Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7272_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 7272 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PERMIT NO. 6 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 714 BRENTWOOD PLACE IN THE CITY OF REDLANDS WHEREAS,on or about July 27 through July 30, 2012, the owners of property located at 714 Brentwood Place (the "Property") and within the R-S (Suburban Residential) District of the City of Redlands (the"City") caused the unpermitted construction of an addition to their single- family residence which resulted in an encroachment of the residence approximately nine (9) feet into a required ten(10)foot side yard setback for the Property; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2012, representatives of the City's Development Services Department's Building Division posted a written legal notice upon the Property directing that all construction work for the addition to the residence immediately cease because of the failure of the owners of the Property to obtain necessary permits and approvals for such construction from the City; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.06 of the Redlands Municipal Code establishes a procedure to evaluate requests for reasonable accommodation related to specific applications of the City's zoning laws in order to ensure persons with disabilities are not discriminated against by being denied an equal opportunity to enjoy their residences; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2012, the owners of the Property, Kenneth and Madeline Hendershot (together, the "Applicants"), filed an application with the City for consideration of Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6 (the "Application") to obtain the City's authorization, after the fact, for the unpermitted construction of an addition to their residence to encroach five (5) feet into the ten (10) foot required side yard setback for the Property, to increase the maximum lot coverage of the Property from the permitted thirty percent (30%) to thirty two and three-tenths percent (32.3%), and to permit completion of that construction in accordance with the Application;and WHEREAS, the plans submitted to the City with the Application show the proposed addition to the residence being comprised of expanded bathroom facilities adjacent to a master bedroom and a walk-in closet facility adjacent to a separate bedroom; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' written basis for their request for reasonable accommodation from the application of the City's zoning laws is that: "Wife is supported by ADA at work and need to make full bath ADA. Husband has had multiple joint replacements and bypass surgery and will be wheelchair bound while still in home. We are preparing now while we can. We never plan on leaving and want to spend the rest of our time in this home;"and WHEREAS,on September 7, 2012, staff of the City's Quality of Life Department's Code Enforcement Division issued a Notice of Violation to the Applicants informing them that the unpermitted construction of the addition to their residence continued to be in violation of the 4- L�cclerl&Resolutions\Res 7201-729917272 denying app for reasonable accom No.6 Brentwood,doc City's Municipal Code and that the Applicants were being given ten (10) days to correct the violations; and VV`HEREAS, on September 18, 2012, staff of the City's Development Services Department sent written notice to the Applicants that their Application was incomplete and that further processing of the Application would be stayed pending the Applicants' submittal of a completed application for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2013, the Applicants submitted a completed application for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6 to the City; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2012, the City's Minor Exception Committee (the "Committee") held a duly noticed public hearing at the Property during which the Committee received verbal and written testimony from City staff, the Applicants, and members of the public,relating to the Application; and WHEREAS, the October 16, 2012 public hearing for the Application was continued by the Committee to October 22, 2012 to allow City staff to perform additional research and respond to questions relating to the Application raised by the Committee and members of the public; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2012, no additional verbal or written testimony was presented by the Applicants at the hearing, and the Committee again continued the public hearing on the Application, to November 13, 2012, pending the Redlands City Council's establishment of implementing guidelines for Chapter 18.06 of the Redlands Municipal Code in connection with the City's consideration of requests for reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities with respect to the requirements of the City's zoning laws; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, the Committee held the continued public hearing on the Application, considered the factors established by Resolution No. 7230 of the Redlands City Council relating to the consideration of requests by persons with disabilities for reasonable accommodation with respect to the City's zoning laws, and again received verbal and written testimony from City staff, and testimony from the Applicants and the members of the public present confirming that their respective positions regarding the Application had not changed; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the November 13th public hearing, and after careful consideration of all verbal and written testimony presented at all of the public hearings, the Committee denied the Application based upon its findings that approval of the Application and requested exceptions to the City's zoning laws were not necessary to make specific housing benefits available to the Applicants, and that approval of the Application would fundamentally alter the City's zoning and building laws; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2012, the