No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 - PA2003-067 - Ciraulo Residence - 202 South Bay Front• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 025 June 24, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, Campbell@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: Joseph and Carole Ciraulo • INTRODUCTION: On May 22, 2003, the Planning Commission considered the requested Variance to the building height. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission was unable to make affirmative findings to approve the request and adopted findings for denial (Exhibit No. 1). The minutes of the meeting are also attached as Exhibit No. 2. On May 27, 2003, Councilmember Nichols requested the project be reviewed by the City Council. The Variance request involves a 127 square foot, third level portion of a newly constructed single family residence that 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: Staff recommends that the Council hold a public hearing and deny the applicant's . request by adopting the findings contained in Exhibit No. 1. Vicinity Map �Av Q' SUBJECT PROPERTY DISCUSSION: \0k 0 Ciraulo Variance June 24, 2003 Page 2 NY 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 elevator area of the project was changed to include a bathroom, elevator foyer, and fireplace creating a 127 square foot area without the approval of the City. The total height of the third level is 29 feet above grade. The additional floor area does not make the residence exceed the floor area limit. The framing of the unpermittted improvements on the third level was done after the initial framing inspections that were conducted in early May of 2002. Subsequent inspections were conducted by different inspectors. The changes to the project were 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. • r r Ciraulo Variance June 24, 2003 Page 3 Analysis The project, other than height, complies with other applicable site development standards of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission or City Council to make certain findings for Variance applications. These mandatory findings are listed and discussed below: 1. 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. Circumstances applicable to the property or improvements that typically form the basis to approve a variance include the size, shape, location, orientation, topography or other factor that, when coupled with the strict application of the code, deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other similar properties under identical zoning standards. As noted in the findings adopted by the Planning Commission, the property is flat and of similar size to other properties in the area and has no other physical constraints or code constraints that affect this property more severely than other similar properties in the R -1.5 zone to warrant special treatment of the property. 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. The applicant indicates that exceptional circumstances are present in that they would be forced to abate the violations at great expense when they assert that the contractor indicated everything was permitted by the City. Staff cannot comment on the communication between the applicant and the contractor; we do know that the unpermittted construction took place after the initial framing inspections. As unfortunate as the financial circumstances of this case may be, they are not the grounds for approval of a variance. The applicant also 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 and the Planning Commission did not see any physical circumstances or constraints that distinguish the subject property or improvements from other properties that would justify deviating from the strict application of the code. 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 unpermittted 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 granting the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of their property rights. 3 Ciraulo Variance June 24, 2003 Page 4 Although the financial situation the applicant is apparently experiencing is unfortunate, staff and the Planning Commission did not find that fact compelling to find that the Variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right because a substantial residence with adequate and safe access to the roof deck is permitted within the development standards. In regard to the applicant's comment about 9 months of adequate inspections, the Building Department believes that the project was progressing in accordance with the plans up to early May 2002. The initial framing inspections were 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 the initial framing inspections without approval of changed plans. The next inspection was conducted by a different inspector as the original inspector was not available. The second inspector saw the framing signoffs of the previous inspector and concluded that what he saw was framed in accordance with the approved plans. As a practical matter, a new inspector relies upon the previous signoffs and does not re- inspect previous aspects of the project. 