HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 2294 Channel Road_Reasonable Accommodation - PA2016-075 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT
June 27, 2016, Hearing
Agenda Item No. 1
SUBJECT: 2294 Channel Road Reasonable Accommodation (PA2016-075)
Reasonable Accommodation No. RA2016-001
APPLICANT: Charles and Marjorie Ryffel
OWNER: Charles and Marjorie Ryffel
PLANNER: Chelsea Crager, Assistant Planner
(949) 644-3227, ccrager@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
A reasonable accommodation application requesting relief from the Newport Beach
Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.18.030 (Residential Zoning Districts General
Development Standards) to allow an elevator to encroach within the required side setback
area and to exceed the height limit of an existing single-family home. The proposed
elevator is approximately 6 feet 6 inches wide, encroaches into the required side setback
area (minimum 4 feet required, 3 feet 6 inches proposed), and exceeds the allowed height
for flat roofs (maximum 24 feet permitted, 31 feet 11 inches proposed). The elevator is
requested to provide access to the residence for an individual with a disability. The existing
residence is nonconforming related to side setback and height, providing a side setback of
3 feet and a maximum height of 37 feet 2 inches.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Hearing Officer conduct a public hearing and receive testimony
from the applicant, city staff, and members of the public. At the conclusion of the public
hearing, it is recommended that the Hearing Officer:
1) Adopt the attached draft resolution approving Reasonable Accommodation No.
RA2016-001 (Attachment No. HO 1) for the duration that the residence is occupied
by the current property owner.
1
2
VICINITY MAP
a� Y
e
F
T is
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
I o r - z2� _—_�•� � ` J � z2�-
I
as
229
4 ll\\
r �
.4 6
'' i1 111 S'S+9'i - 229
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
RS-D (Single-Unit R-1 (Single-Unit
ON-SITE Residential Detached Residential) Single-Family Residence
RS-D (Single-Unit R-1 (Single-Unit
NORTH Residential Detached Residential) Single-Family Residence
RS-D (Single-Unit R-1 (Single-Unit
SOUTH Residential Detached Residential) Single-Family Residence
RS-D (Single-Unit R-1 (Single-Unit Single-Family Residence and
EAST Residential Detached) Residential) and Newport Newport Harbor
and Newport Harbor Harbor
RS-D (Single-Unit R-1 (Single-Unit
WEST Residential Detached) Residential) Single-Family Residence
3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting
The subject property is located on the east side of Channel Road. It is bounded on three
sides, the north, south, and west, by single-family residences. To the east is the
entrance to Newport Harbor.
Project Description
A reasonable accommodation requesting relief from the Newport Beach Municipal Code
(NBMC) Section 20.18.030 (Residential Zoning Districts General Development
Standards) to allow an elevator to encroach within the required side setback area of an
existing single-family home. The new elevator would encroach 6 inches into the
required 4-foot setback. The elevator is requested to provide access to the upper levels
of the the residence for an individual with a disability.
Background
The oldest permit records on file are for a remodel of the home in 1975, indicating that
the home was constructed prior to that date. According to the applicant, the home was
built in 1920. The home is currently 5,417 square feet with a maximum height of 37 feet
2 inches and a 2-car garage.
DISCUSSION
General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Code
The subject property is designated RS-D (Single-Unit Residential Detached) by the
General Plan Land Use Element. The site is located within the RSD-C (Single-Unit
Residential Detached) land use category of the Coastal Land Use Plan. The site is
located in the R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) Zoning District. The single-family residence
is a permitted use under these land use designations.
The Zoning Code requires a 2-car garage for homes up to 4,000 square feet in area and
a 3-car garage (10-foot width by 20-foot depth per space) for homes exceeding 4,000
square feet. The existing home is 4,823 square feet (excluding the garage), provides a
2-car garage, and is therefore legal nonconforming related to required parking.
Additionally, the Zoning Code allows a maximum height of 24 feet for flat roofs and 29
feet for sloped roofs within the R-1 Zoning Designation. The existing home has a
maximum roof peak height of 37 feet 2 inches and at its highest point is legal
nonconforming related to maximum allowable height.
4
Lastly, the Zoning Code requires a 4-foot side setback in R-1 lots over 40 feet in width.
The existing structure is set back as little as 1 foot 6 inches on the south side and 3 feet
on the north side and is therefore legal nonconforming related to minimum side
setbacks.
The property is subject to a floor area limit of two times the buildable area (lot area
minus setbacks) per the R-1 Zoning District development standards. In this case, the
buildable area of the lot is 3,166 square feet and the floor area limit is 6,332 square feet.
The existing home is 5,417 square feet. The proposed 38.4 square-foot addition will not
exceed the floor area limit for the property.
