 00 11 and $40 . 00 a foot. However, that would certainly have to be done if 12 any of the oversize or vacant lots are ever to be subdivided to put 13 houses next to the railroad track and if the area is developed as a 14 whole, the developer would probably have to provide access to Fordham 15 Drive. 16 Makowske pointed to the resistance to a roadway for the townhome 17 project accessing on Fordham Drive which had been demonstrated by the 18 homeowners on Fordham during the hearing. 19 Marks perceived that what needed to be done now was to have all the 20 owners of undeveloped property get together to try to resolve their 21 access problems so they could develop their property individually or 22 collectively. V3 The general consensus was that it would not be economically feasible 24 for the City to put in a street, sewer and water for the number of 25 single family homes which could be developed on the vacant property in 26 that area. However, Mr-. Childs indicated, that it is understood at 27 staff level that whenever the largest property owner came in to get his 28 property subdivided, a discussion of an access road would have to be 29 included in the discussions of the subdivision. He assured Mr. Nordahl 30 that the City would make its best efforts to provide for his access 31 when the adjoining land is developed. 32 No Unanimity Evident in Neighborhood 33 Allan Reid, 4001 Fordham Drive, said he had not had opposition to the 34 townhome project per se but as the owner of the largest lot ( #7 ) , he 35 had some questions about landlocking all that property with the 36 development. He said communication with the owner of the two 37 undeveloped parcels, Lots 5 and 6 , had been difficult and he understood 38 the property owner had already turned down a request from a developer 39 who wanted to develop the entire parcel. When the property owner 40 pointed to a similar situation with oversize lots along Silver Lake 41 Road between 30th and 31st, he was told those owners were adamant about 42 not having an east/west street continued through their properties. 43 Mr. Childs reported Lots 8 , 9 , and 10 had already been cut into six 44 62 . 25 X 300 foot long lots and Mr. Puffer, who owns the north one-half •45 of Lot 10 , had indicated at the Commission hearing that he might want 7