07-22-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. The architecture of the building, including both interior layout and exterior elements, is too dissimilar to surrounding single family buildings to effectively make conversion fit the single family character of the neighborhood. 4. Approval of the request at 2955/2957 Arcade is not likely to impact other non - conformities due to uniqueness of the conditions, and the limited number of similar land use issues in the community. 5. With improvements to the structure as defined by the appellant, the two-family dwelling can be operated without negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. B. Deny the appeal, confirming staff's decision that the unit vacancy at 2955 Arcade (one of two units in a non -conforming structure) constitutes a discontinuation of the two-family use of the property. This determination would be made based on the following factors: 1. The land use became non -conforming when the use of the property went from two-family residential to one -family residential. 2. The physical conditions of the structure, including design or architecture, do not affect the non -conforming condition, which is the use of the property. 3. The determination that vacancy of one of two units constitutes a discontinuation of the non -conforming land use would not impact other non - conformities in the community. 4. There are few other similar non -conforming conditions that would be subject these types of determinations. 5. Economic conditions, including cost of conversion or financial circumstances, are not commonly considered to be eligible zoning decision factors. Summary and Recommendation As noted, the question before the Council, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, is whether the appellant has maintained occupancy of the property to avoid a determination that there has been a lapse of use that would deprive him of continued legal non -conforming occupancy of the property on the subject parcel. Because there are no specific guidelines in the Appeals section of the code, the Council may consider a broad range of factors in making its decision. The applicant has suggested a series of such factors. The appellant suggests that a negative result would have problematic implications for other similar situations. Staff does not believe this would necessarily be the case, and moreover, there are few such situations in the community. However, this also suggests that the Council could consider the item favorably without concern that the decision would create too sweeping a precedent. Planning staff does not have a specific recommendation on this case, but recommends that either alternative should be supported by findings similar to those suggested in an effort to ensure that the reasons for the Council's action are specific and clear.