05-0325R


RESOLUTION AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO RELAX THE 380 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA PER UNIT REQUIREMENT TO 300 SQUARE FEET, THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS FROM 36 FEET TO FIVE FEET FRONT AND 15 FEET, SIX INCHES REAR, THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM 36 FEET TO THREE FEET, TEN INCHES AND ONE FOOT, THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM 47 SPACES TO 13 SPACES FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 70-UNIT BUILDING CONSISTING OF 40 EFFICIENCY UNITS AND 30 SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY UNITS (230 WEST THIRD STREET).

BY COUNCILOR GILBERT:

     WHEREAS, the city of Duluth owns property located at 230 West Third Street and legally described as Lots 44, 46 and 48 of Duluth Proper First Division - West Third Street; and

     WHEREAS, the city of Duluth is planning to demolish the existing structures on the property and construct a new 70-unit building consisting of 40 efficiency units and 30 single room occupancy units; and

     WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code the proposed construction would require 380 square feet of lot area per unit, 36 feet front, rear and side yard setbacks, and 47 parking spaces; and

     WHEREAS, the city of Duluth applied to the board of zoning appeals for a variance to relax the 380 square feet of lot area per unit to 300 square feet, the front and rear yard setbacks from 36 feet to five feet front and 15 feet, six inches rear, the side yard setbacks from 36 feet to three feet, ten inches and one foot, the minimum parking requirement from 47 spaces to 13 spaces; and

     WHEREAS, the board of zoning appeals considered this matter and determined that:

     (a)  There were special circumstances or conditions applying to the land in question that were peculiar to such property and did not generally apply to other land or buildings in the vicinity;

     (b)  That the granting of the variances was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and not merely a convenience to the applicant;

     (c)  That the proposed use is reasonable and allowable under the Code, but the area requirements of the Code do not adequately address the various types of housing types needed in the city of Duluth and especially fails to adequately address the housing needs of economically or socially disadvantaged populations;     (d)  That the existing buildings on land do not meet current setback requirements and the proposed structure, even given the variances requested, would be an improvement over existing conditions;

     (e)  That the authorizing of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets or increase the danger of fire or imperil the public safety or unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas or in any other respect impair the health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the city; and

     WHEREAS, Linwood A. Skafte has appealed the aforesaid decision to the Duluth City Council; and

     WHEREAS, the city council has considered this appeal and agrees with the decision of the board of zoning appeals that the granting of a variance to reduce the lot area requirements, the minimum front, rear and side yard setbacks and the minimum parking requirement is appropriate in this case;

      NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council of Duluth affirms the board of zoning appeals’ decision of April 26, 2005.


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:  This resolution affirms the decision of the board of zoning appeals to relax the 380 square feet of lot area per unit to 300 square feet, the front and rear yard setbacks from 36 feet to five feet front and 15 feet, six inches rear, the side yard setbacks from 36 feet to three feet, ten inches and one foot, the minimum parking requirement from 47 spaces to 13 spaces on property located at 230 West Third Street. The council agreed with the board’s findings and found 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 not violate the requirements of the Zoning Code.

 

DISCLAIMER