The development standards for this property are summarized below:
Development Required Existing Condition Proposed'
Standard
Height Maximum 24 feet 37 feet 2 inches 2 31 feet 11 inches
flat or 29 feet sloped
North
Backe 4 feet minimum 3 feet 2 3 feet 6 inches
South Side 4 feet minimum 1 foot 6 incheS2 N/A
Setback
Front Setback No minimum 1 foot 6 inches N/A
(Channel Road)
Front Setback 10 feet minimum 10 feet N/A
(Newport Harbor)
Floor Area Limit Maximum 6,332 5,417 square feet 5455.4 square
square feet feet
Parking 3 garage spaces 2 garage spaceS2 N/A
1. Proposed development standards apply to the elevator addition only. No other
changes to the residence are proposed.
2. Legal nonconforming.
Residential structures with nonconforming elements may be altered or expanded
subject to limitations. Per the Zoning Code, up to 10 percent of existing floor area may
be added to the home within a 10 year period without bringing nonconforming parking
into compliance, and up to 50 percent of the existing floor area may be added without
requiring that other nonconforming elements of the structure be brought into compliance
with current development standards. The proposed elevator is a 38.4 square-foot
addition to the home, and does not surpass either of these thresholds.
Analysis
The proposed elevator addition requires a deviation from the development standards in
the R-1 Zoning District for side setback requirements (a minimum 4 feet is required, and
3 feet 6 inches is proposed) and height limit (a maximum 24 feet is permitted, and 31
feet 11 inches is proposed). The applicant chose to request a reasonable
accommodation because one of the persons residing in the home has a disability. The
Zoning Code includes a procedure that allows for reasonable accommodations if certain
findings can be made. The approval authority for a reasonable accommodation lies with
the Hearing Officer in accordance with the provisions of Newport Beach Municipal Code
(NBMC) Section 20.52.070(8) (Reasonable Accommodations, Review Authority). The
Hearing Officer is also required to conduct a public hearing in compliance with NBMC
Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings).
In compliance with Federal and State fair housing laws, reasonable accommodations in
the City's zoning and land use regulations, policies, and practices are permitted to
provide an individual with any disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling.
The applicant states that an elevator is necessary to access the upper level bedrooms
and recreation areas. A physician's letter (Attachment No. HO 3) prepared by Tahseen
Mozaffar, MD FAAN, has been submitted by the applicant supporting the claim and the
need for elevator access. According to Dr. Mozaffar, the individual is no longer able to
utilize a stair lift/chair to access upper levels of the residence and due to the progressive
nature of the disability, an elevator is required for the individual to continue to use and
enjoy the home.
Required Findings
The Hearing Officer is designated to approve, conditionally approve, or deny all
applications for a reasonable accommodation. Section 20.52.070(D)(2) requires that all
of the following findings be made in order to approve the reasonable accommodation:
i. That the requested accommodation is requested by or on behalf of one or more
individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws.
ii. That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more
individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
iii. That the requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or
administrative burden on the City as "undue financial or administrative burden"is
defined in Fair Housing Laws and interpretive case law.
iv. That 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.
V. That the requested accommodation will not, under 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.
Upon review of the application, staff believes that all of the findings can be made. The
elevator that would encroach in the side setback and exceed the height limit is
necessary for an individual with a disability to gain access to the upper levels of the
residence.
The existing single-family dwelling provides access to the second and third floors of the
residence with staircases within the home. In a letter dated April 27, 2016, by Pete Laux
of Designdlaux (Attachment No. HO 5), the project designer notes that there is no clear
path from the first to the third floor in the existing floor plans due to several remodels
since original construction. Additionally, Mr. Laux notes that due to the age of the home
and lack of building records of its structural composition, attempting to locate the
elevator within the interior of the home would create a practical difficulty by requiring
guesswork in the demolition phase and an unknown extent of work within the home.
Therefore, the disabled individual would be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the
upper levels of the residence without the reasonable accommodation.
The proposed improvements would be subject to normal plan check and building permit
processing and fees and therefore would not impose an undue financial or
administrative burden on the City. The project does not change or intensify the single-
unit use at the property nor have the existing nonconformities at the property proven to
be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.
Factors of Consideration
In addition to the required findings, the Hearing Officer may consider, but is not limited
to, the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation is the
minimum necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and whether the requested accommodation
would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program (NBMC Section
20.52.070(D)(3-4):
a. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of
life of one or more individuals with a disability;
b. Whether the individual(s) with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to
enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation;
c. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character
of the neighborhood;
d. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or
insufficient parking; and
e. Whether granting the requested accommodation would substantially undermine
any express purpose of either the City's General Plan or an applicable specific
plan.
The requested accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled person an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling by providing access to the upper levels of the
residence, thus enhancing quality of life. The accommodation would not alter or
intensify the use of the dwelling, nor would it increase traffic, affect parking, or alter the
character of the neighborhood. The requested encroachment into the side setback of
the property is less than the existing nonconforming encroachment. The requested
deviation from the height limit is also less than the existing nonconforming height of the
residence.
