Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCiraulo Residence (PA2003-067)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 May 22, 2003 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 icampbell@city newport-beach ca.us SUBJECT: Ciraulo Residence (PA2003 -067) 202 S. Bay Front Request to permit a 127 square foot, third level portion of a single family residence to exceed the 24 -foot base height limit. APPLICANT NAME: Joseph and Carole Ciraulo INTRODUCTION: A 127 square foot, third level of a newly constructed single family residence was constructed without the benefit of proper permits. The area of the unpermittted construction presently is 29 feet above natural grade, which is 5 feet above the height limit. The applicant seeks relief from the height limit in order to preserve the existing construction. The property is designated Two - Family Residential by the General Plan and is Zoned R -1.5 (Restricted Two - Family Residential). RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing and deny the applicant's request by adopting the findings contained in Exhibit No. 1. DISCUSSION: In February of 2002, the applicant received a building permit to demolish an existing single family residence and construct a replacement dwelling. The new construction included a 25 square foot elevator shaft that is permitted to exceed the 24 -foot height limit up to 5 feet. During construction, the third level of the project was changed to include a bathroom, elevator foyer, small storage area and fireplace creating a 127 square foot third level without approval of the City. The total height of the third level is 29 feet above grade. It has been reported that the additional framing for the unpermittted improvements on the third level was done after the initial framing inspection in June of 2002. Subsequent inspections were conducted by different inspectors. The changes to the project were Ciraulo Residence May 22, 2003 Page 2 determined to be inconsistent with the original permit and inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance in late September of 2002 during a follow up inspection of the property by staff. The Public Works Department also discovered a deviation from the approved plans as the front yard wall encroaches within the public right of way of S. Bay Front. Analysis The project, other than height, complies with other applicable site development standards of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings for Variances. These mandatory findings are listed and discussed below: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district. The applicant contends that the structure fits in to the surrounding development and that the third level is far less massive than the previous home that had a much larger third level. Although that may be true, staff does not see any physical circumstances or constraints that distinguish the subject property from other properties within the same zoning district that would justify deviating from the strict application of the code. The property is flat and of similar size to other properties in the area. The use of the property for a single family home constructed in compliance with applicable standards is not dissimilar to other newly constructed properties in the vicinity. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The applicant contends that the property rights are minimal without a final certificate of occupancy due to the inability to obtain a loan from a bank. Additionally, the removal of the unperrnittted construction would come at a great financial cost. The applicant also notes that 9 months transpired without any notice of violation from the City and that all inspections were adequate up to that point. For these reasons, the applicant believes that the granting the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of their property rights. In regard to the applicants comment about 9 months of adequate inspections, the Building Department believes that the project was progressing in accordance with the plans up to mid -June. The initial framing inspection was conducted and the only framing on the third level was the 25 square foot elevator shaft in accordance with the approved plans. The remainder of the framing on the third level occurred after that framing inspection without approval of a changed plan. The next inspection was conducted by a different inspector as the original inspector was on vacation. As a practical matter, the second inspector saw the previous framing signoff and assumed that what he saw was framed in accordance with the approved plans. The contractor did not inform the inspector of the changes nor did he pursue approval of the changes to the plans through the City. Subsequent inspections focused upon other areas of the construction and the violation was not