Laserfiche WebLink
The residential lot and unsewered lot (the only new building site) which would result from <br />granting of the variance request fully comply with the lot size conditions previouslya <br />imposed by the Council. <br />The fact that no new substandard building lots would be created by the granting of <br />the variance request is significant. In an interoffice memorandum to the then city <br />administrator Walter R Benson dated July 10.1981, it was pointed out that the Council <br />had indicate•• they would look favorably on a future subdivision of the Property into one <br />1+ acre sewered parcel and one 2+ acre unsewered parcel. (See Schedule 3 attached) The <br />memorandum reasoned that the subdivision of the Goetten property into two lots, because <br />of its 3.6 acre size, would not violate the land use policies against increased density <br />because the only new building site would exceed the required lot area size for land zoned <br />RRrlB. In essence, the Goetten Property was used to highlight those circumstances <br />where a variance and subdivision of property should be allowed. <br />In conclusion, granting the variance request would not adversely affect the purpose <br />niiH intent of the zoning chapter or the health and welfare of the public. Moreover, the <br />variance would allow Mr. Goetten to subdivide the Property in a manner consistent with <br />Resolution No. 1178, on which he has relied for more than 10 years. Due to the unique <br />circumstances suzrounding the Property and the undue hardship that would result firom <br />the City’s failure to grant the variance, the Council should grant Mr. Goetten’s variance <br />request. <br />MLWannr29299_l <br />i <br />j