07-22-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

18. Dwelling - Single Family. A dwelling designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family. A single-family dwelling that has more than one cooking area must be designed so that all cooking areas are accessible in common from the interior of the building to the entire dwelling. Where any building obstruction, including a wall, door, or other structure inhibits full interior common access, the building shall be considered to contain two (2) or more dwelling units. 21. Dwelling - Two -Family. A dwelling designed exclusively for occupancy by two (2) families living independently of each other. a. Double Bungalow. A two-family dwelling unit with two (2) units side by side. b. Duplex. A two-family dwelling with one (1) unit above the other. For the purposes of the zoning ordinance, the occupancy is the more relevant factor in defining the use. The ordinance makes separate allowances for buildings and uses, including as to how non -conforming buildings and non -conforming uses might be treated. Zoning is a land use management technique that, while often addressing physical characteristics, is essentially concerned with the impacts of land use. 2. The appellant suggests broader impacts through finding that vacancy of one unit in a two-family dwelling would similarly affect the vacancy of one unit in other multiple family dwellings. Because the City considers the general land use category the most relevant factor, a multiple family structure that has one of several units unoccupied would continue to be a multiple family structure. The definition of multiple family dwelling (as well as townhome) only requires that the structure provides three or more separate dwelling units. The triplex definition. (an issue cited by the appellant), requires that there be two or three units, thus, vacancy of one of three units would not necessarily change the City's consideration of the structure as a triplex. The most likely application of this argument would be in regard to a "quadraminium", which is defined as exactly four dwelling units. Theoretically, if a legally non -conforming quadraminium structure saw one unit go vacant for the requisite year, it would cease to be a quadraminium. In this case, however, the city would not require eviction of two families to meet a single -family -only land use. The zoning ordinance provides that uses may change to be Tess non -conforming. As such, the quadraminium structure in this example could continue to operate as a legal non -conforming three-family dwelling. In short, if the City takes the position of the current administrative finding (that vacancy of one unit of a non -conforming two-family dwelling constitutes a discontinuance of the non -conformity), it should have little bearing on other residential dwelling structures in the City. Moreover, there are very few such non -conforming residential dwellings in the City. The few that may exist are products of the former "1:10" two-family rule at issue here. Thus, the application of this position is unlikely to have any practical impact beyond the current situation or a few other two-family structures in R-1 areas. 3. The appellant notes that the City rejected a request from another property owner for reoccupation of a former duplex that had been vacated for more than one year (29 Demont). The appellant distinguishes his case from the Demont