discovered until the Ciraulo Residence May 22, 2003 Page 3 project neared completion in October. It should be noted that the parties carrying out the project (owner, contractor and architect) bear the responsibility to inform the inspectors of changes to the plan. The applicant has no property right to something that was illegally created. Moreover, a substantial property right exists with the use of the property within the original design that was permitted in compliance with the Zoning Code. The cost to abate the violation of the code does not eliminate the fundamental right to use the property for residential purposes when constructed in compliance with applicable Building and Zoning Codes. Granting of the application is only necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the unpermittted third level area that was constructed without the benefit of permits. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The applicant did not address this finding in their submittal. The purpose of the height limit is to preserve the character and scale of the community. With many nonconforming buildings remaining in the community, one could argue that the existence of some structures above the height limits is part of the character of the community. However, the zoning code's requirement that new construction comply with current development regulations reflects the Code's purpose of bringing the neighborhood into compliance with current standards. Granting this application without any physical constraints or a necessity to preserve a substantial property right would be the granting of special privilege to this property owner in staff's opinion. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant indicates that the 127 square foot structure is much smaller than the previous structure that had a much larger third level and therefore has created increased views over the site and that the new home is more aesthetically pleasing. Additionally, the applicant has received the support of two neighbors located across the alley on Emerald Avenue. The applicant has submitted additional letters of support that are attached. The applicant believes that these factors indicate that the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. While the project could be determined to be non - detrimental to the neighborhood because it represents an improvement over the previously existing condition, it also could be deemed detrimental because it doesn't further the goals of the existing height limit. In conclusion, staff does not see any facts to justify approval of the request; however, the public hearing might uncover other facts that might lead to a different conclusion. Ciraulo Residence May 22, 2003 Page 4 Environmental Review: The proposed project qualifies for a categorical exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). The approval of a variance to the height of a structure is an alteration in development standards and does not result in a change in land use or density and does not affect any significant environmental resources. Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: The Planning Commission has the option to approve the request provided that the Commission believes there are sufficient facts to support the four findings discussed above. Should the Commission conclude that there are sufficient facts to support each of the findings; staff recommends a two week continuance to allow staff the opportunity to prepare a resolution for project approval. Prepared by: (� W r.�,// 'JdmesVrCaripbell Senior Planner Exhibits: Submitted by: ZL,ed,�- J/;ttlw Sharon Z. Woo Assistant City M6nager 1. Applicant's justfication and photographs 2. Findings for denial 3. Excerpt of original plans 4. Project plans Exhibit No.1 Applicant's justification and photographs h This Page Intentionally Left Blank I Variance Findings 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location of surroundings? The single family home is located at the North end of Balboa Island at 202 S. Bay Front. An attached aerial shows the Balboa Island in full and the new home can be seen at the North End of the Island. A house is located immediately to the South of the new residence and Emerald Avenue borders the North side of the property. Also included in the following pages are photos of the new home taken from the bay and from the comer of Emerald Avenue and the fronting alley of the home. The third floor structure cannot be seen at all from Emerald Avenue. The roof of the structure can be seen from the bay photo. The owner feels that this is well within keeping of the surrounding development that includes many homes that have entire third floors. The aerial picture depicts that the home fits in with the surrounding area and the roof structure has little to know visual impacts to the neighborhood. It