PL PACKET 10181988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Mr. Nordahl , whose property was beyond the radius cf properties 2 required by law to be notified of the hearing, said he had not learned 3 until the previous Thursday about the townhome prcfect which he 4 perceived would have an adverse effect on this property. 5 Mr. Nordahl contended: 6 *the City had some responsibility for providing access to a 7 buildable lot they had allowed to be platted; 8 *throughout the March 20 , 1967 survey of his lot , copies of 9 which he had provided showing a possible cul du sac road ease- 10 ment indicated the City' s intent at that time to build a street 11 connecting his property to Silver Lane ; 12 *conceded that he had previously also owned lot 44 which abuts 13 Fordham Drive and which is adjacent to the now landlocked lot 14 when he sold lot 4 ad kept the landlocked lot , the Torrance 15 papers made no references to a road and he knew of no further 16 easements which had been granted since 1967; 17 18 *told Coubcilmember Enrooth he hadn' t gotten a legal opinion as 19 to how access would be provided either. before or after he split 20 off the back section but had been told during the period he 21 lived on Fordham Drive that it would only be a matter of time 22 before the three oversize lots next to him would be subdivided, 23 at which time the City would certainly provide access to, those 24 new homes . • 25 Mr. Nordahl had brought with him a copy of the North End Study done in 26 1973 on which a division line had been drawn through the undeveloped 27 properties. 28 Staff Responds to Property Owner Assertions 29 Mr. Childs indicated he had researched City documents to find any 30 which pertained to this issue. The only Council action he could find 31 had been a motion in 1967 in which the Council had "approved the 32 Villella Plat Addition subject to a read easement which would. provide 33 access for the properties adjacent to the Soo Line railroad tracks. " 34 The City Manager reported those minutes had included no further 35 discussion of the motion which might -indicate where the lots were or 36 where the street would come from although it seemed the road would 37 come down from Silver Lane and split existing properties right in the 38 middle. 39 Unfortunately, shortly after that the Council had gone ahead and 40 approved the -Ed Erickson addition on Silver Lane with two lots on which 41 there are no homes and from which each property would have to dedicate 42 at least 30 feet if a 60 foot City street were to be built to this 43 property. Since 1967 , Mr. Childs said he could find no other roadway 44 access was ever platted, dedicated, or acquired for that purpose and 5 •