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 project neared completion in September 2002. It must be noted that the parties carrying out the project (owner, Is and architect) bear the responsibility to inform the inspectors of changes to the plans before proceeding. The proper protocol is to have the contractor or architect submit revised drawings to the Building Department to be reviewed by all departments involved in the development review process. The most unusual aspect of the construction process was the approval of the sprinkler plans. The sprinkler plans were a deferred submittal meaning they were reviewed and approved after the building permit was issued. The Building Department approved the sprinkler plan; however, the plan had a change to the architecture showing the unpermittted construction that is the subject of this Variance. As a routine practice, plan checkers and planners ask if there are any other changes to the plans so that they review the plans appropriately and in this case, the city was not informed of the architectural change. Had that disclosure been made, the discrepancy would have been discovered and corrected. The approved sprinkler plan only authorizes the sprinkler system and no other aspect of the project. In response to the applicant's assertions about the inspection process, the Building Department has prepared a memorandum outlining the chronology of the framing inspections with the inspectors' observations (Exhibit No. 4). 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 Ciraulo Variance June 24, 2003 Page 5 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 nor was it clarified by the applicant or their attorney in their comments to the Planning Commission. 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 several neighbors located in the area. 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. Should the application be granted, a similarly situated property owner requesting an "after- the - fact" Variance could argue for approval based upon the treatment of this application. This possible precedent can be viewed as detrimental to the public's general welfare due to the erosion of the integrity of building and zoning regulations and the potential to treat properties that are physically equivalent in an unusual manner. In conclusion, the facts to support approval of the request pursuant to the findings have not been identified; however, the public hearing might uncover other facts that might lead to a different conclusion. T) Ciraulo Variance June 24, 2003 Page 6 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 City Council has the option to approve the request provided that the Council believes there are sufficient facts to support each of the four findings discussed above. Should the Council conclude that there are sufficient facts to support each of the findings; staff recommends a continuance to allow staff the opportunity to prepare a resolution for project approval based upon the facts identified by the City Council. Prepared by: Submitted by: �Jafnes W. Campbell Patricia L. Temple Senior Planner Planning Director Exhibits: Findings for denial 2. Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing 3. Applicant's justification, letters of support and photographs 4. Building Department Memorandum dated June 13, 2003 5. Excerpt of original plans 6. Project plans � 1 0 6 0 C� Exhibit No. 1 Adopted Findings of denial 0 °1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank X Findings for Denial of Variance No. 2003 -003 202 S. Bayfront — PA 2003 -067 Planning Commission meeting of 05/22/2003 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 unpermittted 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. • This Page Intentionally Left Blank n U • )b 9 0 Exhibit No. 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing This Page Intentionally Left Blank 9 0 I� Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 Page 4 of 17 Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Toerge, Agajanian Abstain: None SUBJECT: Ciraulo Residence (Variance No. 2003 -003) ITEM NO.3 202 S. Bay Front I PA2003 -067 uest to permit a 127 square foot, third level portion of a single family Denied lence to exceed the 24 -foot base height limit. The structure presently exists was constructed without the benefit of a building permit. . James Campbell clarified that the initial framing inspections cited in the s ort as occurring in June 2002, actually occurred in early May 2002. A built pector is here if the Commission wishes any additional information rification on any building issues. Staff recommends that this particular varia denied based on the inability to make the findings pursuant to the Munic. person Kiser asked about the information that the Public Works Depar discovered a deviation from the approved plans as the front yard ,aches within the public right of way of S. Bay Front. Mr. Rich Edmonston answered that one of his staff members noticed that the fron •patio area was being resurfaced and reconstructed. The City Council policy or encroachments in the Balboa Island area provides for a 2'6" height limitatior behind the sidewalk and is intended to provide a comfort zone for pedestrians. The actual property line in relation to the sidewalk varies on a lot by lot basis. You can walk right up to the edge of the sidewalk and your arms can overhan€ that area, so it is meant to be low. We allow brick pavers, low colored plants, etc in that setback area. The contractor was advised in September of 2002 that hF needed an encroachment permit. The permit was never sought; however, the wort was done without a permit. The remodeled patio is at least two feet and is raise( and also exceeds the allowed