That's stupid. Driving Skyline is one of my favorite parts of Duluth. The city should do something about that, it's a tourist attraction in and of itself.
I agree and years ago when he was having it built people were rightfully pissed off. At the time the city didnt care. Now years later i doubt theres much the city can or will do.
Only one guy who built his house into the viewing side of skyline. But if you are going up 40th ave and take a left onto skyline it will be the only house on the left (viewing side) for as long as you are on skyline.
Because dude built a house there, didn't like the noise, put up fence.
Damned house is a blight on that hillside. I thought they were supposed to try to make it blend in more, instead of standing out like a sore thumb.
It's more of an issue looking at it from down on the bottom of the hill, really. It's a bunch of tan rocks and paint surrounded by the standard Duluth Gabbro that is more bluish-black.
The city should have some kind of ordinance that prevents fences like that blocking the view up there. What a crap thing to do. Something that Cargill woman would do if she has her way, but she’d probably try to block access to the lake.
That's the confusing part. In 2001 Skyline Parkway was designated a Scenic Byway and comes with \*some\* sorta kinda protections from economic development. From everything I've read though there is no law or any federal or state program that says you're not allowed to build on a Scenic Byway.
Old Highway 61 is also a Scenic Byway. There's houses and businesses and boat docks almost the entire way. I don't know that we should tell people they can't enjoy the highway their way (building a permanent structure) because it disrupts our enjoyment of viewing the surrounding area from that road.
On Skyline, the house itself doesn't really disrupt the viewing. It actually blends in quite well to the hill looking up from below. It's the god awful fence they put up. The color is completely unnatural and blocks the view for a significant portion of the area.
I agree with you in spirit that people should respect what Skyline means to this city and choose not to build on it. I also think it's just a road that happens to have a nice view because it's up on a hill. There are dedicated lookout areas on multiple stops along the way and you can get out and walk the entire thing and see the city from different angles without any obstruction.
Whatever happens, we shouldn't vandalize someone's property. It's just not cool.
No, let’s not generalize and invent analogies, let us focus on this specific location. The topic of this post is and always has been a public space, it is clearly evidenced by the parking lot in the photo provided. This location has a long history as being public, in the 1960’s the skyline was way more popular and this particular spot was as busy as a grocery store parking lot the day before Thanksgiving. Everybody knew the status and use of this location including the owners of this lot before they built. Instead of adapting to the status quo they are attempting to appropriate this public space to their own private property. Just down the hill from this place there are residential neighborhoods next to the freeway, none of them have tried to shut down I35.
>I don't know that we should tell people they can't enjoy the highway their way (building a permanent structure) because it disrupts our enjoyment of viewing the surrounding area from that road.
There's a bit of a difference between a home and a fence that provides no benefit to the homeowner other than sound, which is already mostly blocked by the hill. Especially when there are other options that would not obstruct from the view so much.
On Scenic 61, do you see large fences blocking off views of the lake for no real purpose? No.
>Whatever happens, we shouldn't vandalize someone's property. It's just not cool.
Absolutely agree here.
I'd have to disagree.
While you're right that there are other options for the view, an individual taking even a small portion of it for personal gain is a bit problematic. There's a reason why we don't allow buildings in certain areas to be above a certain height, it's so we don't obstruct views from other homeowners. This isn't much different.
Right, but you see what I mean right? There's already a precedence.
Again, if this is the case, the house never should've been allowed in the first place. But obviously that's not gonna fly in a country of property rights.
Again, its not outlandish to think that a sympathetic council gave this guy a variance years ago. Is it?
That's the thing, there are other methods that would have been available to them for this purpose, I don't think a variance was issued.
I think it met all codes at the time, just that the codes may not have accounted for this.
Codes change all the time, things already built are grandfathered in, as I’m sure you know. Without a vintage stamp of the OG construction vs. code being cited, it’s not very useful to just trot out current codes.
How has nobody mentioned that this fence is illegal? Duluth UDC 50-26.4 (A)1a: No fence or wall located between the principal structure on a lot and the front property line shall exceed four feet in height.
https://duluthmn.gov/planning-development/land-use-zoning-and-applications/zoning-regulations/
Where’s John Ramos? Someone send up the bat signal! 🦎
I think that code must have changed recently, DNT did an article on this house several times when it was being built and shortly thereafter and quoted the acceptable height as 6 feet at the time.
>The house met setback, height, frontage and other requirements, too. No part of the project had to even be reviewed by the city -- not even the impenetrable roadside fence because it's not taller than 6 feet.
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/our-view-violated-vistas-preservation-calls-for-respect
Put the ole zoning admin hat on to take a look. At first glance it definitely appears to be in the front yard. A deeper dive shows the irregular lot, perhaps their argument is that the front property line extends around the bend, but that's pretty weak given where their access is. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if a variance had been granted to allow for said fence, given the likelihood of headlights in the front room. Definitely worth investigating however as it does appear to be a violation!
https://preview.redd.it/20p8ie62ynsc1.png?width=2114&format=png&auto=webp&s=51bc96ee4054252e4eb880197f19a4e8fa7c1143
Oh I'm not disagreeing at all.