Alternatives
1. The Hearing Officer may approve other reasonable accommodations that provide a
similar level of benefit to the applicant. In this case, the requested elevator within the
side setback could be required to be located elsewhere within the residence and/or
the height could be decreased to provide access to the second floor only.
2. The Hearing Officer may deny the Reasonable Accommodation request (Attachment
No. HO 2).
Environmental Review
The project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This class of
projects has been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and is
exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The scope of work involves the addition of an
elevator within the side setback of an existing single-family residence.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property
within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and
waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days
before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at
City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
I�
Chelsea Crager, Ass'► tant Planner *aW—isnesIti, r
ICP, Deputy Director
8
ATTACHMENTS
HO 1 Draft Resolution Approving the Reasonable Accommodation
H02 Draft Resolution Denying the Reasonable Accommodation
H03 Physician's Letter
H04 Applicant's Letter
HO 5 Project Designer's Letter
H06 Vicinity Map
H07 Project Plans
9
10
Attachment No. HO 1
Draft Resolution Approving the
Reasonable Accommodation
11
12
RESOLUTION NO. HO2016-###
A RESOLUTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION NO. RA2016-001 FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2294 CHANNEL ROAD (PA2016-075)
THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Charles and Marjorie Ryffel, with respect to property located
at 2294 Channel Road, and legally described as Tract 518, Lot 1, Block P, requesting
approval of a reasonable accommodation.
2. The applicant has submitted a reasonable accommodation application requesting relief
from the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.18.030 (Residential Zoning
Districts General Development Standards) to allow an elevator to encroach within the
required side setback area and to exceed the height limit of an existing single-family
home. The proposed elevator is approximately 6 feet 6 inches wide, encroaches into the
required side setback area (minimum 4 feet required, 3 feet 6 inches proposed), and
exceeds the allowed height for flat roofs (maximum 24 feet permitted, 31 feet 11 inches
proposed). The elevator is requested to provide access to the residence for an individual
with a disability. The existing residence is nonconforming related to the side setback and
height, providing a side setback of 3 feet and a maximum height of 37 feet 2 inches.
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).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is RSD-C (Single-Unit Residential Detached).
5. Chapter 20.52.070 (Reasonable Accommodations) of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code (NBMC) provides reasonable accommodations in 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 June 27, 2016 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, Municipal Law Consultant,
Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach.
13
Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2016-###
Page 2 of 7
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant
effect on the environment.
2. The project involves a minor addition and alterations to an existing single-family
residence involving the addition of an elevator within the side setback area.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 20.52.070(D)(2) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the
following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
i. That the requested accommodation is requested by or on behalf of one or more
individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. A letter from Tahseen Mozaffar, MD FAAN 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 an individual with a disability that
results in progressive weakness. The statement also indicates that the installation
of an elevator is necessary for the individual to access the upper levels of the
home, as a stair lift/chair is no longer providing sufficient access.
Finding:
ii. That the requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a
disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1 . The elevator within the side setback is needed to gain accessible access to the
upper levels of the residence for a person with a disability to more fully enjoy the
use of the home. Bedrooms and recreation areas are located on the upper levels.
2. In a letter dated April 27, 2016 by Pete Laux of Designdlaux, the project designer
states that alternative elevator locations within the home are infeasible due to the
age of the home and the unknown structural alterations that would be necessary.
3. With consideration of the factors provided by NBMC Section 20.52.070(D)(3-4), the
requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to provide the disabled
05-26-2016
14
Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2016-###
Page 3 of 7
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 upper
levels of the residence, thereby enhancing their quality of life. Any modifications
necessary to make the upper levels accessible cannot be accommodated within
the existing residence without more significant disruption to the interior of the
home. Approval of the accommodation will not alter the character of the
neighborhood, nor will it increase traffic or affect parking.
Finding:
iii. That the requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative
burden on the City as "undue financial or administrative burden"is defined in Fair Housing
Laws and interpretive case law.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Allowing the construction of an elevator within the side setback and exceeding
maximum height would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on
the City. The administrative costs of processing the building permit will be offset by
normal building permit fees.
Finding:
iv. That 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 home or the neighborhood. The existing home provides
nonconforming side setbacks, and the proposed elevator will provide a greater
setback than what currently exists. Additionally, the existing residence is
nonconforming related to height, and the proposed elevator will have a maximum
height below what currently exists.
2. The proposed elevator would not intensify the existing single-unit residential use
and therefore would not undermine the express purpose or land use identified by
the City's General Plan.
