00-0285R

RESOLUTION REVERSING A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO APPROVE THE REDUCTION OF A FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 25' TO 6'3" FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 26' X 84' DWELLING.

BY PRESIDENT GILBERT:

WHEREAS, William Burns applied to the board of zoning appeals for a variance to construct a new 26' x 84' dwelling on property located behind 3330 Minnesota Ave. and legally described as SLY ½ OF LOT 294 AND ALL OF LOTS 296 AND 298 INC SLY ½ OF LOT 293 AND ALL OF LOTS 295 AND 297 LOWER DULUTH LAKE AVE EX BEG AT NW COR OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE SLY ALONG W LINE 50' THENCE 19 21' 47 TO THE LEFT 25.10 FT THENCE 60 52' 47' TO THE LEFT 72.73; THENCE N ON A LINE PARALLEL AND 14' DISTANCE FROM S LINE OF LOTS 297 & 298 43.91 THENCE 90 LEFT 86' TO N LINE OF SAID PARCEL THENCE 90 LEFT 123.82' TO PT OF BEG, and to decrease the front yard setback from Lake Avenue from 25' to 6'3"; and

WHEREAS, the board of zoning appeals granted the variance to construct the dwelling with a reduced front yard setback; and

WHEREAS, Susan Headley Keller, Clayton Keller, Rod Johnson & Connie Johnson have appealed the aforesaid decision to the Duluth City Council; and

WHEREAS, the city council has considered this appeal and determined that the facts of this case do not justify a reduction in the front yard setback from Lake Avenue from 25' to 6'3" because no physical characteristic peculiar to the property prevented the owner from exercising a substantial property right, and granting a variance would result in negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council of Duluth reverses the board of zoning appeals' decision of March 28, 2000.


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: This resolution reverses the decision of the board of zoning appeals to approve a zoning variance for reducing the front yard setback requirement from 25' to 6'3". This reversal prevents the construction of a 26' x 84' dwelling with a 6'3" front yard setback to Lake Avenue. The council disagreed with the board's findings that a physical characteristic peculiar to the property prevented the owner from exercising a substantial property right, and that granting a variance would not result in negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The council determined that granting a variance would violate the requirements of the zoning code in an R-1-c zone.