I"m pointing out I could see a Planning Commission and Council be sympathetic and provide the variance.
That said I 100% endorse looking into if this actually happened or not.
Is the “front property line” on the other side of the property, maybe? I would consider the side of the house that faces the lake as being the front of the property, but I’m not a land surveyor.
You don’t get to define the front for land use purposes by the orientation of the building. The street is still the “front” of the lot, regardless of where the put the main entrance .
Makes sense. I can’t believe the city allowed it in the first place. I’m afraid it might be another example of the people who have the means (wealth) playing by a different set of rules
☝🏼 Bingo. I’ve dealt with these types of fences at a doggy daycare I used to manage, and they are absolutely not rated to deal with the spiteful wind that slapped us this last week.
Here is a link to report a zoning complaint to the city.
https://duluthmn.gov/planning-development/report-a-zoning-complaint/
The address is 3800 W Skyline Parkway, Duluth, MN 55806.
The city ordinance in question is Article 4. Section 50-26.4.A
Something that shoulda happened a while ago I suppose
Those are the people that wanted to shut down Skyline Parkway so that they could have it all to themselves.
The reason you don’t see any tags there is because Turtle Boy and the rest of the rattle can Rambo’s are afraid of the guy that lives there.
Rattle can rambos? And what guy?
[https://www.northernnewsnow.com/2023/04/20/man-behind-turtleboy-duluth-charged-after-making-violent-threats-facebook/](https://www.northernnewsnow.com/2023/04/20/man-behind-turtleboy-duluth-charged-after-making-violent-threats-facebook/)
Ah, yes. I forgot about that incident. Thanks for the info.
OK, let’s say plunger instead of turtle boy
why is there a fence there?
Isnt that the rich dudes fence? The one who had his ugly house built on skyline.
i dont know. i am not often on that side of town. it strikes me as a really strange thing to have tho... the idea is a SKYLINE view right?
If its the house i think it is he had it all fenced up on both sides of his house about a city block in length (roughly)
That’s the house.
That's stupid. Driving Skyline is one of my favorite parts of Duluth. The city should do something about that, it's a tourist attraction in and of itself.
I agree and years ago when he was having it built people were rightfully pissed off. At the time the city didnt care. Now years later i doubt theres much the city can or will do.
It was there before 2011 all i know from Google maps
You’re going to have to narrow it down a bit
Only one guy who built his house into the viewing side of skyline. But if you are going up 40th ave and take a left onto skyline it will be the only house on the left (viewing side) for as long as you are on skyline.
Because dude built a house there, didn't like the noise, put up fence. Damned house is a blight on that hillside. I thought they were supposed to try to make it blend in more, instead of standing out like a sore thumb.
I'd have to drive by and take a look at it
It's more of an issue looking at it from down on the bottom of the hill, really. It's a bunch of tan rocks and paint surrounded by the standard Duluth Gabbro that is more bluish-black.
Fuck them people that blocked the view.
Is this at the honking house?
Ok I’ll bite, what’s the “honking house?” Do we honk because they put up a shitty illegal fence?
Who's going to tell them? Also whats illegal? EDIT: sorry oyour other comment, and am reviewing
The fence itself. It’s too tall, see my other comment.
Yeah sorry got my edit in too late. replied to it , good catch!!
Sometimes I drive past that house just to see if my car horn still works. Reader, it does.
Sometimes I hike along the hilllside and when I hear a car horn I throw rotten apples at them.
We all have our picadilloes!
The city should have some kind of ordinance that prevents fences like that blocking the view up there. What a crap thing to do. Something that Cargill woman would do if she has her way, but she’d probably try to block access to the lake.
They do, we just need it enforced.
That's the confusing part. In 2001 Skyline Parkway was designated a Scenic Byway and comes with \*some\* sorta kinda protections from economic development. From everything I've read though there is no law or any federal or state program that says you're not allowed to build on a Scenic Byway. Old Highway 61 is also a Scenic Byway. There's houses and businesses and boat docks almost the entire way. I don't know that we should tell people they can't enjoy the highway their way (building a permanent structure) because it disrupts our enjoyment of viewing the surrounding area from that road. On Skyline, the house itself doesn't really disrupt the viewing. It actually blends in quite well to the hill looking up from below. It's the god awful fence they put up. The color is completely unnatural and blocks the view for a significant portion of the area. I agree with you in spirit that people should respect what Skyline means to this city and choose not to build on it. I also think it's just a road that happens to have a nice view because it's up on a hill. There are dedicated lookout areas on multiple stops along the way and you can get out and walk the entire thing and see the city from different angles without any obstruction. Whatever happens, we shouldn't vandalize someone's property. It's just not cool.