Finding:
V. That the requested accommodation will not, under 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.
05-26-2016
ZJ�
Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2016-###
Page 4of7
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 proposed deviations from development standards, including encroaching into
the side setback area and exceeding the height limit, are less than the existing
setback and building height nonconformities. The structure has not proven to be
detrimental to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, neighborhood, or
City.
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, under 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 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 an increase of
gross floor area, height, or bulk 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 Reasonable
Accommodation No. RA2016-001 (PA2016-075), subject to the 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.
05-26-2016
10
Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2016-###
Page 5 of 7
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016.
William B. Conners
Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach
05-26-2016
2�
Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2016-###
Page 6 of 7
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
recently, City-adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans
must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements.
3. The exterior wall adjacent to property line must be one-hour construction per table
R302.1 (1) California Building Code (CBC).
4. The overhang construction adjacent to property line must be one-hour rated
construction per table R3002.1 (1) CBC.
5. The reasonable accommodation shall lapse if the exercise of rights granted by it are
discontinued for at least one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days.
6. 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 only if the Director determines that the modifications authorized by this
reasonable accommodation application are physically integrated into the residential
structure and cannot be easily removed or altered to make the residence comply with the
Zoning Code.
7. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
8. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use
Permit.
9. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be
incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the
building permits.
10. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 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.
11. 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,
05-26-2016
18
Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2016-###
Page 7 of 7
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 2294 Channel Road Reasonable Accommodation
including, but not limited to, Reasonable Accommodation No. RA2016-001 (PA2016-
075). 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.
05-26-2016
29
20
Attachment No. HO 2
Draft Resolution Denying the
Reasonable Accommodation
21
22
RESOLUTION NO. H02016-###
A RESOLUTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH DENYING REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION NO. RA2016-001 FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2294 CHANNEL ROAD (PA2016-075)
THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Charles and Marjorie Ryffel, with respect to property located
at 2294 Channel Road, and legally described as Tract 518, Lot 1, Block P, requesting
approval of a reasonable accommodation.
2. The applicant has submitted a reasonable accommodation application requesting relief
from the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.18.030 (Residential Zoning
Districts General Development Standards) to allow an elevator to encroach within the
required side setback area and to exceed the height limit of an existing single-family
home. The proposed elevator is approximately 6 feet 6 inches wide, encroaches into the
required side setback area (minimum 4 feet required, 3 feet 6 inches proposed), and
exceeds the allowed height for flat roofs (maximum 24 feet permitted, 31 feet 11 inches
proposed). The elevator is requested to provide access to the residence for an individual
with a disability. The existing residence is nonconforming related to the side setback and
height, providing a side setback of 3 feet and a maximum height of 37 feet 2 inches.
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).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is RSD-C (Single-Unit Residential Detached).
5. Chapter 20.52.070 (Reasonable Accommodations) of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code (NBMC) provides reasonable accommodations in 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 June 27, 2016 in the Corona del Mar Conference Room
(Bay E-1 st 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, Municipal Law Consultant,
Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach.
23
Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2016-###
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to
CEQA review.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 20.52.070(D)(2) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, required
findings must be made in order to approve the reasonable accommodation. In this case, the
Hearing Officer was unable to make the required findings based upon the following:
1. The letter prepared by Dr. Tahseen Mozaffar , MD FAAN does not provide sufficient
documentation of a qualifying disability.
2. Granting of the application without compelling documentation of a disability would provide
special privileges to the subject property by reducing the minimum required side setback
and increasing the maximum height required by the Zoning Code.
3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed alterations are
not compatible with the allowed single-family residences in the vicinity. The Hearing
Officer does not consider the existing structure on the subject property a unique
circumstance resulting in any necessity to warrant approval for a reduction in the side
setback requirement or increase in the maximum height limit.
4. The elevator is neither required by code nor necessary for the enjoyment of the property.
One of the first floor bedrooms could be used to accommodate a person who has a
disability. If desired, the proposed addition can be altered to comply with the requirements
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
5. The Hearing Officer determined, in this case, that encroaching into the side setback and
exceeding the maximum height limit is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The intent of the Zoning Code setback requirements
and height limitations is to ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan,
complies with the standards of Chapter 20.30 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and
protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. The proposed deviations from
these standards would be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Hearing Officer of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Reasonable
Accommodation No. RA2016-001 (PA2016-075).
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
05-26-2016
24
Hearing Officer Resolution No. HO2016-###
Page 3 of 3
accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016.
