Laserfiche WebLink
#*761 - Douglas H. Smith <br />November 10, 1983 <br />Page 2 <br />Lot 18 is still maintained as part of the Tuthill yard. A detached <br />garage once used by the main house is located on Lot 18, Both the <br />applicant and Tuthill claim they knew nothing of the limitations of <br />the ordinance. Remember, the ordinance has been in effect since 1967. <br />Tuthill purchased all three lots in 1971. <br />The applicant has been advised of the City's common ownership study and <br />the final resolution of that study within the next few months. The <br />applicant was advised that if the Planning Commission were to act now <br />on the application, they would have to deny the application and that <br />they would prefer tabling the application until the study is completed. <br />I should add, this was conveyed to the applicant's contractor at the <br />first review meeting in July. Since that first meeting. Smith's attorney <br />has had contact with the City asking for action on the application. Both <br />applicants, Doug Smith and the Richard Tuthills,were present at the Planning <br />Commission meeting in October. <br />Review Exhibit M. The Tuthill house is located 11.6' from Lot 18 boundary. <br />I have no confirmation as to the setback of the residence on Lot 19; <br />although, the owner has stated the house is approximately 6 feet from the <br />shared lot line. <br />Review the lot survey of the Casco Circle neighborhood. The lot appears <br />to be 5' less in width than other comparable lots on the Circle. <br />The applicant has provided a site plan showing the proposed residence meeting <br />all setback and hardcover standards. <br />I would suggest that Council once again ask applicant if he would agree <br />to request tabling of the application until the City's common ownership <br />study is completed. If not, you must act giving conceptual direction to <br />staff to draft the necessary resolution. <br />First, do you have enough information to act? Fo^ example; what is the <br />area of Lots 16 & 17? Would a lot line rearrangement be feasible? Is this <br />lot consistent with the pattern of the surrounding developed lots? <br />Sewer and water are available. Lot 18 never received a unit charge, only <br />a footage charge. <br />If Council acts to approve the Smith variance application, they may use the <br />majority opinion (4-2) of the Planning Commission as follows: <br />to approve a lot area variance (100% standard) of 5,032 sq. ft. or 23% <br />and a lot width variance (100% standard) of 45' or 45% for Doug Smith to <br />permit construction of a new residence on a property located at 3237 Casco <br />Circle based on the following findings: