Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHO2016-001 - Reasonable Accommodation - 806 Harbor Island Drive RESOLUTION NO. HO2016-001 A RESOLUTION OF A HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING REASONABLE ACCOMODATION NO. RA2015-002 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 806 HARBOR ISLAND DRIVE (PA2015-202) THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Eric Papa, representing property owner, Vincent McGuinness, with respect to property located at 806 Harbor Island Drive, and legally described as Lot 7 of Tract 3867, being a Subdivision of a portion of Block 94 of Irvine's Subdivision as shown on a map thereof, recorded in Book 1, Page 88, of Miscellaneous Record Maps, Records of Orange County, and a portion of Bayside Drive as abandoned per Book 9568 Page 719 and Book 10126 Page 349 Official Records, Records of Orange County, California. The applicant requests approval of a reasonable accommodation for relief from certain zoning provisions that interfere with his use of his residence due to a disability as set forth more fully - below. 2. The applicant has submitted a reasonable accommodation request seeking relief from the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.40.090 (Parking Standards for Residential Uses) to remove one parking space and allow an elevator to be constructed within the required parking area of a non-conforming 2-car garage. The elevator is requested to provide access to the second floor of the residence for an individual with a disability. 3. The subject property is located within the R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is RS-D (Single-Unit Residential Detached). ,r 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone and the Coastal Land Use Designation is RSD-B (Single Unit Residential Detached). 5. Chapter 20.52.070 (Reasonable Accommodations) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) provides reasonable accommodation from the City's zoning and land use regulations, policies, and practices when needed to provide an individual with any disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 6. A public hearing was held on February 23, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., in the Corona del Mar Conference Room (Bay E-1st Floor) at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Hearing Officer at this meeting. 7. The hearing was presided over by William B. Conners, a licensed California attorney and a Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15301, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality.Act) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 2. The project involves minor physical modifications to an existing single-family residence involving the addition of an elevator within an existing garage. The scope of work involves the addition of an elevator within the 2-car garage of an existing single-family residence. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.070(D)(2) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings must be and are hereby made in order to approve the reasonable accommodation: Finding: i. The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one of the owners of the residence, who is an individual with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. A letter from Robert S. Gorab, MD, an Orthopedic Surgeon, has been submitted by the applicant supporting this claim and the need for convenient elevator access. The statement indicates that the property will be occupied by a person with medical challenges to the lower extremities restricting the ability to walk, and therefore to climb stairs. According to Dr. Gorab, the individual needs an elevator installed in the home due to these challenges. Finding: ii. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and the suggested location is the best spot in the home to place the elevator. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. As noted above, the applicant suffers from a disability and the elevator within the garage is needed to gain accessible access to the second floor level of the residence to allow this person with a disability to more fully enjoy the use of the upstairs living area of the home. The existing single-family residence has a series of steps at the first floor that prevent handicap accessibility through the first floor level. Only the garage and front study are accessible from a level surface without the use of stairs. 2. In a letter dated November 5, 2015, by Erik R Gibbs of South County Engineering, the project engineer explored many potential locations for the elevator in the building and after reviewing the framing plans, determined that the most practical location of the proposed elevator would be inside the existing garage to minimize the impact to the existing structure and floor plan. 3. Alternative elevator locations are infeasible due to the amount of structural alteration that would be necessary to accommodate this feature within the existing residence. If the elevator was located within the front study/bedroom, this would make two bedrooms unusable within the five bedroom single-family residence. The placement of the elevator in other locations would alter the existing floor plan significantly or require the elevator to extend outside or above the existing roofline. Additionally, the layout of the existing stairway does not offer sufficient loading area to install a chair lift. 4. With consideration of the factors provided by NBMC Section 20.52.070 (D-3), the requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. If the requested accommodation is granted, the disabled person will be able to access the second floor level of the residence by elevator, which will enhance their quality of life. Any modifications necessary to make the second floor level accessible cannot be accommodated within the existing residence without more significant disruption of the interior of the home. Finding: iii. The requested accommodation will not impose an "undue financial or administrative burden"on the City as that term is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Allowing the construction of an elevator within the existing garage would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. The administrate costs of processing the building permit will be offset by normal building permit fees. Findin : iv. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program, as "fundamental alteration"is defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed accommodation would not result in any fundamental alterations to the character and use of the home or the neighborhood. The home will remain unaltered from external appearances. 