William B. Conners
Hearing Officer for the City of Newport Beach
05-26-2016
25
20
Attachment No. HO 3
Physician's Letter
2�
22
nri )i ii C
gg d 4i
Tahworr Mozaffar,MD UC Irvine Health-MDA ALS and Neuromuscular Center
Profassnr
Neurologist
Center➢Direc.or
May 10, 2016
Narnit,A. Goyal, MD
Associate Profossor To Whom It May Concern:
NeLltob&t
canter Associate Dimrtor Re.- Me'0no Ryloll
Director,Neuromuscular Diagnostic Do E3ftne
LaboraIory
NOLIMMUSC081 medicine LIC Irvine MR#:Imw
Fellowship
This is to certify that Ms. Marjorie Ryfell has been under my neurologic care
Tiyonnoh M. Cash, Mo for her diagnosis of - This disease has re-
Assistant Professor sulted in progressive weakness in fier and at this point she is no longer able
NOUrologis], to stand or walk. She is currently using a stair lift/chair but she has tremen-
dous difficulty with transfers and is no longer able to use it nor is it adequate.
Luis A. Choi, MD She and her husband are willing to put in an elevator in their home to improve
vtimnteer Proiesnoi her mobility within the house and to improve her access to the rest of the
Neurologist floors in the house. The Ryfells live in an old house and it doesn't comply with
all the current building code requirements. I can certify that her disability is
Annabel K.Wang, IVID not only severe but is going to be progressive and therefore it is important to
Associate Professor provide her reasonable accommodations in accordance with Federal and
Neurologist State fair housing laws.
Virginia Kinionis,MD
PiofRnsor
Qeneticist Yours sincerely,
Michiei Lekivia,I-AD
Tahseen Mozaffar, MID FAAN
Davin Lombardo, DO Professor (Neurology and Orthopaedic Surgery)
Assodater Professor Vice Chair for Education, Department of Neurology
Caidiologni Director, UC Irvine-MDA AILS and Neuromuscular Center
Janes Williams. MD
Professor
Pulmonologist
Voronion Martin, BA
Sr.Clinical Research Coordinator
Brim Minton, 13SFiA
Asst.ResLaich Coordinator
200 S.Manchester Aver=
SIC, 110
Orange,GA 92858
T 714.456.2.832
F 71 4.456.G997
Websit"
L1
30
Attachment No. HO 4
Applicant's Letter
31
S2
27 April 26
City of Newport Beach
Subject: Permit to install Elevator
2294 Channel Road, 92661
Marjorie Ryffel has been a resident at this address for over forty years and has
enjoyed a lifestyle that included using all three floors of this residence for
entertaining, cooking, sleeping, exercise, and recreation.
In 2012 she was diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS ) also known
as Lou Gehrig's Disease. This is a progressive debilitating disease for which there
is no cure and very little in the way of treatment, and is always fatal. Her
downward progression has reached the point where she can no longer walk or
stand alone. She is forced to use a wheelchair at all times and requires
equipment to assist her breathing
She would be unable to have an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of
her choice without an elevator.
At the present time a great many transfers are required to move her from one
floor to another. These transfers will become impossible shortly as the disease
progresses. An elevator as an addition to our home would grant her the freedom
to move in her wheelchair to various locations in the home. The sleeping and
recreation rooms are all on the second and third floors, whereas the kitchen,
dining, decking areas and handicap vehicle access are on the ground floor.
The addition of an elevator will affirmatively enhance the quality of her life.
Marjorie is very mentally alert and does not suffer from dementia. Her life would
be severely curtailed if she became forced to remain in the bedroom, and not be
able to enjoy her remaining life with family and friends. An elevator is the
minimum necessary for her to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the
residence. An elevator is the only way to have an equal opportunity to use and
enjoy the food and fitness equipment on the third floor
33
Please review the copies of attached correspondence that help explain her
condition.
In summary, she needs the elevator as soon as possible to continuing "living" in
the best way possible. Her condition is in need of a speedy decision by the City of
Newport Beach. Thank you for your consideration and quick response.
Sincerely, Charles and Marjorie Ryffel
{
34
Attachment No. HO 5
Project Designer's Letter
35
3o
f u�,
®EsignYOURdla,ux
®esigndlaux
Pete Laux Designs LLC,PO Box 10251,Newport Beach,CA,92659
4.27.16
City Of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
Planning Division
100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach CA 92658
RE; 2294 Channel Rd. Request for Reasonable Accommodation
Ryffel Residence
Dear Staff:
The zoning codes that we are seeking exception to are regarding setbacks and height limitations that were put in place after the
construction of the referenced residence.The proposed addition of an elevator hoist way on the north side of the property does not
encroach further into the setback than the existing residence, nor does it exceed the height of the existing roofline.
The existing residence was built in 1920, and throughout the property it is not compliant with current 5ft side setback requirements.
Existing setbacks range from lft 6in on the south side of the residence to 3ft on the north side.The proposed addition is on the
north side and will stay well within the existing 3ft setback(42in+-pending structural engineering).This will allow for an elevator big
enough for straight in access from the motorized wheel chair(60in d).