Applicants filed a written appeal of the decision of the Committee to the City Clerk of the City of Redlands; and -2- L',cclerklResolutionARes 7201-7299\7272 denying app for reasonable accom No,6 Brentwood,doe WHEREAS, on April 16, 2013, the Redlands City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of the Committee's denial of the Applicants' request for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6 at which verbal and written testimony was presented by City staff, the Applicants, and members of the public; and WHEREAS, after careful consideration of such verbal and written testimony, the Redlands City Council adopted a motion to continue the public hearing for the appeal to May 21, 2013, and directed City staff to prepare a resolution supporting denial of the Application for the Redlands City Council's consideration, and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2013, the Applicants submitted an application and plans to the City for a building permit to add an approximately one hundred twenty one (121) square foot addition to the Applicants' residence which would add three (3) linear feet to the side of the residence, while maintaining the required ten (10) foot side yard setback, for the purpose of constructing two closet areas adjacent to the same master bedroom and separate bedroom for which the plans associated with the Application proposed the bathroom addition; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, the Redlands City Council held the continued public hearing on the Applicants' appeal at which City staff again presented verbal and written testimony, and the Applicants and members of the public again had the opportunity to present additional testimony relating to the Application; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows: Section 1. The City Council finds and declares that the above-referenced factual recitals are true and correct. Section 2. The City Council hereby denies the Application for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6 which requests permission to construct a bathroom addition to the single-family residence located at 714 Brentwood Place and within the R-S (Suburban Residential) District, and to allow the encroachment of such bathroom addition five (5) feet into the required ten (10) foot side yard setback for the Property, based upon the verbal and written testimony presented by City staff, the Applicants and members of the public and the following facts, determinations and findings: A. The Applicants have acknowledged and agreed that on or about July 27 through July 30, 2012, the Applicants commenced construction of an addition to their residence without first obtaining required City permits and approvals for such construction. The unpermitted construction resulted in the addition to the residence encroaching approximately nine (9) feet into a required ten (10) foot side yard setback for the Property, and the residence exceeding the maximum lot coverage limitation for the Property. Prior to commencing the unpermitted construction,the Applicants made no inquiries to City staff regarding the applicability of Chapter 18.06 of the Redlands Municipal Code to their Property and thereby foreclosed an opportunity for City staff and the Applicants to consider alternative building plans and options for the expansion or remodeling of existing bathroom facilities for the Applicants' residence, or the -3- L1,cclerk\Resolutions\Res 7201-7299\7272 denying app for reasonable accorn No,6 Brentwooddoc consideration of factors such as those contained in Resolution No. 7230 for the implementation of Chapter 18.06. B. Staff of the City's Development Services Department's Building Division has presented testimony to the City Council that the Applicants have the ability to construct a bathroom facility as an addition to the back of their residence in compliance with the City's zoning and building laws, and without encroachment into the side yard setback of the Property. Staff has determined there is nothing intrinsic to the Application for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6 which makes it necessary to encroach into the side yard setback. City staff has testified that construction costs are not significantly increased by constructing the bathroom addition to the back of the residence, and the amount of construction work required for the same is reasonably equivalent to constructing the addition to the side of the residence. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to permit the bathroom addition in the side yard setback area in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance, when the back yard option for construction provides significant benefits to the community. Maintaining the side yard setback's "open space" between residential structures in neighborhoods is aesthetically preferable, and an addition constructed in the side yard setback is not desirable because it would reduce building separations and access for fire suppression and incidental purposes. C. Chapter 18.06 of the Redlands Municipal Code requires that the Applicants provide an explanation of why the City's zoning side yard setback requirement specified in the Application prevents the Applicants' use and enjoyment of their residence. The Application and the testimony of the Applicants demonstrates that neither of the Applicants presently requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility purposes, and nothing in the Application or the Applicants' testimony demonstrates that the City's zoning and building laws prevent the Applicants' use of their current bathroom facilities. The Application expressly notes that the Applicants' request for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6 is being made for the reason that,in the future, it is possible that one or both of the Applicants may require bathroom facilities which will need to accommodate use of a wheelchair. The Applicants' submittal of their physician's letter in support of the Application similarly notes that Mr. Hendershot "will