height. Because it does not match the requirement: of Council policy, staffs position is to automatically deny this and it is therefor( appealed to the City Council. To date, that appeal has not been presented to staff. Public Works is not typically involved with finalizing a building permi particularly since this area is not a habitable area that is encroaching. McDaniel asked if there was anything else wrong with Campbell answered that there is a remaining question about the pad ht; however, the building inspector could address that item. Public comment was opened. .Joe Ciraulo, resident of Balboa Island asked for the variance for his home. H noted that it is a difficult task to decide on a variance. He requested the varianc in order to: file: / /F:\ USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM 06/06/2003 ) Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 • receive a certificate of occupancy; . due to financial impact endured the last seven months, and • to allow the structure to remain through the granting of the variance. Shores, legal representative for the applicants, distributed a packet nion to the Commission that included copies of letters of support department inspection card, and noted the following: • Series of errors and omissions beyond the control of the Ciraulos, which caused both financial and emotional hardships. • Asked that a non - conforming structure on the residence be approved. • Letters of surrounding neighbors are in support of this application. . The previous structure was a three story duplex built lot line to lot line. • Gave testimony from neighbors' letters noting that their views are better than with the previous structure. . Photos of the previous building compared with the three story property. . Issue tonight is a 127 square foot non - conforming structure located on roof that was not part of the original plans. • According to the staff report, this structure was built without a permit. Additional framing for the un- permitted work on the third level was donf after the initial framing inspection of May 2002. • The applicants thought the work was being done in accordance with regulations at all times. • He then presented dated photos of the roof and structures noting that was built early in the process and well before the June framing inspec that was approved by the building inspector. . At Commission inquiry regarding the date, he stated that it was not a photo, but people can verify that was how it was May 23, 2002. • The inspection card indicates a framing inspection occurred on June 2002 where partial approval was granted pending corrections. • The same inspector approved general framing and rough electrical on 20, 2002. • The full roof structure was built and the third story structure was Page 5 of 17 0 E 1] file: //F : \USERS\PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM 06/06/2003 \ 4 Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 visible. • The site inspection card documents all the inspections as well as numerow witnesses that the structure was first built in May 2002. • The project contractor, Jim Santaniello paid the $170 for the building and plan check fees for a set of fire sprinkler plans that were reviewed and approved by the City on June 21 with as -built roof structure. • The letter of January 7, 2002 from Robert Preciado states that he worked for the general contractor Santaniello and it was not unusual for the contractor to make structural and cosmetic changes. At all times the Ciraulos were under the impression that all plans were approved by the City and they were acting under the guidelines of the City. • The Ciraulos were planning on moving into the residence on October 10th and were notified via letter of October 16th from the Building Department that a stop work notice had been issued less than a week prior to their planned move -in date. • During the nine months of the construction this was the first correspondence from the City stating that there was any sort of a problem. • The owners were issued a temporary occupancy approval for three months and have had since then a succession of extensions. • • Without a certificate of occupancy, they are unable to get a loan from the bank or do anything about a construction loan on the property until the house receives a final approval, which is what we are asking the Commission to do tonight. • In the packet there is a contracting bid that discusses in full detail the full process required to remove the existing roof structure. The removal will be an enormous undertaking from the construction standpoint as well as a heavy cost to the property owners. It will also be another time period to get that done. • The Zoning Code requires certain findings be made and I believe this is a unique circumstance and there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property. • The granting of this variance is necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the Ciraulos and is consistent with the purposes of the Code and will not constitute a special grant of privilege. • Granting such application will not under the circumstances adversely affect the health or safety of the people in the area. It is a home that the people in the area admire and enjoy. • This is a unique case with unique facts and we ask for an approval for this file: //F: \USERS\PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM Page 6 of 17 06/06/2003 � 5 Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 application F Commissioner Tucker noted that it may seem unique but every couple of years wi get one of these where people build something that is not authorized. I view this and the way we should look at the problem, as if we had been asked to grant thi: variance before any work had started, would we have granted the variance. All thi hardships and issues that have been raised as unique circumstances, all are a resul of what got built. What we do, and what our Code is set up to do, is to look at tha unique circumstances of the physical piece of land that we are starting with. don't see your point of view, you want to have all the hardship and uniquenes: come after the work has been done. Our Code has been set up to do just tha opposite, which is to look at it and determine a variance at the time before an} work is done. Tell me why we shouldn't look at it from this standpoint, look a what we would have done if you had come in before any work had been started. Would it have justified a variance at that time? What finding basis? Is there anything unique about the property at the point in time when there was nothing or Shores answered it would have justified a variance at that time. There was -story structure that had been torn down. imissioner Tucker noted that when the old structure was torn down, there w ling unique about the land. Variances are usually granted when the property ng down the side of a hill, exceed the height limits because the height limit :d upon natural grade and as you fall down the hill, the house technical >mes higher as you go further out in the lot as it falls off. What is unique abc property as a flat piece of property? r. Shores answered that as a flat piece of property, probably the uniqueness is on the bay and that's the only uniqueness of it. Lmissioner Tucker noted that is not a uniqueness, that may have to deal w e but not with variances. I am not trying to be difficult, I am just trying t out to you what we have to deal with and we are completely Code driven particular case. We have to make findings and I am trying to find out wl unique about this property, and I am not hearing anything at this point. Shores noted that in a perfect world that would be so, but you have to look me particular point of motivation and see that the responsibility in this case fired. The situation is that people watched this go up and the Ciraulos are he thout a remedy other then to destroy a beautiful piece of property worth millio dollars. iissioner Tucker answered that he is not saying that there may not be son for relief, but a variance, he has a problem seeing within the statuto ity that this body has been granted, how we have the ability to grant Shores answered you have to make four findings with regard to ieness of the situation here, this was a situation that is going to irrepai Page 7 of 17 file: //F: \USERS\PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM 06/06/2003 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 Page 8 of 17 harm that property and irreparable harm the Ciraulos. It is a matter now that if y( find there was no malice, it is a matter of equity. We have law and equity and v come to you to say that under the Code you can find the uniqueness of tl situation and the uniqueness of the property and the totality of the circumstances. nmissioner Tucker noted you are giving us more authority than we have, v not a trial court, we do not have equity powers. All we can do is jud€ ;ther there is a grounds for a variance. There may be a forum for relief but having problems seeing it here. person Kiser asked what is the irreparable harm to the property owner present situation if they had to remove the roof structure? Shores answered the cost and delay is financially disastrous to this piece of )perty that is trying to get a loan on it. If you look at the J. Carr report, this :ire structure is designed for the load that is on it now. To tear it down is going cause a great deal of damage to the property. We don't even know to the extent the structural damage that will be caused. This body does have the power to utt this variance, even if there is another forum for relief, nobody wants to go Michael Smith, resident of Balboa Island, noted that he has observed this structure during all phases and that the house is a beautiful asset to the island and was done in a professional manner and is far superior than the structure that was there before. He asked that the variance be granted. Commissioner Tucker asked the City Attorney; does the fact that this property once upon a time had a three story structure on it, does that vest any rights for the applicant to build something other than what the Code allows once they tore that structure down? Clauson answered, no. immissioner Tucker clarified that he is not disputing the fact that this is autiful residence and a great improvement to what was there, it is just a questi authority that the Commission has.. Mr. Dick Nichols, Councilman for Corona del Mar noted the following • On Little Island you passed a structure that had a smaller than buildable to or a smaller lot than typically buildable, you gave it an FAR of 1.15, yot gave it a three story with an upper point and it was one very short block of the bay. All of this was granted over and above any allowable variances. Those were all special things done by the Planning Commission. • Here we have a structure that could have been remodeled and kept all tha he had and you would of had to approve it and he took it down to a muck to more acceptable level. It seems to me that we want to get this thing close: to zoning, not take away all the rights of the property and start it over fron zero. You don't do that on any property that I have seen. file: //F: \USERS\PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM 06/06/2003 1 1 Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 . My question is this seems to me to be a 'no brainer' and that it should passed. son Kiser noted that, if the property you are speaking of is the one I of, it is a very small triangular lot behind the grocery store. 