RESOLUTION NO. __ - 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF TWO FEET WHERE 20 FEET IS
REQUIRED AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF THREE FEET WHERE FIVE FEET IS REQUIRED. ADDITIONALLY, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A SIX-FOOT-TALL
FENCE/GATE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD ACROSS THE VEHICULAR ACCESS
WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THREE FEET IS ALLOWED AS ASSOCIATED WITH REASONABLE ACCOMMOCATION PLN 21-0497 AT 406 KAHRS AVENUE.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mariam Azamey, submitted PLN 21-0497 on December 7, 2021, for a Reasonable Accommodation to accommodate (an existing accessory structure (physical therapy room with an attached carport) with a front yard setback of two feet where a minimum of 20 feet is required; a side yard setback of three feet where a minimum of five is required; and installation of a six-foot-tall fence in the required front yard across the vehicular access, where the maximum allowed height is three feet; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with PHMC Section 18.112.050.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance the Zoning Administrator referred the Reasonable Accommodation request to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2022, regarding the proposed Reasonable Accommodation, at which time all interested parties were invited to provide comments on the proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission evaluated the proposed Reasonable Accommodation request for compliance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and Planning and Land Use Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the at the March 8, 2022 hearing, the Planning Commission concluded that it could not make the necessary findings to approve the Reasonable Accommodation and denied the request without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2022, the applicant/appellant, Mariam Azamey filed a timely appeal; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing was continued at the June 6, 2022 City Council and continued, without discussion, to the August 1, 2022 meeting date and subsequently continued without discussion to the September 12, 2022, October 3, 2022 and November 7, 2022 meeting date, regarding an appeal of the Planning Azamey Reasonable Accommodation PLN 21-0497
Findings for Denial
November 7, 2022
Commission’s decision regarding the proposed Reasonable Accommodation, at which time all interested parties were invited to provide comments on the proposal; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15270 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, in accordance with Chapter 18.112 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the request (Reasonable Accommodation PLN 21-0497) without prejudice, based upon the following findings:
Reasonable Accommodation DENIAL Findings
1. The housing will be used by a disabled person
A disabled person does reside on the property.
2. The requested accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a disable person
Accessory Structure: The request for the reasonable accommodation includes allowing a non-permitted, nonconforming structure (physical therapy room attached to a carport) to remain as is, with a front yard setback of two feet (minimum of 20 feet is required) and a side yard setback of three feet (minimum of five is required). The applicant states that the current location of the physical therapy room is more feasible than converting the existing 390-square-foot car garage, as it houses the appellant’s accessible van and is not insulated (see Applicant’s Analysis, Attachment D). The applicant notes that to construct the physical therapy room at any other location of the site would pose a hardship and be cost prohibitive.
The disabled person will use the unpermitted, existing physical therapy room for therapy.
The unpermitted accessory structure is necessary and related to the disability; however, Planning Commission and staff believes that there are other locations on the site where the structure/use could have been built to better accommodate the proposed use, comply with zoning regulation, and minimize detrimental impacts to adjacent properties, particularly if the smaller physical therapy room was built without the attached carport.
These locations include: (1) within the existing house; (2) as an addition to the rear of the home (west); (3) to the south of the home where the required setbacks could be met, as the parcel is approximately 16,552 square feet (see Attachment E for additional discussion).
In conclusion, the Planning Commission and Staff observe that, had the applicant approached the City to discuss location prior to building the structure without permits, the accessory structure could have been sited both in compliance with zoning regulations and to the satisfaction of the applicant’s needs.
Azamey Reasonable Accommodation PLN 21-0497
Findings for Denial
November 7, 2022
Fence: The project also includes a request to allow construction of a six-foot-tall fence/motorized gate on the front property line of the parcel at the easement. PHMC Section 18.20.040 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that fences in the required front yard shall not be taller than three feet. The applicant’s basis for the request for a taller fence is for safety of the person with the disability.
In conclusion, the Planning Commission and Staff do not believe that granting this fence height request is necessary to make the housing available to a disabled person, as it does not appear that a six-foot tall fence is related to the disability. Further, a three-foot-tall fence, which is allowed per Code, would also provide safety and security for the appellant.
In addition, the site is significantly recessed from the public street and accessed through an easement. Thus, these factors afford the subject site greater security than other properties in the vicinity that front upon the public street.
3. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city.
There would not be an undue financial or administrative burden imposed on the City as a result of approving the proposed reasonable accommodation. Inspections for the existing carport and attached physical therapy room, and the proposed fence would occur as part of the routine building and zoning permit processes.
4. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including land use and zoning.
Accessory Structure: The unpermitted, existing physical therapy room and attached carport would result in a fundamental alteration to land use and zoning, as the structure would encroach upon the required front yard setback by 18 feet and the required side yard setback by two feet.
The resident at the property does have a disability (as determined by a medical professional), and the reasonable accommodation request is sought to allow, retroactively, an otherwise non-permitted structure built without prior City consultation or approval.
While a reasonable accommodation does allow flexibility and the waiving of certain development standards and requirements, the extent of the appellant’s request equates to a fundamental alteration of zoning provisions that does not appear justified when several reasonable alternative solutions are available to the appellant. In addition, the physical therapy room is significantly smaller than the attached carport, thus, siting the smaller physical therapy room by itself would provide additional options due to its smaller footprint. Had the request come before the City in advance of construction of the nonpermitted accessory structure, staff is confident other locations on the property could have been identified that satisfy both zoning regulations and the appellant’s needs.
Fence: The project also includes a request to allow construction of a six-foot-tall fence/ motorized gate on the front property line of the parcel at the easement. PHMC Section
18.20.040 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that fences in the required front yard shall not be taller than three feet
Azamey Reasonable Accommodation PLN 21-0497
Findings for Denial
November 7, 2022
The Planning Commission and Staff believe that granting this fence request is not necessary to make the housing available to a disabled person, as it does not appear that a six-foot-tall fence is related to the disability. Further, a three-foot tall fence, which is allowed per Code, would also provide safety and security of the site. In addition, the site is significantly recessed from the public street and accessed through an easement; thus, these factors afford the subject site greater security than other properties in the vicinity that front upon the public street.
ADOPTED by the City Council, City of Pleasant Hill, on the 7 th day of November, 2022,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:
DANIELLE K. NAVARRO, City Clerk