Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 17, 1983 <br />ATTENDANCE 7:30 p.m The Planning Commission met on the above date. The <br />following members were present: Chairman ’^.ovegno, <br />Goetten, McDonald, Sime, Callahan and Adams. <br />Planning Commission member Kelley was absent. <br />Council Representative Hammerel was present. Zoning <br />Administrator Mabusth represented City staff. <br />intent <br />«761 DOUGLAS SMITH <br />3237 CASCO CIRCLE <br />VARIANCE Douglas Smith was present. Dick and Mary Tuthill of <br />3241 Casco Circle and Jane Remien of 3235 Casco Circle <br />were present from the audience. Zoning Adminis­ <br />trator Mabusth reviewed with the Planning Commission <br />the history of the Smith application. Mabusth noted <br />that the Smith application involves common ownership <br />in the LR-IC zoning district. <br />Goetten asked why the applicant hadn't thought of a lot <br />line rearrangement of the two lots which would solve <br />the common ownership problem. <br />Dick Tuthill of 3241 Casco Circle noted that Lots 16 <br />and 17 are combined. <br />Jane Remien of 3235 Casco Circle noted that the corner <br />of Mr. Smith's lot is 6 1/2' from her house and stated <br />that she was opposed to the variance request. Remien <br />noted that regardless of the common ownership issue <br />that the lot still doesn't meet current standards. <br />Callahan noted that there are common ownership <br />standards in effect now and until the City can revise <br />those standards that the Planning Commission should <br />follow the current standards. Callahan noted that in <br />following the current standards that he would have a <br />problem approving the variance. <br />Sime stated that he didn't feel that the common <br />ownership issue made a big difference but that the lot <br />by itself doesn't comply with the current standards <br />and noted that he would have trouble approving a <br />variance for such a substandard lot. <br />McDonald noted that the Planning Commission should <br />follow the current common ownership issues. <br />Adams stated that the common ownership issue wasn't a <br />big problem and if the lot was held in single separate <br />ownership that the variance would be a reasonable <br />request. Adams stated that he felt that the lot was <br />buildable.