2. The proposed elevator within the garage would not intensify the existing two-unit residential use and therefore would not undermine the express purpose or land use identified by the City's General Plan. The proposed improvements would occur within the existing residence and would not result in any exterior modifications to the building. 3. The existing residence is consistent with surrounding residential properties with similar sized structures that provide a nonconforming two-car garage where three garage spaces are required under the Zoning Code. The proposed elevator encroaches into the required parking area but will comply with all other applicable development standards, including the floor area limit, height, and setbacks. The residence will continue to provide adequate protection for light, air, and privacy to the residents and adjacent neighbors. The elevator and parking alteration will not preclude access to the dwelling and will be consistent in scale with other dwellings in the neighborhood. The proposed alterations will not change the bulk and scale of the existing residence. The proposed modifications will result in gross floor area that is less than the maximum allowed by the Zoning Code. The resulting reduced parking space in the garage will still allow for parking of a small vehicle. 4. The request to add an elevator within the existing garage would reduce parking availability to one full-sized garage space and one smaller substandard one. Given the scope of work, increasing the garage width to accommodate code required parking width (28 feet 3 inches) and an elevator would not be feasible by requiring significant structural alterations to the garage and entrance to the dwelling. While required parking within the front setback is not allowed under the Zoning Code, this private driveway accommodates sufficient parking on-site, consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code. 5. There is no intention to operate the dwelling as a residential care facility. Thus, the granting of the reasonable accommodation request will not create an institutionalized environment. Finding: V. The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The elevator would be constructed in accordance with the required Building and Safety Codes; therefore, the proposed project would not pose a threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. The approval of this reasonable accommodation is conditioned such that the applicant is required to obtain all necessary permits in accordance with the Building Code and other applicable Codes. 2. The existing garage provides two useable garage spaces, which is nonconforming to the Zoning Code requirement for three garage spaces on-site. The remainder substandard parking space will allow parking of a small vehicle. The driveway leading to the garage provides 24 feet in depth to the back of the public sidewalk where two vehicles can be parked without affecting the public's ability to use the sidewalk. However, the property line is 6 feet closer to the garage from the back of sidewalk. In the future, the sidewalk location could be moved to the property line. Parking or a driveway in front of a garage does not meet the minimum design standard for required parking of the Zoning Code, but parking on a driveway is allowed, provided vehicles do not block the sidewalk.Allowing the residents to park on the private driveway continues to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Code by providing adequate parking on site while allowing sufficient accessible access to the home. Pedestrian and vehicle access in the right-of-way will not be hindered if vehicles park in the front driveway. Approval of the application allows the applicant to continue the use of the remaining single garage space and private driveway available, which is not expected to be detrimental to the occupants or neighbors of the dwelling. 3. The existing nonconforming garage has not proven to be detrimental to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, neighborhood, or City the modifications will be adequate in width to park one (1) full-sized vehicle in the garage, one (1) small vehicle in the garage, and two (2) vehicles on the front driveway. Finding: vi. For housing located in the coastal zone, a request for reasonable accommodation under this section may be approved by the City if it is consistent with the findings provided in subsection (D)(2) of this section; with Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976; with the Interpretative Guidelines for Coastal Planning and Permits established by the California Coastal Commission dated February 11, 1977, and any subsequent amendments; and the Local Coastal Program. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. In accordance with Section 30212 of the California Coastal Act, the proposed modifications to the interior of the existing residence are not classified as new development and are exempt from the California Coastal Act requirement for a Coastal Development Permit since the modifications to the existing residence do not result in an increase of gross floor area, height, or bulk to the of the structure by more than 10 percent. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Hearing Officer of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the requested Reasonable Accommodation No. RA2015-002 (PA2015-202), subject to the findings and considerations set forth above and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. BY: William B. Conners Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 3. Parking shall not encroach into the Harbor Island Drive public right-of-way. The private driveway and doors to the garage from Harbor Island Drive to the existing 2- car garage shall remain open for vehicle parking when necessary. 4. The elevator design shall be modified so that the doorway opens to the west side and does not further restrict the available substandard parking area. 5. The elevator will require a 1-hour rated enclosure. 6. The elevator door shall be self-closing and 20-minute rated. 7. If the person(s) initially occupying the residence vacates or conveys the property for which the reasonable accommodation was granted, the reasonable accommodation shall remain in effect due to the fact that the reasonable accommodation (elevator)will be physically integrated into the residential structure and cannot be easily or cost-effectively removed or altered to make the residence comply with the Zoning Code. 8. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within twenty-four (24) months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly)to City's approval of the 806 Harbor Island Drive reasonable accommodation including, but not limited to, Reasonable Accommodation No. RA2015-002 (PA2015-202), including the costs associated with the conduct of this Hearing. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.