The building heights are similarly out of compliance with the limits that were put in place after it was initially constructed.At the
highest point the roof is 37ft above street level,well above the 29ft limit that is the current standard in this zone.We are not
proposing to extend the roof of the hoistway to that elevation,rather it will tie in with the lower roof line at 31ft1lin.This is the
lowest possible point that will access the 3`d floor. It is imperative that this area be accessed as crucial fitness/therapy equipment is
located there, as well as family gathering areas.
I have participated in many elevator retrofits and have a high degree of expertise in this field. I have explored the possibility of
placing the hoistway inside the existing residence,but for several reasons the feasibility falls into question.
1) The floor plan does not have any spot where there is a clear path from the ground floor to the 3`d story of the residence.
This residence has been remodeled many times since it's original construction, (almost 100 years ago)and obviously there
was never a contingency plan in place for this circumstance.
2) Given the age of the residence there are no records of it's structural composition;and engineering a hoistway within it's
boundaries would have an undo amount of guesswork prior to the demolition phase of the project.This being the case
there is really no way to determine the extent to which the project could intrude into the residence.
PHONE WEB
760.500.5393 Pete@deslgndlaux.com
S
3) Due to the unknown factors with the structure,any retrofit that could be attempted within the residence would take an
undetermined amount of time,thus further delaying access to the impaired individual.
4) The intrusive nature of installing a hoistway inside a residence would create large amounts of noise and dust,which despite
best measures of abatement would be especially burdensome for a person who is ailing from a crippling disease such as ALS
The exceptions that we are requesting are truly minor.The visual effect will be negligible,there will be no change in the level of
safety/emergency access,there will be no financial or administrative burden on the city,change in parking or traffic, or alteration of
the character of the neighborhood. Further,accommodating this request will not result in any fundamental alteration of a city plan
or program,in that we are not asking for a change in use or zoning designation, but simply to build within the envelope as originally
permitted for this property.
I have also attached architectural drawings for your review.These are available in large format if requested
Sincerely,
Pete Laux
President
EEj'
®esignidlaux
3g
Attachment No. HO 6
Vicinity Map
sq
40
VICINITY MAP
l
�f
N Y ;
- Y•�
t
�� � � -N -_ _ _� Imo'• c _:;J` � - _~
21G0 1'_2164 T 4 Al .1
not
61 2165 2169 Ttl3 � '�
c y
I— .p
tl P.
J r�"
Reasonable Accommodation No. RA2016-001
PA2016-075
2294 Channel Road
41
42
Attachment No. HO 7
Project Plans
43
44
SITEPLAN SCALE 1/81N PER FT
PROJECT INFORMATION
OWNER: CHUCK&MARGE RYFFEL
949.675.0394
NEWPORT HARBOR PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2294CHANNEL
NEWPORTORTBEACH
CA
CONSULTANTS: DESIGNDLAUX
PO BOX 12051
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661
760.500.5393
o CONTACT: PETE LAUX
0
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