7. Nichols answered no, it is on the Little Island, the first street in down to i off the full block. It was a turn around lot that was built out within three both setbacks. It was given a grossly over allowable. Tucker stated he would go through that for Mr. Nichols. o First of all, there was no height variance that was requested. o Since I have been on the Commission, we have never granted a hf variance for any flat lot. All the height variances have to deal with the that are falling down a hillside. . The number of stories is not within our purview. People can build number of stories they care to as long as the height does not exceed height limit. o In the particular case you are talking about, the Districting Maps as to wh the setbacks were, were opposite the orientation of the lot. If you compui the setbacks on that lot, they may have ended up with 500 or 600 feet buildable area. o We have odd ball lots all over town. We get these things at least once month, every other meeting we get a variance on floor area based upon t; orientation of the lot. o What we do in that particular case is that we look at the totality of circumstances and we come up with a reasonable FAR considering v everything else in the neighborhood is. . In that particular case, I was an advocate of what is called a reasonablf setback approach, where we had a standardized approach to dealing with it. That is what passed at the Planning Commission and it went to the Council. The Council granted more footage than what the Planning Commission hac because the Council felt like the FAR for this particular lot you are referrin€ to, in order to be consistent with what was in the area, could be even a little larger than what we granted. It did not have anything to do with a height variance. Mr. Nichols noted it had a third floor elevator in it, and the elevator was enclosed on the third floor and is smaller than this. The third floor 1 exceeded the height variance. mmissioner Tucker answered there was not a height variance to it. I don't elevator at all on that property if it is the same one we are talking about. Page 9 of 17 0 0 0 file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM 06/06/2003 I Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 Mr. Nichols stated he could not give the address on it but it did. The other thing is that these properties that you are talking about, were constructed or turned around •than the way they were with knowledge. The people who previously looked at buying that property who lived in the area, couldn't put on the house that they wanted to because of the setback requirements because it did not have enough buildable. This person came, evidently politically attuned, she got all the FAR, the third story structure and a deck up there. Tucker noted he finds the two situations not at all similar. Nichols stated he understands that one and the other are not the same, but doesn't look good, it looks like you are taking money for this one. Kiser noted that Mr. Nichols' comment was completely uncalled for. Commissioner Tucker noted that was beyond uncalled for. Let me just tell yc we are Code driven here. The Code has requirements and gives us the ability a latitude in judgment in some areas and not in others. I didn't write the Code. It not the Planning Commission's position to change the Code and if you think t Code is wrong, you change the Code, you're the councilman, and we will abide 1 that Code. We don't make things up here, that is the big knock here that sor people in town think we are just kind of making it up. There is a Code here. have nothing against these people, I think they built a beautiful house. I just do: see where the Code is giving us the authority to act. I am sure this will ultimate go to the Council, and the Council could use different judgment. But, nobo hired us to be the policy makers, so we attempt to enforce the Code, we do it good faith, and, none of us are for sale. Clauson, with Commission assent, explained that the concept of a variance, a d by Commissioner Tucker, is that there is something unique about th erty, the topography of the property, or the strict application of the Zoninl , which would be the setbacks, or other types of zoning provisions. Th is have consistently held that things like there is something about the desig] g superior, or something about the economical or financial impacts of th lion on the property, or something about the fact of what they could of ha( not provide the facts to support the findings that are necessary for a variance. Marilyn Nicholson, owner of the property at 206 S. Bay Front noted that s agrees with Commissioner Tucker's comments. The other man kept comparing to the house