should also be noted that the previous structure at the property had a third story. Although this home was built before the current City Zoning Code was enforced. it is nevertheless less intense in height and a net gain to the visual impacts of the surrounding properties. Although the third story square footage exceeds the allowable height limit exceptions in the Zoning Code, the structure is similar in scope to neighboring homes and provides a significant improvement to view impacts in the area. I Variance Findings 2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? The property owners were originally planning to move in to their new home in late October after the final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Unfortunately, they were not notified of any violations or nonconforming structures until they received a 10/16/02 letter from the Building Department. This "stop work notice" was issued less than a week before Mr. & Mrs. Cirauto had planned to move in and came as a shock being that they had received all inspection approvals up until that point. In the nine months of construction of their home, this was the first correspondence from the City indicating any sort of problem with their completed new home. The owners were issued a Temporary Occupancy Approval on 10/27/02 for three months and they have recently received another three -month extension from the Building Department that will allow them to go through the City Variance process. Although they have a Temporary permit to live at the home, they are still months away from receiving a final Certificate of Occupancy for their property. Without the final Certificate of Occupancy, they are unable to get a loan from the bank. They also are not able to setup their mortgage or do anything about their construction loan until the house receives final approval. Attached is a contracting bid issued by 7. Carr Contracting which discusses in full detail the process required to remove the existing roof structure. Not only will the removal of the structure be an enormous undertaking from a construction standpoint at a heavy cost to the property owners, it will require a great deal of additional time. Removing the structure is not a simple, cheap, or quick process. The entire structure will have to be addressed due to the loss of the weight on the third floor and it will take months to complete the job before an inspector could sign off a final Certificate of Occupancy. The owners' property rights are minimal without the final approval from the City. Their financial well being is also in limbo until a final Certificate is issued, and if the owners were required to move the roof structure now it would come at a great financial cost and may cause structural complications because of the loads that were accounted for on the third floor. Variance Findings 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? The new single -family residence is smaller in size than the previous structure that used to exist on the property. Attached you will find photos of both the new and old houses. A comparison of the two shows that the new house is both smaller and far more aesthetically pleasing. It is also evident that the prior residence had a complete third story rather than a 127 sq. ft. third story bathroom & elevator. Attached to this document are two letters of support from adjacent property owners at 106 & 108 Emerald Dr. As stated in one of the letters, view impacts of the bay have increased at least 701/o due to the new development at 202 S. Bay Front. The home enhances the value of the surrounding properties as the home provides greater views for surrounding neighbors in addition to its far more appealing architecture and visual impact. � y V 4 1.� ) y V IIS d F y s � i 1v. t. t x t'. Y� ',3. r"- ,, ►` VIA .a. `v �: �iM1��'J� � �3 �}I S'�€'�4�Y ..:. y.. �. `'i' .(fir -t r�r� 'E'�� 4i { {<< .3 1 1 4F �1 StS 1 / r � ly \ i I y # 1�` s s h r ,y7{ d' k A �3 .� � °a ��: "' °'vNyf'M1MSiekf �b 'W�il 'fa'�`�9wtAi q �� \ �`.`� A'l+l� „, a. y 4 li'� '9KNM.S% gg ��.F' '5f:ilwY � � 5 * Y iStia��:ce y } m..u. :tae .a4y"d.� N C M N O rA cl 3 4J U O O V- { �r � i t .o -C Y �ry45w9 kn F .. r t r a Y{ {t 4 f 4t eC r Yc; v.X w n - t A , 19 - 4 �N g •• t t �iv,�`� 1 :, y A, a 14x+i 3y k 1F:.4 a+ x Y3 N R9M "A"O. ttt A i, F �. Y .. a:; �Y i � �\ �'s �,_ . c, r �.. Ps ����� ,.," „�” �': i >'�4 .-� f ,�f. r �� y { e: :,. ��� � �;''` .... mow, '. r v��1 i s t g c �i �n4 t �" .<a °m'i�E .' MR m f kf� ` 1 S ! ! e f S Y I fit F� {td J6s�Y w�rEt Y � t .. .�rSJ ♦:v � za ., 5 m 1 LL 1�yy .5 + h 1 . f s 17 1 FA IPA r ff{ �� +� � • 6 � ;.