Laserfiche WebLink
1 with a need for access, the City had undertaken the responsibility for <br /> meeting that need. <br /> 3 Mr. Nordahl reiterated his opposition to developing the land on Silver <br /> 4 Lane without provision of a 60 foot dedicated street through the <br /> 5 property to provide access to Silver Lane for his and other landlocked <br /> 6 properties within 500 feet of the proposed development. He said he <br /> 7 seriously doubted whether access could ever be provided off Fordham <br /> 8 Drive and perceived the owners of those other properties should be just <br /> 9 as concerned as he is about the issue. <br /> 10 He told the Chair the original plot for Lot 5 and Lot 4 on .which he had <br /> 11 built had never anticipated access for Lot 5 through Lot 4. He said <br /> 12 he purchased Lot 4 in 1971 and built a house right in the center of it. <br /> 13 He said he purchased Lot 5 in 1978 as "a separate plotted and surveyed <br /> 14 City lot indicating a proposed road easement shown on the lot survey <br /> 15 and intended to develop that lot as a separate parcel . " His statement <br /> 16 insisted that at no time since 1967 when the lots were plotted as the <br /> 17 Villella Addition were lots 4 and 5 ever considered as one or was access <br /> 18 for Lot 5 .ever considered through Lot 4 . <br /> 19 Mr. Childs indicated the document he had seen for the Nordahl lot had <br /> 20 shown what could have been the bottom half of a cul du sac but there <br /> 21 were no lots of record north. of . that property which indicated any <br /> 22 continuation of that roadway. He reiterated that all of the properties <br /> 23 next to any such dedicated street would be assessed for the . costs of <br /> 4 the street. Mr. Nordahl said he found it hard to believe that <br /> considering the value of buildable lots in St. Anthony, owners of, the <br /> undeveloped property north of him wouldn't welcome the opportunity of <br /> 27 having access opened to them. The Chair pointed out that apparently <br /> 28 some of the owners of property on Fordham .Drive were opposing having an <br /> 29 access across the back of their property. <br /> 30 Mr. Childs summarized their testimony at the Council meeting, <br /> 31 indicating the owners of some. of the abutting lots had indicated <br /> 32 opposition to a dedicated road across their property. <br /> 33 Mr. Hoium interjected at this point that Mr. Nordahl's Lot 5 was at <br /> 34 least 500 feet south of the subject property with three intervening lots <br /> 35 between. He said when those lots are developed the discussion this <br /> 36 evening would be appropriate, but without that, he perceived the <br /> 37 question to be "moot" . The Evergreen President indicated that was the <br /> 38 reason they were willing to provide an access easement for those <br /> 39 intervening lots with, of course, the costs of street maintenance being <br /> 40 negotiated with each owner as lots were developed. <br /> 41 Ms. Sheehy reiterated that any structure on those lots would have to <br /> 42 be built 100 feet away from the tracks to get mortgage financing. Mr. <br /> 43 Nordahl said it was possible the owners could finance the construction <br /> 44 independently and concluded "I'd gamble on selling a house there very <br /> 45 easily" and pointed out that the Evergreen marketing executive had just <br /> indicated the "charm of having a train. " He then read the March 3 , 1967 <br /> 5 <br />