File #: 18-0649R    Name:
Type: Resolution Status: Passed
File created: 9/5/2018 In control: Planning and Economic Development
On agenda: 9/10/2018 Final action: 9/10/2018
Title: RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 18-0612 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.
Attachments: 1. Motion to Amend - Sipress.Forsman (9.10.2018)
Title
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 18-0612 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 Resolution No. 18-0612 is hereby amended to read as follows (new language underlined):

RESOLVED that the city council finds as follows:
(a) On June 22, 2018 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 18-086 (see staff report in Attachment 1), at its July 10, 2018 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 6-2 to deny the variance based on the following findings:
1. The applicant has not established practical difficulty. The variance request is more economic than practical in nature, which, standing alone, does not constitute practical difficulty.
2. The plight of the landowner is not due to topographic or geographic conditions unique to the property, and the applicant's predecessors created the plight related to the request for the variance.
3. Denial of the variance does not eliminate reasonable use of the property.
4. The request is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning code that relate to the encouragement of planned and orderly development within the city, as reflected by the minimum lot frontage requirements on public rights of way in RR-1 zones. It is not consistent 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 lo...

Click here for full text