� -- , _ � � � - SyEs >t d •,. � 4 :s �j_ a� � * �i t a 9 -�� �� .. } 4F.A ' tl �! p Lv r. c 1 �':. Ira r, 2110V jr v fi P'7 ti I cg: 5 r 7 r VJ AW tr i- i.lr . MARK FICINSKI STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STRUCTURAL ENO, STATE LIC. 3534 4850 N. LANTE ST., BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706 PH: 626.960.1978 FAX: 626.960.8599 July 14, 2002 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 Re: 202 South Bay Front Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: On July 12, 2002 a structural observation of framing in the garage ceiling has been performed. Connection of the 6x12 beam to steel beam is provided with the adequate capacity. Reinforcement of the Parallam beam with 2x12 beam member has been properly completed. Sin ly yo ark Ficinski, Structural Engineer NO. �0�03534 OF CRS 11 rr+.•^ 01104 �! Cansuwng Group, rnc. CRC Consulting Group, Inc. inspected the roof of the 202 South Bay f3 CORPORAIE OFFICE Front Residence on December 27 2002. r 1400 Eastan tM„a Ste 138 have dramatic cost impact and create damage (of unktrown extent) to the HokerSBBld. CA 93369 January 7, 2003 Ph. (6611321 -9578 is understood that a requirement for a maximum twenty -five (25) square FAX (661) 321-9579 foot stllrcture in excess of the allowable building height is possible. CA 101 Free 1800) 287 -4304 3. Flashings/cotmterflashings e4AW Address: CCaakglvaCCOmult rn Ms. Carole Cirauto FAX (931) 645.1010 202 South Bay Front to so. CALIFORNIA OF14Ce New Port Beach, CA. 92662 lens EGO tier Rd. Ste 110 soma Am, CA 92705 Additional work is necessary to 6ttermine the extent of the anticipated Ph. (9491261.5650 damage; whether there is a means of restoring or modifying these FAX 1949) 2615258 Reference: Roof Top Modifications E.Ma , sant®crccomutt com Residence D DnERNET wen PAGE 202 South Bay Front 13 NO. CAIIPDRMA OFFICE New Port Beach, CA. 92662 1331 Tema. CA w Sactnmento, CA 95814 . Ph.(916) 444 -1508 Dear Ms. Ciraulo: FAX (9161 I44 -1564 E-Max sacl®crcconsuii.com CRC Consulting Group, Inc. inspected the roof of the 202 South Bay 114 a Front Residence on December 27 2002. r t4� E AmerFron Ln, sfe 1400 E. Am 6can have dramatic cost impact and create damage (of unktrown extent) to the Sctmftrt rg. IL 60173 CRC is aware of the `roof top limitations" of the planning department... it Ph. MM 619, 146 is understood that a requirement for a maximum twenty -five (25) square FAX r c 330 4452 E Mar: ehlt ®accomuttsom foot stllrcture in excess of the allowable building height is possible. O TENNESSEE OFNCE Vii' �Y Y�i CRC C ,Inc. uto�l President Page 7 of i q C1 NEVADA OFFICE The inspection reveled that the removal of the roof top structure(s) would 4625 worn Road. Ste 221 have dramatic cost impact and create damage (of unktrown extent) to the Los Vegas. NV 89103 wing ding ponents: folio building components: Ph. p021873-9578 E-Mod: kisl®CrcConmAxom 1. Granite pavers 2. Watetproofing membrane O TENNESSEE OFNCE 3. Flashings/cotmterflashings Pk (931)64`v44" a. Setting bed and redundant waterproofing membrane FAX (931) 645.1010 5. MechanicaYelectrieal/plumbing &. heating E•Mos: ten?a=mnso.com 6. Roof structure O 7E7rA3 OFFICE Ph. 1972) 529 -5222 Additional work is necessary to 6ttermine the extent of the anticipated FAX (9721 5404026 damage; whether there is a means of restoring or modifying these Emoit +pact oacconsult=rn components, etc. D DnERNET wen PAGE Please call if there are any questions. ww .crccanstgtxom Vii' �Y Y�i CRC C ,Inc. uto�l President Page 7 of i q Mar 03 03 04:58p Carole Ciraulo (949) 723 -5509 p.2 J. Catt Contracting P.O. Box 9461 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Office: (714)964 -8911 Fax: (714)964 -1180 NAMEIADDRESS Joe and Carole Ciraulo 202 South Bayfront Newport Beach, CA 92662 DESCRIPTION The following is a description of work to be performed to remove roof deck level elevator structure including elevaror amiroom, f fireplace area and full bathroom. Demolition of interior and exterior plastering, framing, plumbing, electrical, con mtmicarion lines. Terminate plumbing, including supply lines to full bath, shower, lavatory, gas line to fireplace and recirculating system lines. Terminate electrical lines including sub panel at anti room, electrical fixtures, lighting circuits, plugs at interior of bathroom and at exterior of structure. Terminate fore sprinklers at bathroom and elevator anti room Terminate communication lines including phone, security system lines, television cable and satalite lines. Install preventative measures to protect existing structure, flooring and finished areas. Purchase and install decking material to match existing conditions. Waterproof sub deck prior to installation of decking material. Replaster at exterior of elevator shalt structure. Purchase and install precast concrete/foam plant -ons to match existing conditions. iInstall new roof over elevator structure. Thank you for your business. Page t Estimate DATE ESTIMATE NO. 2!2812003 ; 115~ QTY RATE 1 11,793.60 1 28,800.00 I 10,800.00 4.800.00 