that was there before. Well, before that there was another house tt was quite nice and they tore that house done and put up the other one. I think tt was one of the reasons the City made more restrictions and code enforcement. feel it is being selectively enforced. We tore the house down that we have own since 1947 about eight years ago. We asked for a variance on the wall setbacks the wall that we had was out quite a bit but not to the edge of the property line, t they made us set it back 20 inches. All the other houses on that street are inches or more back behind the sidewalk line, his I believe is about 6 inches no •it is way out beyond the others. This is definitely out of line. As far as the heigl he already has one of the nicest, biggest lots on the island, the scope of the hou dominates that lot and probably the next lot and I can not find any hardship reasi file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM Page 10 of 17 06/06/2003 1 A Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 or cause that they should seek or be granted a variance. The one gentleman talk about another small lot where they only had a small buildable space and th ( asked for some variances. I have neighbors who have their house come right the edge of the alley and I would be happy to give them a variance because th have a problem, it is a hardship lot. But, this one is a perfect lot. I see the top the structure from my bedroom window. I wish it wasn't there, but it is. It does seem like they should have any privileges that the rest of us don't have. I feel tl they ought to be made to follow the ordinances just the way the rest of us were. 11 Willis, 107 Garnet noted that this is a beautiful house and he supports the guest. The issue on the wall is it is out about a foot and a half further than tl >t of the them. But, as it has not been allowed for the rest of the neighbors, one at 210 S. Bay Front there's is five feet back and they had been denied guest to get close to where the others are. Is this issue on the wall a separa e? Is the extra 127 feet on the roof beyond the R 1.5, are we talking about ing simply too high? I was going to tear down my house a couple of years al d had asked for a variance to build an architectural display. I was going to be :t over the height limit resulting in a total of 5 cubic feet over and that w nied. My concern now, is the practice of build it now and request later, or if tl granted, I will re- submit my plans. The house is lovely, I have no objections extra square footage, but I just want to make sure that we all get treated wi irperson Kiser answered that the 127 feet on the roof was not permitted u building permit and is above the height limit for that district so it is pitted construction. That is the thorny and difficult issue that we are deg i tonight. Since the request for your two foot height variance was denied, 1 e been many more height variances denied. Certainly the ones that c )re the Planning Commission are regularly and summarily denied unless 1 some very unusual circumstances. drian Esnard, resident of Balboa Island noted that there are more people living irages on the island. He said that he could not understand why the Commissi ould not approve a request for an insignificant request for people who have tak duplex and reduced it to a single family unit and taken a three story building a duced it to considerably less than the height limit. The way things are goi ith the permit process in this City, it would test the patience of a saint. n Howell, resident of Balboa Island noted he has no problems with this struction. Reading from the staff report he asked if the applicant received a ding permit to demolish and construct a replacement dwelling, the new struction included a 29 foot elevator shaft that is permitted to exceed the 24 : height limit up to 5 feet, which is what they are up to now. I don't understand consistency and I don't see the problem just because there is a bathroom there airperson Kiser answered that the permit was only for the 25 foot square vator shaft not the 127 square feet which is about 5 fold the permitted footage. variances like this, what people do is come forward and ask for a variance, an( this circumstance it would be denied. About the separateness of the wal file : //F: \USERS\PLN \Shared \ginger\2003 PC \0522.HTM Page 11 of 17 0 0 0 06/06/2003 ) b Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 Page 12 of 17 encroachment into the right of way and this permit application, what is before u: tonight? Is the wall encroachment in front of us tonight or not? Mr. Edmonston answered that the encroachment is not subject to the Plannin€ Commission review. It was mentioned in the staff report to indicate that there were other problems that the City has with the property the way it wa: constructed. It is something that would have to be appealed to the City Council. To address the specifics of the one that was denied that was set back 5 feet anc wanted to move forward, if they comply with Council policy, it would be approved and I encourage that property owner to give us a call. Wood noted that the Code provides for an exception to the height limit fo 1 portions of structures such as elevator shafts. So that would have beer fitted without a variance or a modification or any kind of special approval. n it grew from 25 square feet to 127 square feet to include a bathroom, tha into variance