Laserfiche WebLink
in the application is the purpose of the subdivision since, <br />although the realignment of the parking ownership seems reasonable, <br />the realigned parking is still useless without cross easements for <br />access. <br />The property as it now exists is a combination of shared parking <br />and access. The westerly lot is already substandard in width. The <br />proposal would result in two lots described by metes and bounds, <br />each with more confusing descriptions than now exist, although the <br />City's Subdivision Ordinance permits this without platting. <br />However, we are concerned that the lack of a plat in this proposal <br />makes it more difficult to evaluate the issues which may arise on <br />land surrounding the site (the pavement runs to the edge of the <br />property in at least two locations). <br />Other issues that cloud the "simple" subdivision process include <br />the fact that one of the existing parcels is torrens property, the <br />other abstract property. In addition, the parcel to the south is <br />also owned by this property owner and may figure into the <br />development in the future. Further, the reduction of an existing <br />substandard lot width by simple subdivision raises concern. <br />RECOMVIENDATION <br />The resubdivision of the property as proposed does not appear to be <br />a significant problem, although the purpose of the split is not <br />clear. However, the number of issues which surround the property <br />split leads us to recommend approval only by formal platting. We <br />believe that the Subdivision Ordinance intends to encourage the use <br />of the plat as a subdivision tool, and the application as proposed <br />by the surveyor serves to defeat the intent of the Ordinance. <br />pc: <br />Kathy Glanzer <br />John Palacio <br />Tom Sweeney <br />David Torgerson <br />Michael Crary <br />2 <br />Page 12 <br />