7,200.00 t 0.800.00 46,800.00 26,400.00 27,600.00 6,000.00 4,200.00 TOTAL PROJECT Removal of elev. TOTAL —1 11,793.60 28,800.00 10,800.00 4.800.00 7,200.00 10.800.0!1 46,800.00 26,40090 27,600.00 6.000.00 4200.00 11 Mar 03 03 04tSBp Carole Ciraulo t9491 723-5508 P•3 J. Carr Contracting P.O. Box 9461 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Office: (714)964-8911 Fax. (714)964-1180 NAME/ADDRESS Joe. and Carol, Graulo 202 South Bayfront Newport Beach, CA 92662 DESCRIPTION I Repair affects of removal to existing structure at interior. Thank You -ky—foryo--u-r business. —-�-- Page 2 Estimate DATE ESTIMATE NO QTY RATE 30,000.00 PROJECT Removal of elev. TOTAL 30,000,00 N January 2, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: As property owners at 106 Emerald Avenue, Balboa Island, California, we wish to state that the roof bathroom at 200 Bay Front, Balboa Island, does not obstruct our view. The home is a vast Improvement over the duplexes on this bay front location and adds greatly to the neighborhood and Island. (Sincerely Donald M. Cleland Ann S. Cleland Y1 Re: Home of Mr. and Mrs. Ciraulo 202 S. Bay Front Balboa Island To Whom it may concern, Date: December 23, 2002 We are the properly owners of 108 Emerald Avenue on Balboa Island and look directly at the lovely home recently built on the bay front. Not only has it's construction improved the neighborhood by replacing the existing rundown duplex, our personal views of the bay have been expanded an two floors. We also have a sum deck and their rooftop room is considerably smaller than the full width third story that was previously there. Our view of the peninsula lights and our visual space is about 70% better from that deck than. before. Additionally, the architecture of the third floor northwest corner of the buildmg did allow us a bit more actual bay view. From our point of view, the hoarse has not had a negative impact at all. Should you have anything further you would like to discuss, please Cathi and Les c 949 - 675 -0180 May 13 03 03:53p Carole Ciraulo [9491 723 -5509 y,.2 JACK & JOAN NORTHRUP 411 North Bay Front Balboa Island, CA 92662 (949) 675-9223 FAX (949) 723 -5615 e -mail: jknrth@adelphia.net May 13, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: It has come to our attention that our neighbors on Balboa Island are having difficulty with the City, of Newport Beach Planning Department regarding their lovely new home at 202 South Bay Front. It is our understanding that the issue is related to non- living space on the third floor that exceeds the gross square footage limit for the property- Surely the City in it's thorough inspection and approval process must have known that the limit had been exceeded long before the house was finished so that any necessary corrections could have been made before construction was completed. Now that the home has been completed it is not only very costly and difficult to snake the corrections, but it seems to us that it is unnecessary and arbitrary since no harm has been done. The prior structure was much more dense and the new one has opened up the view for neighbors. Also the portion of the structure in question cannot be seen from the sidewalk and so it doesn't seem to be offensive in any way. We are active members of the Balboa Island Improvement Association (BIIA) and it's Beautification Committee and are always very concerned about nonconforming structures that don't add to the beauty of the Island. While we are speaking only as individuals and not necessarily representative of the BBIIA, we believe that this house has improved the area significantly and should be granted a variance for the extra square footage. cerely, & Joan orthmp May 12 03 07:20p ..Carole Ciraulo [949] 723 -5509 .p.l LAURA G GALE Coldruetl Banker 202 ffiarbte Avenue Balboa Island, CA. 92662 CWVice: (949) 673 -8700 b"au: (949) 675 -9885 mDbfie: (949) 500 -6418 eye%udair/M=. cam May 10, 2= Dear Pkw gng Commission, csty of A4rwpart Beach. Re. 202 South Bay Front, E} AYma Is/dt!d, CA. i hdw been a kv lime Iskud Resident 4nd an demw Ream*- Wifh Ca/diee// Bel kah. ifs %ten can wrlt imagine I set a Mtge v�*ty of hAdOs that have ether been built or rem**AL -d a// over the island. White I am exirtme/y cognizant of both P/awft o/rd Brdklirg issues, I am dwakrtr fy astounded that the Grout= at 202 South Bdy fr,4mt are havkV such difficulty obtaihing a variance for what in my zpimhm is o wry smail amount of space (mt living space) an their raoof deck. I was arwwd marry times d wft cmmtr uct/an: Now that the buiktirg is fm bed, beauttfuffy built a ud offers all of the neighbors a, much mmv powmate view than the oM Ndkling did, I wwderstmd that the CirmAw have yet to get a Certifreate of.OkcWamy. I am swVMg in support of their pffght. I sknply c®muat see how a &WM%g can reach cmnp/et/an m d