Laserfiche WebLink
1 letter he had received from Comstock and Davis, the original surveyor <br /> for his property, which referred to the road easement for Lot 5 which <br /> referred to the easement feeding the 11 lots straight north of him in <br /> 4 Mounds View Addition as being "accepted by the City of St. Anthony and <br /> 5 the Planning Commission, which indicated a clear intent to access <br /> 6 Villella Addition, Lot 5 from Silver Lane to the North. " <br /> 7 Mr. Holum told Mr. Nordahl that he had spent an hour and a half of the <br /> 8 Council's time April 26th giving the same testimony after which the <br /> 9 Council had told him that the Evergreen property development would have <br /> 10 no effect on his property. Mr. Nordahl indicated he did not agree with <br /> 11 that assumption but believed instead that "what's happening now is <br /> 12 contrary to what was done in 1967 when my lot was created. " He again <br /> 13 conceded that the bottom half of a cul du sac shown on the survey of <br /> 14 Lot 5, Villella Addition was not shown on any of Mounds View Acres, <br /> 15 Second Addition surveys, but reiterated that the survey language had <br /> 16 caused him to assume access would be provided to his property. <br /> 17 Mr. Childs indicated he perceived Evergreen's willingness to provide an <br /> 18 access easement across their project was only the first step towards <br /> 19 providing that access with the rest to follow with the development of <br /> 20 the intervening lots between Mr. Nordahl's Lot 5 and the project. <br /> 21 Mr. Nordahl said he didn't perceive "access off Fordham Drive would ever <br /> 22 be in the cards" and that was why he perceived "there had to be a <br /> 23 dedicated street in the plat plan for the townhome project or, <br /> 4 otherwise, end up with landlocked property. " Chair Wagner disputed this <br /> assertion that there would never be an access off Fordham, telling Mr. <br /> Nordahl he believed "things could change. " He told the protestor that <br /> 27 all of the same statements of his position had been clearly reported in <br /> 28 the kpril 26th minutes and although the Planning Commission had concern <br /> 29 about his property being buildable, they agreed with the Council that <br /> 30 since it was not even adjacent to the townhome project, his problems <br /> 31 were not germane to the plat before them that evening. <br /> 32 Commissioner Franzese indicated she perceived it was now up to Mr. <br /> 33 Nordahl to communicate with his neighbors to the north who could. give <br /> 34 him an easement if they wanted. She felt his success in getting access <br /> 35 was dependent on that rather than on the City's course of action on <br /> 36 property 500 feet away from him. She pointed out that by allowing <br /> 37 the townhome project the City was not creating his problem. <br /> 38 Mr. Nordahl said he talked to Mr. Reid who was willing to develop his <br /> 39 property in the manner which was discussed with access from the north, <br /> 40 but the other property owner "is not approachable. " <br /> 41 Chair Wagner indicated the minutes would reflect Mr. Nordahl's request <br /> 42 for a dedicated street as well as the fact that Evergreen has offered <br /> 43 to negotiate an access easement across their property when the <br /> 44 intervening lots are developed. <br /> 46 The hearing was closed at 8: 38 P.M. <br /> 6 <br />