BY PRESIDENT GILBERT:00-0189R
RESOLUTION REPORTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS SUPPORTING THE GRANT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT GRANTED BY RESOLUTION 00-0116.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions supporting its issuance of a special use permit on February 29, 2000 to William Brakken and Rebecca Sieve for operation of a bed and breakfast homestay at 2617 East Third Street:
(a) William Brakken and Rebecca Sieve duly applied for a special use permit to operate a bed and breakfast homestay at 2617 East Third Street in Duluth, Minnesota;
(b) The original application was proper and was presented to the planning commission, which approved it. It was then presented to the city council. After affording all parties ample opportunity to address the issues, reviewing the applicable ordinance, receiving written reports and presentations, and conducting considerable public debate, the application was denied, by defeat of resolution 00-0005 (by vote as follows: yeas: Fena, Stewart and Stover - 3, nays: Eckenberg, Edwards, Hogg, Ness, Stenberg and President Gilbert - 6), and based upon the findings reported in Resolution 00-0106 (by vote as follows: unanimous), which passed February 14, 2000;
(c) The applicants then changed their plan of design and operation for a bed and breakfast homestay at the location. A structural addition that was part of the first proposal was dropped, among other changes. They made a new application in conformance with City Code Section 5-35(d);
(d) The application was considered by the planning commission, was found to be in compliance, and was approved. All interested parties were given an opportunity to make presentations to the planning commission;
(e) The application came before the city council as Resolution 00-0116. The council received written presentations, oral communication, and the record of the planning commission action. Some members visited the scene and spent over two hours talking to residents. All interested parties were given ample opportunity to present information to the council. Many written submissions were received. Many individuals appeared at the council meeting on February 29, 2000, and addressed the council, both for and against the application. Every interested party was given ample opportunity to present information to the council. The council debated and deliberated. It consulted the ordinances involved;
(f) The council determined that the premises in question is a historically and architecturally unique residential property, properly certified by the historic preservation commission; that it is a residential building which has for many years served as a residence for the prior owner and residents renting from the prior owner; that for many years the prior residents maintained and used many vehicles on the premises; the prior owner operated his construction business from the premises; that the current proposal is significantly different than the one that was rejected; that the proposed bed and breakfast use will maintain and continue the character and quality of residential use of the property which has existed for the past many years; the presence of bed and breakfast guests, in the proposed rooms for them, and in the proposed number of them, will present the continuing perception that the premises are a private home with house guests, just as the residence was perceived for the past many years when it was used for commercial and rental activities; that the special use permit has safeguards that protect whatever current or foreseeable comprehensive plan applies (as also found by the planning commission); that experience of the city and expert opinion indicate that the proposed use will not adversely affect property values in this neighborhood; that the proposed number of customers will not adversely change the traffic or safety of the neighborhood; that all city ordinances will be complied with by the proposed use; that the history, sequence of events, and reported plans of the applicants, who will occupy and conduct their family life on these premises where they will be domiciled, and specifically wish to be domiciled, in order to carry out a specific life goal to live in Duluth, and where they will pay taxes under a homestead classification, and other evidence, all indicate that the primary use of the premises will be as a single family dwelling of the applicants, and the bed and breakfast homestay is a subordinate use; that the operation of the bed and breakfast will contribute to the general good of the community, the tourist industry, the preservation of a significant old residence, the maintenance of the tax base, and the preservation of the neighborhood from deterioration that results from the high cost of maintaining large, old homes; that other bed and breakfast operations in this part of town have helped preserve the unique character of the area by preserving large old buildings, and the same can be expected in this case;
(g) The council then concluded that the proposed use, and permit conditions, were in the best interests of the community and of the neighborhood, complied with the applicable laws, and furthered the policy of the bed and breakfast ordinance (City Code Section 50-35(d)) and approved the special use permit (by the following vote: yeas: Eckenberg, Fena, Ness, Stewart and Stover - 5, nays: Edwards, Hogg, Stenberg and President Gilbert - 4;
(h) This resolution, the records of the planning commission, the records of the city council, including video tapes of meetings, and the written and oral presentations of citizens and staff constitute the record of the proceedings in this matter.