then be "red tamed' for svmethng that ammed m the very beginning stages of building. I p¢rsomlly hope that the afy can mwd through these pnabkams cmdgrant the CiAWIVS fire neeceM Y MrftWe. Yaws truly, May 12 03 10:30a Carole Ciraulo [9491 723 -5509 Carole and Joe Ciraulo 202 South Bay Front Balboa island Newport Beach, CA 92662 May 9, 2003 Dear Carole and Joe, As long -time residents of Balboa Island (our home has been in the family for over 50 years), we are writing in support of you and your beautiful new home. Today we all live in a time of celebration of diversity. The idea is to create a home that is unique and pleasing to the owner while it complements and enhances the neighborhood. Your home does all of that While we have not taken measurements, our perception is that there are quite a few homes on the Island that appear larger and taller than your place, and still fit well in their surroundings. The key here is " perception." We understand there is a question of the appearance of your home's roofline and height. Our perception is that it is appealing just as it is, and looks very much in place with its surrounding neighbors. We hope you enjoy many happy years m your Balboa Island "dream home." Best regards, Adrian and Kathy ]3snard �,5 May 12.03 05:42a Carole Ciraulo (9491 723 -5509 p.4 L. G. GALS May 9, 2003 Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 226 Ruby Balboa Island, CA 92662 Ciraulo Residence 202 South Bay Front I am a retired developer and a long -time Balboa Island resident. I have been observing the subject project with interest and have had many occasions to speak with the neighbors who.lyste on either side of the subject property. Both on personal observation, and in discussion with the neighbors, it is unanimously agreed that the small roof structure not only is not visible from the street, but does not block any view. In fact, the residents directly behind the Ciraulos have stated that their view is at least 75% better than when the prior three story house was on the property. SincerelyW � L G. Gale a� May .12 03.05:42a May 6, 2003 To: From: My wife and I neighbors of of Emerald). Carole Ciraulo (949) 723 -5509 1 p.3 The City of Newport Beach Vincent Arranaga 210 Emerald Newport Beach, CA 92662 are long time residents of Balboa Island and close the Ciraulo family at 202 South Bay Front {Corner We have enjoyed the construction of the Ciraulo's new home, especially since the overall size is far less than the previous duplex which was on the property. We note that there is an elevator shaft an the roof with a small bathroom attached, but this small structure does not block the view of any of the neighbors, especially since the previous structure was a full three stories high from lot line to lot line. I know L speak for most of the neighbors in that we welcome this lovely new home to our neighborhood as well as the Ciraulos who appear to be good citizens and enthusiastic about living on the Island. Sincelely, V/,aeont Arranaga 1 Hay 12 03 05:42a . Carole.Ciraulo 1949] 723 -5309 P.2 Greg Hughes May 5, 2003 Joe and Carole Chmdo 202 South Bay Front Balboa Island, Calif 92662 Dear Joe and Carole. I was raised in Corona del Mar, went to Harbor High (in fact, my father taught tyre), graduated from what was then Arizona State College in Flagsta$ and headed home to Newport Beach within a week. One of the reasons I love the area is because of the visual beauty of the wonderful bay lined by equally wonderful homes. I know that you have worked hard to have your dream home. You are going through a struggle tow, and although there will also be additional struggles ahead, I know that you will overcome them Excellence and good taste should never be denied. If all of the obstructions that are placed in front ofpeople were never overcome, can you imagine what the tomes lining the bay would be hike? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to visualize old termite ridden homes, not up to any kind of code, and deteriorating rapidly. Looking at the matter logically, when new homes such as yours with their beautilld designs are allowed to enhance the beauty of the area, all parties profit. Values go up, property taxes are reflected in this enhancement, city coffers benefit, and the homeowner enjoys all the benefits of this real as well aesthetic appreciation. In short, ALL parties benefit. Therefore, only a pessm ist would think that this matter would not shortly turn to your benefit because I seriously doubt if there would be any entity that would wish to permanently obstruct any upward rnobril y of your property values. Any delay works to the detriment of ALL parties. The many people I chat with at Dad's Dooms every morning are definitely with you regarding this current struggle to preserve and enhance what all of us consider excellence. Please feel