PL PACKET 11151988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I with a need for access, the City had undertaken the responsibility for 2 meeting that need. Nr. Nordahl reiterated his opposition to developing the land on Silver 4 Lane without provision of a 60 foot dedicated street through the 5 property to provide access to Silver Lane for his and other landlocked 6 properties within 500 feet of the proposed development. He said he 7 seriously doubted whether access -could ever be provided off Fordham 8 Drive and perceived the owners of those other properties should be just 9 as concerned as' he is about the issue. 10 He told the Chair the original plot for Lot 5 and Lot 4 on which he had 11 built had never anticipated access for Lot 5 through Lot 4. He said 12 he purchased Lot 4 in 1971 and built a house right in the center of it. 13 He said he purchased Lot 5 in 1978 as "a separate plotted and surveyed 14 City lot indicating a proposed road easement shown on the lot survey 15 and intended to develop that lot as a separate parcel. " His statement 16 insisted that at no time since 1967 when the lots were plotted as the 17 Villella Addition were lots 4 and 5 ever considered as one or was access 18 for Lot 5 ever considered through- Lot 4. 19 Mr. Childs indicated the document he had seen for the Nordahl lot had 20 shown what could have been the bottom half of a cul du sac but there 21 were no lots of record north of that property which indicated any 22 continuation of that roadway. He reiterated that all of the properties 23 next to any such dedicated street would be assessed for the costs of 24 the street. Mr. Nordahl said he found it hard to believe that 25 considering the value of buildable lots in St. Anthony, owners of the undeveloped property north of him wouldn't welcome the opportunity of having access opened to . them. The Chair pointed out that apparently 28 some of the owners of property on Fordham Drive were opposing having an 29 access across the back of their property. 30 Nr. Childs summarized their testimony at the Council meeting, 31 indicating the owners of some . of the abutting lots had indicated 32 opposition to a dedicated road across their property. 33 Mr. Hoium interjected at this point that Mr. Nordahl's Lot 5 was at 34 least 500 feet south of the subject property with three intervening lots 35 between. He said , when those lots are developed the discussion this 36 evening would be appropriate, but without that, he perceived the 37 question to be "moot" . The Evergreen President indicated that, was the 38 reason they were willing to. provide an access easement for .those 39 intervening lots with, of course, the costs of street maintenance being 40 negotiated with each owner as lots were developed. 41 Ms. Sheehy reiterated that any structure on those lots would have to . 42 be -built 100 feet away from the tracks to get mortgage financing. Mr. 43 Nordahl said it was possible the owners could finance the construction 44 independently and concluded "I'd gamble on selling a house there very 45 easily" and pointed out that the Evergreen marketing executive had just 46 indicated the "charm of having a train. " He then, read the March 3 , 1967 . 5