Laserfiche WebLink
ATTENDANCE 7:3# p.fi.MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HBLO 0CT08ER 17f 1983Th# Planning Commission mst on the above date. The following members were present: Chairman Rovegno, Goetten* McDonald# Slme# Callahan and Adams. Planning Commission member Kelley was absent* Council Representative Hammerel was present. Zoning <br />Adalnlstrator Mabusth represented City staff. <br />1761 PCUOLAS^XTH <br />3237 CASC <br />VAKIAMC was present. Dick and Mary Tuthlll of <br />34€^Zsse6'circle and Jane Remlen of 3235 Casco Circle <br />^ M. A _ _r.e^prsaent Zoning Admlnls- <br />.rattfF'-MabijBth revlMMKl''wlth the Planning Commission <br />thA hir.tcry of th*‘ Smith application. Mabusth noted <br />that r hA 5^ml th appl I cat Ion 1 nvolves common owr.ershi p <br />In the LR-IC zoning district. <br />Goetten asked why the applicant hadn't thought of a let <br />line rearrangement of the two lots which would solve <br />the common ownership problem. <br />nl'-k Tuthlll cf 3?4l Casco Circle noted that Lots 16 <br />and I"* are combined. <br />Jane Remlen of 3235/tfasce Clicie noted that the corner <br />of Mr. Smith's lot iW « 1/2' ^om her house and stated <br />that she was opposed csk^he W^r lance request. Remlen <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 />Slme 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 tor such a substandard lot, <br />McOonald noted that the Planning Commission should <br />fi How 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 tho lot was <br />buiIdable. <br />J