territory. The exception would not apply to fireplace structures. Kathy Esnard, resident of Balboa Island noted that her observation during the construction phase when they visited the Ciraulos, they would say that this permit has been granted and approved and we are just waiting for the next permit to be granted for the next phase. The impression that we were all given was that they were in good faith requesting permits and getting approvals as they did during the construction. I ask that you look carefully at what was and was not granted and try to understand, were the perceptions the same on both sides? Was the group granting/denying permits seeing the same thing as the Ciraulos were when they were requesting permits to have things done? I see some confusion there. :e Gale, resident of Balboa Island noted that as a cement contractor he perience with an instance where caissons that were poured slipped after a ars. It went to court. The judge was an astute man and he excused everyb :re except the contractor who drilled into bedrock for the caissons. He held ty responsible because the building inspector did not do his job. If the inspe up there and the elevator shaft was permitted, how was it he did not notice throom? Why didn't he stop the job right then and there? It seems to me ty has a liability here. The city inspector has to notice things that are not on ins and he should have stopped the job. Carole Ciraulo, noted that there are unique circumstances in this case. We built the house with whom we thought was a good contractor. Neither she nor her husband asked for a bathroom nor the fireplace; the contractor did this on his own. She has asked if this was okay with the City and he told her not to worry about it. Wher the inspectors came, she had asked again and was told that it had passes inspection. If she had known that at any time when this was framed that the City did not approve it, it would have been gone because she had not asked for it in the first place. Now the uniqueness of this is that we have no more money, we can', get a loan, we can't get a certificate of occupancy, we did not ask for any of thi: and the thing passed every single inspection. This was our dream home. I have ar .engineer's report that says that if we rip off that extra weight, which by the way there was a special inspection made requested by one of the inspectors, I had tc put extra beams in during construction. Now this entire house is built and I arr file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM 06/06/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 supposed to pay $200,000 to rip down something that I would have removed start with. According to the engineer's report when you take that weight off t) roof, it will flex and crack all of the crown molding inside of the house. Yes, it unique and I am begging for this variance. We did not know what was happenii and I know ignorance is no excuse of the law, but when you see ever sing inspection being passed as a homeowner. To get to the point when you are goh to move in and the very next day and all of a sudden to find out that there is problem. I have no money to rip it down. We did not do this with malice. iairperson Kiser stated that no one here on this Commission would suggest t is any one individual responsible for something like this. In fact, if you w mpletely unknowing of this and your contractor assured you all along that is getting all the proper permits then you need to really consider your optil d the situation with and potential actions against your contractor. Be advised ur own counsel about that. Andre Gerby, resident of Balboa Island stated her support of the applicants. reconstructed her home, she would be devastated if she was in their n. She asked that the Commission understand their position. comment was closed. issioner Tucker noted: • The issue is the extent of our authority. If it was up to me to grant it or i I don't see it as a big deal. But that is not anything within the purview of Planning Commission. • I don't see the ability to make the findings. It has nothing to do with th beauty of it, or the hardship. The variance findings are statutory and I don see where we have that authority. The other forum I am talking about is th City Council. They see a broader framework than we do and they come u with reasons for their actions that are separate and apart than how we see it. • I just don't happen to see the authority. If I felt like it was there or close being there where it was a bit of a stretch, I would be happy to stretch. I having a problem. nnissioner Selich stated he agrees with what was said. He added that he sn't think that even the City Council will be able to find for a variance for it w is absolutely no grounds. Variances are complex and hard to understand. v to apply the variance and the exceptions apply to the land and the lot and no circumstances that occur during the courses of construction are not reall) :s of hardship. If this project were to come before the Commission and no i built, I don't see any way a variance would have been granted for tha :lure because I don't see anything in the material that has been presented to w justify an exceptional circumstances to this piece of property. There is a lem here and there are other forums for relief, but the Commission certainly it. I will not be supporting a variance. file: / /F: \USERS\PLN\Shared \ginger \2003 PC \0522.HTM