Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION MEF:TT111G HELD OCTOBF:R 17, 1983 <br />ATTEND* 10 P.M. The Planning Commission met on the above date. Tne <br />following members were present: Chairman Rovegno, <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 />#761 DOUGLAS SMITH <br />3237 CASCO CIRCLE <br />VARIANCE <br />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-lC zoning district. <br />Goet ten asks-d 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 Case 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 4; 1/2' from her house and stated <br />that she was opposed to the variance request. Remien <br />noted that rea_ardless 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 new 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 3 <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 -:urh a substandard lot. <br />McDonald noted that.. the Planning Commission should <br />follow the current common cwnership issues. <br />s stated that the comme;n ownership issue wasn't a <br />problem and i f the lot was held in single separate <br />tership that the vari- would be a reasonable <br />request. Adams stated t- . .,e felt that the lot was <br />huiIdablP. <br />