KNAPP&ASSOCIATES INC.
408 S. STODDARD AVE.
SAN BERNADINO, CA 92401
909.889.0115
CONTACT: LEONARD KNAPP
BUILDING CODE
REQUIREMENTS: C.B.0 2010, C.P.C.2010, C.M.C.2010,
T-6" C.E.0 2010,T24-6
AP N: 048-283-08
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N TR 518 BLK P LOT 1 TR 518 LOT 1 BLK P
T-6"
YEAR BUILT: 1921
LOCATION OF ADDITION OCCUPANCY GROUP: SFR
2'-911
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB
# OF STORIES: 3
Lu Lu DESCRIPTION OF WORK: NEW ELEVATOR/HOISTWAY38ASQFT ADDITION
z z
Z J J GROSS AREA: LOTSIZEA601
1 ST FL:1840
2ND FL:1492
iv ~ 3RD FL:1491
W E RESIDENCE W GAR: 594823
0- 0- ADDITION:38.4
O O TOTAL:5455.4
r/ MAX BUILDABLE: 3166x2=6332
n
T-0"
VICINITY MAP
vr0
I uv.aw.r as
T-0"
E GARAGE E COURTYARD
BLOCK WALL
E—Ocean Front .! ^
Google
L c CITY SIDEWALK
DRIVEWAY APRON PROJECT INDEX
COVER PG......SITE PLAN/PROJECT INFO
A01.................1ST FLOOR PLAN
A02.................2ND FLOOR PLAN
A03.................3RD FLOOR PLAN
A04.................ROOF PLAN
A05.................ELEVATIONS
A06.................ELECTRICAL
S1.1................STRUCTURAL NOTES
S1.2................STRUCTURAL DETAILS
S1.3................STRUCTURAL DETAILS
o S2.1................FOUNDATION PLAN
o S3.1................SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
S4.1................THIRD FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
CHANNEL RD S5.1................ROOF FRAMING PLAN
CENTER LINE OF
ROADWAY
PETE LAUX DESIGNS LLC CLIENT PROJECT PROJECT NO. ISSUE DRAWN BY DESCRIPTION
r PO BOX 12051 CHUCK & MARGE RYFFEL RYFFLE ELEVATOR 2294 MM.DD.YY PETE LAUX PROJECT INFO
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661 2294 CHANNEL RD GENERAL NOTES
PH 760.500.5393 EMAIL pete@designdlaux.com NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661
DEsignd aux
D
x z
mW
W
Q
�d
N
OC
r� C0
W
0
co E
u o
cp U
J � J
J Q IO
Z U c
0 U
O o mw m
x�Fu y
Z� o" m
Z 0
a
0Lu
w w 0 w 2 2
PROPERTY LINE 0 a a Z a w
z
6FT H CONCRETE BLOCK
LANDSCAPE WALL
PROPERTY LINE
El
N CLOSET POWDER
UP
3: PATIO LIVING FOYER COURTYARD
r
wto❑
to
DUMB WAITER FULL BATH WELL-OPEN TO ABOVE w N
LL T
PROPERTY LINE ui
Lu C
o u
7 Ew <L wUWu
z z2: z
o� Z
^' r' <czi <
oyuO
ry ZZ)
a
z� � 3
U U N Z
O UTILITY
0o Y U
ry J
I..L Q
W
2 �
DINING BREAKFAST KITCHEN GARAGE U)
� � o
ry BDRMU Lo
w� N
�N �
�M K
0
Z
O
F
HOIST BEARING WALLQ
w o 5-3„ PROPOSED PATIO
z ELEVATOR LAUNDRY ;
HOISTWAY W
O w
� W
G� GLL
m
FRAME WALLS AS PER STRUCTURAL PLANS d N a d
EXTERIOR STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING
518 TYPE X DRYWALL INTERIOR
INSULATE WITH R-30 FIBERGLASS
io -
�y o 0
Lu
u
d
C�
PROPERTY LINE
Ln
� a
>waL
m
g + W
� a
a
cyZ
x � v
D z 0 LA
Q o 0 in +
m J
EJ N w
LL
3� uFaa
zw wU) I, U
o a v ti U)
�7 4p
A
01
D
x z
mW
W
Q
�d
N
OC
r� C0
W
0
co E
u o
cp U
J � J
J Q IO
Z U c
0 U
O o m m
x uF
Z� o" m
a
U— 0(L
Lu �-
wwOwx2
0a ILZaw
FULL BATH
O
D
■
CLOSET
xi
-KQ
Q
MASTER BDRM =
BEDROOM
Dto
J N
LL Q
Ocl
U
W o
Z < U
wa' wa
z Q Z m
o2: Z
d$
o Y U O
^U It a
UP OPEN TO BELOW w=N w
U U N Z
BALCONY
H
w BEDROOM
U)
RETREAT 0
U
REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW
INSTALL NEW 42X80X1.75 IHR RATED O p
UNDER EXISTING HEADER w o
�M K
CLOSET
D
z
0
r
0
0
a
PROPOSED HOISTWAY
O
Q
w
w
W
O w
w
G, GLL
m g
uN aCC
w
W_
LL
Z w
Q w
a a
Z
D 0LL
mg LL J
3Luzco
oa N- u
4p
02
D
x z
mW
W
Q
�d
N
OC
r� C0
W
0
co E
u o
cp U
J � J
J Q IO
Z U c
