Laserfiche WebLink
• � u <br />Johns Seltz, Case No. 1813 Page 2 <br />b. The proposal is to simply divide the existing lot (Lot 44) into two <br />parcels as indicated on the attached reduced drawing of the lot division. <br />This reduced density approach should have less impact on the contiguous <br />single-family home owners to the east, who opposed the park for fear <br />of its impact on their privacy. <br />7. The applicant has noted to the staff of the possibility of his dedicating <br />approximately the westerly three -fifths of the total property to the <br />City. A north -south line projecting from the east property line of the <br />existing park (to the south of the land) was talked about as an <br />appropriate division between the "remaining private property to the east <br />and the public property to the west". This idea did not show up in the <br />lot spread proposal. It is, however, something the Planning Commission <br />and Council may wish to discuss with the applicant. <br />8. At such time as a structure is built on the two lots proposed, the <br />processing of a shoreline permit will be in order. At that time, the <br />placement of the structures on the property will be addressed (when a <br />specific development proposal is submitted). <br />9. The request is for a simple lot division since the property is an <br />existing platted lot. <br />�:4 <br />