probably need a walker and possibly a wheelchair latter [sic] in life"and makes no statement that Mr. Hendershot has a need for the use of a wheelchair at the time of the filing of the Application. The physician's letter also describes Ms. Hendershot's medical condition, but makes no mention of either a present, or possible future,need by her for a wheelchair. D. The Applicants' April 25h submittal of a request for a building permit and plans to construct an addition for two closet areas, and no bathroom facilities, is in direct conflict with the Applicants' earlier request in the Application to construct an addition for expanded bathroom facilities and a closet area. The subsequent request for the building permit is further evidence that the Applicants do not presently require the expanded, wheelchair accessible bathroom facilities requested in the Application. E. The Applicants' claim that they were told by an unidentified City employee, who allegedly came to the Applicant's residence several years ago, that the Applicants"could not add any additional roof, because our [the Applicants' residence] foot print was at its maximum" is not supported by any written documentation submitted by the Applicants, or by the City's -4- LIcclerk\ResoIutions\Res 7201-729917272 denying app for reasonable accom No.6 Brentwood.doc Municipal Code. City staff has provided testimony to the City Council that, pursuant to Chapter 18.196 of the Redlands Municipal Code, the Applicants have the ability to file an application for a variance to the City's Zoning Ordinance's lot coverage requirements. Further, no written documentation has been presented by the Applicants to the City Council evidencing that a City employee told the Applicants "that if any area [of the Applicant's residence] was already under one roof we [the Applicants] could do whatever we wanted to," nor would such action by the Applicants be permissible under the City's Municipal Code. F. The Applicants claim that, by taking into consideration the setback on the south side of their residence, the total side yard setbacks for their property average ten (10) feet and therefore they should be entitled to encroach into the required ten (10) foot setback on the north side of their residence. However, City staff has provided testimony to the City Council that the Applicants' residence was constructed in 1975 and originally had a thirteen (13) foot setback from both side lot lines according to the precise grading plan for the Applicants' property. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a ten (10) foot side yard setback and there is no provision in the Zoning Ordinance permitting required setbacks to be"averaged." G. There is no merit to the Applicants' claim that they should have been "grandfathered into the five (5) foot setback" and that they are subject to discrimination because the City is not applying the same zoning standards to the Applicants' residence as other residences in the neighborhood. City staff has provided testimony to the City Council that the required ten (10) foot side yard setback was adopted for the R-S District more than twenty-five years ago in 1986. The ten (10) foot side yard setback requirement applies to all residences located in the immediate neighborhood with the same zoning designation. H. The Applicants assert that the side yard setback area is already covered with concrete and therefore appropriate for the addition, whereas in contrast, any addition constructed to the back of their residence would inappropriately cause the loss of"green space." These facts, however, do not affect where an addition to the Applicants' residence may legally be constructed, and have no bearing on the findings of Chapter 18.06 of the Redlands Municipal Code regarding whether Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6 should be approved. City staff has provided testimony that an addition to the Applicants' residence may be located either in an area that has concrete, or an area that is unimproved "green space." Construction of the addition in the setback area is more of a convenience for the Applicants as a consequence of the already existing, unpermitted construction, rather than a necessity to address their disabilities. City staff has noted that the County of San Bernardino's Assessor records and aerial photographs show that the Applicants' residence has a patio cover over the rear yard (although no permit could be found that the patio cover was legally constructed)under which an addition also may be constructed. 1. Nothing in this Resolution or the City's action of denying the Application for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6 prohibits the Applicants from submitting additional requests for reasonable accommodation from the City's Zoning Ordinance, or prohibits the City from considering the same. -5- L\cclerk\ResolutionsXRes 7201-729947272 denying app for reasonable accom No.6 Brentwood.doe Section 3. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council further finds and determines that (1) approval of the Application for Reasonable Accommodation Permit No. 6 is not necessary to make specific housing benefits available to the Applicants that are enjoyed by other persons without disabilities under the City's Zoning Ordinance; and (2) the accommodation requested by the Applicants, an encroachment in the required setback area, would require a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning or building laws, policies and/or procedures. ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 21 st day of May, 2013. Peter Aguilar, Mayor ATTEST: Sam Irwin,dfytlerk -6- Lcclerk',Resolution!Mes 7201-7299\7272 denying app for reasonable accom No.6 Brentwood,doe 1, Sam Irwin, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of May, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Harrison, Gardner, Gilbreath; Mayor Aguilar NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Councilmember Foster Sam Irwin, City Clerk -7- fAcclerkkResolutionsTes 7201-7299N7272 denying app for reasonable accorn No.6 Brentwood,doc