0 U
O o mw m
x�Fu y
Z
� o" m
a
ZU—' 0(L
Lu �—
wwOwx2
0LLaZELw
OFFICE
Lu
Q
SITTING BILLIARD BEDROOM
CLOSE-i
to
Jto
W N
LL T
LL Q
cl
U
wcl� =
U
.E w Q
z Q Z w
o2: Z
d$
o Y U O
z^U a
x � 3
u x N W
U U N Z
CLOSET
FULL BATH
N 42X80X2.25T 1 HR RATED DOOR& GYM BEDROOM
Q FRAME TO MATCH EXISTING W/
SMOKE SEAL WEATHERSTRIP
AND THRESHOLD
STORAGELb
m
Z
PROPOSED ELEVATOR HOISTWAY o
0
Q
0
Q
W
J
W
O J
W
G, GLL
C) 8
3 a CC
W_
LL
Z K
J W
a a
w Z
x Oma
mg °oW
3
LL J W ❑ L Q
H
oa M �Cn
03
4g
2X4 X Z
2X8 2.g„
\ fu W
w
W
2X4 PARAPET WALL U
CLAY TILE maw
1/21N PLYWOOD E,00-
2X6 T&G SHEATHING 0
OF EXISTING PARAPET `O 4X6 RAFTER 480C MAX
SCALE 1 I PER FT N cn
1'-6'p
OA 5:12 PITCH W CLAY TILE 2X4 EXTERIOR WALL Q
O9:12 PITCH W CLAY TILE
N o
OFLAT ROOF W ASPHALT MEMBRANE J
J Q IO
OD BALCONY W DECOTEX MEMBRANE Z U c
CEILING JOIST C'1 U rn
OWALKWAY W DECOTEX MEMBRANE o o m m�
X cq
Z� o
O j oa' ma
J
wm co
0LLaZaw
0
ROOF ACCESS
�— STREET LEVEL COURTYARD
0
toto
to
J
W N
j' LL T
LL Q
cl
U
wC� =
U
�< z
z Q Z m
o2: Z
d$
o Y U O
a
A z::)
u 2 N w
U U N Z
O O
A
C O
� O
w vi N
�N �
�M K
O
A /n \ F-
0 O
F
Q
w
J
W
PROPOSED ELEVATOR HOISTWAY c, b
w LL
0
uN aCC
H
LL
w
w
a
ZZ
D J
mg °" w
LL J
w
ouu
I
04
�-9
D
X
mW
W
�
Q d
N
OC
r� C0
Ln
W
zo El 90m E
0 o
cp U
U � x
O J J
J Q IO
NORTH ELEVATION
�oomm 'm
ora
a
N wxO a800-
J
m
WLu
0LLLLZLLW
34 m
N �
M
6'-2" EXT WALLS;FULL DIMENSION 4X2 FRAMING
STUCCO EXTERIOR
LATHE & PLASTER INTERIOR
® o
EEE ® ❑ V
❑ ❑
RAISED JOIST FLOOR H/EXTERIOR WOOD DECK H
FOUNDATION H
PREVIOUS CONCRETE WALKWAY H(STILL EXISTING)
PROPOSED ELEVATOR HOISTWAY
toto
to
J
W N
LL T
LL Q
cl
U
w � =
U
�E w Q
z Q z W
o2: z
d$
o Y U O
^U a
z 2 N W
EAST ELEVATION (BAYFRONT) WEST ELEVATION (STREET) " z
ko
M L�
PROPOSED
ELEVATOR 1 . z
HOISTWAY o
0
Q
0
■
Elw
W
J
W
z J
z
G� GLL
3 ��
uN aCC
H
LL
W
LL
Z z
X O �t
mD
a
W >
zW � U
oa wU)
05
so
-- -LOOR SECTION �w
A scale: 1/2"=1'
FIRST FLOOR LOCATION OF WORK
N
SECOND FLOOR LOCATION
THIRD FLOOR LOCATION OF WORK rJ C
OF WORK •�
W
0
................................................................
.........,..,.,.,,., m E
0 0
cp U
cc
J � J
J Q IO
Z U c
C7 = 0
e e room
� Q
(Dwgoa'J
Lu m 'o-
wwOwx2
oaazaw
ROUGH IN N DUPLEX
BOX FOR CALL BUTTOIN
N JUNCTION BOX INSTALLED BETWEEN
E FLOOR JOIST. RUN 1-12.2 AND 1 14.2
ROMEX INSIDE E STUD WALL
I
I
I
I
I
I � 1
I
I
Iii ::::�Jjj
❑
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOTE; ELECTRICIAN TO PROVIDE DATA LINE FOR
N1INRIGID CONDUIT INSTALLED I HOUSE TELEPHONE INSIDE ELEVATOR
ABOVE E CONCRETE UNDER REMOVABLE
E WOOD DECKING I
I
I
I .o
to
to
uj
u N
INSTALL 1N ; THIRD FLOOR ELECTRICAL ELEVATION0)
30AMP 220V w o _
BREAKER& I L w
1 N 20 AMP I 230 VAC 15A DISCONNECT 120 VAC 15A DISCONNECT w
110V BREAKER MOTOR/CONTROL LIGHTING EMERGENCY LOWERING ACCESS o� Z m
E ELECTRICAL PANEL o 1 U 0
^V a
zx � 3
=x N w
d U U N Z
CALL BUTTON ►�
� t7
w vi N
N
�M K
3RD FLOOR
A eie: 12-1 A scale:1/2=1' 18WX20HX10D CONTROL BOX
INSTALLED BY MFG
02 03
MIN 31N CLEARANCE
z
O
r
0
0
Q
o!
O
WOOD ENCLOSURE W LOUVERED DOORS
Lu
FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING TRIM d
z J
W
G� GLL
m B
uN aCC
ROUGH IN N DUPLEX BOX
FOR CALL BUTTON 42IN AFF
U)
RUN N IIN CONDUIT TO J
Q
JBOX IN HOISTWAY W
ROMEX WIRE INSIDE STUD BAY INSULATE&FIRE TAPE
O
Q
x U
Li
mg �
W
pww
0 0. W
SEE ELECTRICAL ELV
FOR EQUIPMENT PLACEMENT
N CABINET FOR
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
06
�2