Laserfiche WebLink
#OG-3190 <br /> Apri113,2006 <br /> Page 3 of 3 <br /> The lot line rearrangemeiit has no apparent iinpact on utilities, nor does it make any <br /> existing buildings less conforming. It would appear that there are no negative inipacts of <br /> the proposed rearrangeinent, and neither lot loses buildability, while the R.inehart <br /> property gains some setback for its existing garage. - � <br /> Because this is a lot line rearraiigenlent which results in iio additional lots, no park fee or <br /> storinwater trunlc fee will be required. E�cept for the fact that the resulting lots are not <br /> conforming,filiis subdivision could have been handled admiiustratively. <br /> Tssues for Consideration <br /> 1. Staff would note tliat the sl�rvey provided does not reflect the Anderson/Daytoii <br /> rearrangement of 2004 (see Eahibits B-2 and D-1), wluch reduced the width of 965 <br /> from 360' to about 330'; the legal descriptioiis will have to be corrected prior to tliis <br /> going to Council for final action. <br /> 2. Are there a.ny issues or concerns with this application? - <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff reconunends approval of the lot line rearrangement as proposed, with the stipulation <br /> that the appropriate deeds be exchanged and parcels recombined per the legal <br /> descriptions on tlie survey (to be corrected). <br />