comforted that we are with you. 22W Waterman Way, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ♦ Tel: (949) 548.8681 ♦ Fax (948) 548-6868 a� Hay 12 03 05:42a Carole Ciraulo (949) 723-5509 1 p.1 MICHAEL & KAREN SMITH 327 ONYX AV BALBOA ISLAND CA 926(2 .we & c mole cwPalu 202 South Bay Front Balboa Island CA 42662 Dear Joe & Carole: Karen and I were so glad to see you have finally completed construction of your dream house. I know it is something both of you have been looking forward to for a long time. We have been keeping an eye on the progress of your house daring our regular walks around the island and are very impressed at how well it turned art. The overall design and loot of the ptq3etty is beautiful and is definitely an improvement over the ugly duplex that used to be there. Your new home is net intrusive in any way to the neighborhood and is certainly an asset to the Island. We know you will enjoy living on "The Island" as much as we have Bat tuuds: �rehact S. smith May 12 03 05:41a Carole Ciraulo (949) 723 -5509 p.1 i _ F May 12 03 05:39a I Carole Ciraulo (949) 723 75509 p,1 yeve� how cr-- lr- /s IeV -7 `7b /rve 1r7, tT /S- fia a Q p A 's ,_r • y.,' iii ?�~ I. u ' `.1ef'G Al h&, : S/3,a,z AAy h y f� A 1177 3� a ...Y - ��-. • ::i Y _ ..tea, ,. _. �, 4 ' F y 5f < r: vs Von- xt �4... , • _ � ! l ��I c 1 r , �� _ F U- >, 2 65 0 N -6 @ Da) 0 0 FQA I in'! Ag" r. a p 27t , j I ivt f,n 77� QO ;3 a p R� �1 F �. ?. �:: F��Ir p a 1 �� t' n �,;T t P x_ s n ''t,,��`7� �x � '�` v �2 �_ r,.p, yr F A�. i�>. µt R� �1 F �. ?. F. 1V ly ni F. 1V mb ad P4 i Exhibit No.2 Findings for denial 3� This Page Intentionally Left Blank 0 Draft Findings for Denial of Varlance No. 2003 -003 202 S Bayfront - PA 2003 -067 There are no physical circumstances or constraints that distinguish the subject property from other properties within the same zoning district that would justify deviating from the strict application of the code. The property is flat and of similar size to other properties in the area. The use of the property for a single family home constructed in compliance with applicable standards is not dissimilar to other newly constructed properties in the vicinity. 2. The applicant does not possess a property right to something that was illegally created. A substantial property right exists with the use of the property within the original design that was permitted in compliance with the Zoning Code. The cost to abate the violation of the code does not eliminate the fundamental right to use the property for residential purposes when constructed in compliance with applicable Building and Zoning Codes. Granting of the application is only necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the unpennittted third level area that was constructed without the benefit of permits. 3. The granting of this application without any physical constraints or a necessity to preserve a substantial property right would be the granting of special privilege to this property owner that is not enjoyed by other property owners under identical zoning. 4. Although the project represents an improvement over the previously existing condition, granting a variance to the height limit without a physical constraint or a necessity to preserve a substantial property right enjoyed by others under identical zoning is detrimental to the community because it does not further the goals of the existing height limit that is to bring the neighborhood into compliance with current standards. 6� This Page Intentionally Left Blank q.),) Exhibit No.3 Excerpt of original plans LID This Pa IntentlQna ll y Left BlaA 1. A5 Y i MEN � A4z ii y . ; v .�. B1 A V T:♦ } /t if 5 f 'F ig J fiiiifiiiii Y MEN fiiiifiiiii MEIN ►:s?�A,iiiiiil�iiiili moll ..._. ■ONFAM III■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■/ III _ fiiiifiiiii MEIN ►:s?�A,iiiiiil�iiiili moll ..._. ■■■■■ ■/ III ®0�•.���•�L7■ . MENEM Sol ■_M_■■ �_ ._.■ No 0 HE III No MEN 10 M 0 �rf�rr� iir_r_ This Page Intentionally Left Blank A� lilt i33r4srrxxxrxrSY isi "s xreif 34i II 1l1 € E� �n �i FBR1 ., 19 ,E ie {eka�tal��td'hl�i �.elrf.9.n� ! e!f[Ig�+fe�,ry„e !F'!.artille..lSl.h ?ii! � •u.r !. ry y �L) $tq N 0os., N e W I--- Z lilt i33r4srrxxxrxrSY isi "s xreif 34i II 1l1 € E� �n �i FBR1 ., 19 ,E ie {eka�tal��td'hl�i �.elrf.9.n� ! e!f[Ig�+fe�,ry„e !F'!.artille..lSl.h ?ii! � •u.r !. ry y �L) $tq N 0os., N CD W I--- Z cQ N V 0 WLU LU W w = O�m �0 < o U o N W Z } Y.n ti. K . 4C Y Sf fill � �g �:�stli YiB�� €39a� aoom ®oo ©aom ©mo ®m 11®il =4 TUD p4 p� ■ '] ! i l� 11 6 M VT � l i o ®m ©moo © ©o © ®o ©ooi Pt 000moommomom ©mm 1 te�94 lilt ooa00000BIR IF R m 4 9 lFi ilfl � Jill pp YY gypp p�p y�yg[��cppi�@@�g 4��9�i8fi1 � [�F�ielF €� r�_ 4 c i� I� It E S' I t. i LIM � S' I t. i z t 0 .. . . . L .. . .. 'lot O 6� jig A: I JIM. Hill I flu L z t 0 .. . . . L .. . .. 'lot O 6