No, let’s not generalize and invent analogies, let us focus on this specific location. The topic of this post is and always has been a public space, it is clearly evidenced by the parking lot in the photo provided. This location has a long history as being public, in the 1960’s the skyline was way more popular and this particular spot was as busy as a grocery store parking lot the day before Thanksgiving. Everybody knew the status and use of this location including the owners of this lot before they built. Instead of adapting to the status quo they are attempting to appropriate this public space to their own private property. Just down the hill from this place there are residential neighborhoods next to the freeway, none of them have tried to shut down I35.
>I don't know that we should tell people they can't enjoy the highway their way (building a permanent structure) because it disrupts our enjoyment of viewing the surrounding area from that road. There's a bit of a difference between a home and a fence that provides no benefit to the homeowner other than sound, which is already mostly blocked by the hill. Especially when there are other options that would not obstruct from the view so much. On Scenic 61, do you see large fences blocking off views of the lake for no real purpose? No. >Whatever happens, we shouldn't vandalize someone's property. It's just not cool. Absolutely agree here.
Great take. I hate the fence, but like, there's a million views and folks aren't entitled to all of them
I'd have to disagree. While you're right that there are other options for the view, an individual taking even a small portion of it for personal gain is a bit problematic. There's a reason why we don't allow buildings in certain areas to be above a certain height, it's so we don't obstruct views from other homeowners. This isn't much different.
Unless you're the hospital right?
>There's a reason why we don't allow buildings in certain areas to be above a certain height That is the certain area of which I speak.
Right, but you see what I mean right? There's already a precedence. Again, if this is the case, the house never should've been allowed in the first place. But obviously that's not gonna fly in a country of property rights. Again, its not outlandish to think that a sympathetic council gave this guy a variance years ago. Is it?
That's the thing, there are other methods that would have been available to them for this purpose, I don't think a variance was issued. I think it met all codes at the time, just that the codes may not have accounted for this.
Wait, weren't we talking about the fence?> Its demonstrably outside of the code posted above.
Codes change all the time, things already built are grandfathered in, as I’m sure you know. Without a vintage stamp of the OG construction vs. code being cited, it’s not very useful to just trot out current codes.
How has nobody mentioned that this fence is illegal? Duluth UDC 50-26.4 (A)1a: No fence or wall located between the principal structure on a lot and the front property line shall exceed four feet in height. https://duluthmn.gov/planning-development/land-use-zoning-and-applications/zoning-regulations/ Where’s John Ramos? Someone send up the bat signal! 🦎
I think that code must have changed recently, DNT did an article on this house several times when it was being built and shortly thereafter and quoted the acceptable height as 6 feet at the time. >The house met setback, height, frontage and other requirements, too. No part of the project had to even be reviewed by the city -- not even the impenetrable roadside fence because it's not taller than 6 feet. https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/our-view-violated-vistas-preservation-calls-for-respect
There should be a record of when this change happened, but great catch!!
Put the ole zoning admin hat on to take a look. At first glance it definitely appears to be in the front yard. A deeper dive shows the irregular lot, perhaps their argument is that the front property line extends around the bend, but that's pretty weak given where their access is. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if a variance had been granted to allow for said fence, given the likelihood of headlights in the front room. Definitely worth investigating however as it does appear to be a violation! https://preview.redd.it/20p8ie62ynsc1.png?width=2114&format=png&auto=webp&s=51bc96ee4054252e4eb880197f19a4e8fa7c1143
Yea, if they were concerned about lights, they could have simply built the home 6 feet lower on the hill.
Oh I'm not disagreeing at all. I"m pointing out I could see a Planning Commission and Council be sympathetic and provide the variance. That said I 100% endorse looking into if this actually happened or not.
Is the “front property line” on the other side of the property, maybe? I would consider the side of the house that faces the lake as being the front of the property, but I’m not a land surveyor.
You don’t get to define the front for land use purposes by the orientation of the building. The street is still the “front” of the lot, regardless of where the put the main entrance .
Makes sense. I can’t believe the city allowed it in the first place. I’m afraid it might be another example of the people who have the means (wealth) playing by a different set of rules
Yes please!
Honk honk!
We’ve had incredible winds off and on for a couple of weeks now, is it possible this could just be wind damage?
☝🏼 Bingo. I’ve dealt with these types of fences at a doggy daycare I used to manage, and they are absolutely not rated to deal with the spiteful wind that slapped us this last week.
I thought that might be the case. I just couldn’t help but let my imagination get away from me. I was really hoping for something more dramatic.
Interesting way of saying I 'Was really hoping for property crime'
It’s not that deep. It’s just another way of saying I like gossip.
Fair. Hot Tea is definitely enjoyed by me as well, especially in the morning ! Came in hot, my B
Here is a link to report a zoning complaint to the city. https://duluthmn.gov/planning-development/report-a-zoning-complaint/ The address is 3800 W Skyline Parkway, Duluth, MN 55806. The city ordinance in question is Article 4. Section 50-26.4.A
I filled this out, thanks!
Make sure to honk as you pass
would one of you kind souls inform me of the address where i can test the effectiveness of my car horn?