07-22-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

regulations allow only single family residential use of residential structures in this zoning district. Timeline. A summary of the relevant events are as follows: • June 25, 1980. The City adopts an amendment to the R-1 zoning district allowing two-family dwellings by Conditional Use Permit (Section 905.040. A). • October 28, 1981. The City Council granted a CUP to the subject property for a two-family home. • November 5, 1981. The City granted a building permit for a two family structure on the subject property. • July 11, 1984. The City rescinded the two-family provision in the R-1 District by deleting Section 905.040.A (Ordinance No. 230). • December 2012. The City turned off'water service to 2955 Arcade Street (one of the two units in the building). City staff verified that the unit was unoccupied. The appellant has indicated that during this time, both units were unoccupied for a period of about 6-8 months. • June 30, 2014. The City Administrator notified the owner that the two-family use had been discontinued for more than one year, and that subsequent use would need to be in compliance with the applicable zoning regulations. • December 26, 2014. The City Administrator notified the applicant of alternatives to proceed, including conversion of the structure to single family home, or appeal of the City's determination that the use had been discontinued (thus terminating the non -conforming use rights). • July, 2015.. The owner appeals the "lapse of use" determination by City staff. Issue. For appeals, the City Council sits as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and is the entity granted the authority to consider appeals of administrative decisions. The question before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is whether the vacancy in one of the two units of a non -conforming two-family structure for more than one year constitutes a lapse of use under the zoning ordinance. Appellant's Arguments. The applicant makes a number of arguments in support of the idea that because the structure was 50% occupied during the period in question, that the use was not, in fact, discontinued. The arguments are summarized and addressed below. 1. The first argument suggests that the physical structure is most significant aspect in determining the non -conformity status, with occupancy a secondary factor. The zoning ordinance provides the following definitions for two family and single family home: