File #: 17-0617R    Name:
Type: Resolution Status: Failed
File created: 8/18/2017 In control: Planning and Economic Development
On agenda: 8/28/2017 Final action: 8/28/2017
Title: RESOLUTION REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE FROM 250 FT TO 0 FT TO CONSTRUCT A DWELLING IN THE RR-1 ZONE DISTRICT BY EDWARD BARBO JR AND CANDACE BARBO
Sponsors: Keith Hamre
Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - PL 17-082 Staff Report and Attachments, 2. Attachment 2 - Planning Commission 07-11-17 signed minutes
Title
RESOLUTION REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE FROM 250 FT TO 0 FT TO CONSTRUCT A DWELLING IN THE RR-1 ZONE DISTRICT BY EDWARD BARBO JR AND CANDACE BARBO

Body
CITY PROPOSAL:
RESOLVED that the city council finds as follows:
(a) On May 25, 2017, Edward Barbo Jr. and Candace Barbo applied for a variance to the required 250-foot minimum lot frontage requirement to construct a dwelling on their property located at 10013 West Skyline Parkway; and
(b) The planning commission considered the request as outlined in file number PL 17-082 (see staff report in Attachment 1), at its July 11, 2017 meeting (see minutes in Attachment 2) after holding a public hearing on the matter, such hearing having been noticed as required by Chapter 50 of the Duluth Legislative Code, and voted 8-0 to deny the variance based on the following findings:
1. The request is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning code related to the planned and orderly development within the city, as reflected by the minimum lot frontage requirements on public rights of way in RR-1 zones, such requirements are to ensure safe and efficient provision of city services and limitation of development in areas lacking adequate current or future infrastructure to support increased public or private use; and
2. The request is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan (preservation future land use), which calls for low-intensity private or public uses subject to sufficient use and design controls (such as, e.g., minimum lot frontage requirements); and
3. The applicant has not established practical difficulty because:
i. The plight of the landowner is not due to topographic or geographic conditions unique to the property, and that applicant's predecessors bear responsibility for the present need for the variance; and
ii. Current or future street access or improvement is possible, but is costly given the nature...

Click here for full text