Page 13 of 17 06/06/2003 • • Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 Commissioner Gifford stated she finds nothing in the record that would allow to make the findings that are required for exceptional or extraordii circumstances, the necessity for the preservation and enjoyment of substar property rights, or the fact that this would not be a grant of special privilege the fourth finding I have no problem with. Unfortunately we are required to rr. all four findings, so I will not be supporting this application. Chairperson Kiser noted that he feels the same way. Each time a variance come: before us, we struggle with the four findings that we need to make. I would have the most difficulty with the grant of special privilege. While it is unfortunate anc maybe financially very difficult for this particular homeowner to bear the burder of removing the parts of this building that were beyond what was permitted in the building permit, it is nevertheless a larger issue to allow someone to come in anc get a permit after a building is completed with well beyond what was allowed it the building permit. Whether it was through stealth or mere inadvertence, of whether it was through a contractor lying to an owner about what in fact wa: permitted or was not permitted, really is not relevant. The fact is if we approve this tonight, in my mind would be granting a very special privilege. We have hac testimony tonight from people who have applied for variances similar to the one before us, and have been denied, as I am certain this would have been. The fac that the other approvals were given in the home after this un- permittec construction was up is really not relevant. The inspectors are not looking for other areas when they are approving electrical, plumbing or other elements of the building. The fact that sprinkler plans were approved I don't think was persuasive. While the neighbors have come forward in support, and some not in support, the •neighbors are really not in a position to determine in the bigger picture what ie appropriate or important in the way of decisions such as this for consistency anc non - arbitrariness and not granting special privileges. We see these matters month• in and month -out and do occasionally have this very sort of thing where a building permit was exceeded. We hear a lot of stories about the causes of those things anc unfortunately what we have to make in each case is what we feel is the bes planning decision for the City. How this came about or whose fault it is, i! something that we need to put behind us. We really need to make sure that there i! also a message sent, whether it be to owners, contractors or a combination, not tc build something like this, which certainly someone knew was un- permitted. I wil . assume for the moment that Mrs. Ciraulo's testimony is accurate and truthful which means that the general contractor knew in this case that this was entirely un• permitted, the additional 122 square feet of structure on the top floor. We reall} need to send a message that no one should be encouraged to do this and then tc come in later and ask for forgiveness, essentially , instead of asking for permissior up front. The only way we can live in a civilized society is under a rule of law tha everyone follows, and that has some consistency. So, for all those reasons I coulc not approve this variance. For me, it is a very straightforward case, and the conclusion is that that the Ciraulos will need to do what is necessary to rectify this or take it to another forum. Commissioner McDaniel stated that he feels terrible for the applicants. It certainly easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. There are a lot of peo; . who would run out and build something and say, 'see they got away with it, M shouldn't I.' The Commission has pretty much said what needs to be said and I file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM Page 14 of 17 06/06/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 05/22/2003 Page 15 of 17 afraid I am going to have to vote against this as well. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to deny the applicant's request by adopting the findings contained in Exhibit No. 2. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Toerge Abstain: None BJECT: Master Plan of Arterial Highways ITEM NO.4 Discu ion of public right of way dedication requirements. Continued Chairman iser stated that on April 17th meeting, Commissioner Selich has requested a r ort on the process for requiring the dedication of right of way for arterial ughwa in connection with requested construction that has un- widened roads in front of it. Mr. Edmonston stated at the report basically summarizes the existing authority that the staff has via the icipal Code. Commissioner Selich noted th the staff report states projects that only require building permits cannot be requir to dedicate right of way. I reviewed all of the materials, and I don't see that is the se. Mr. Edmonston noted that we can do wh we are granted authority to do and there isn't a specific provision of authority assoc ted with a building permit to require dedication. They are required with either sub ' isions or in certain cases, with use permits. Commissioner Selich noted that Section 13.05.01 says street widening and improvements as a condition of building permits. It ems that would provide some exceptions, am I reading it wrong? It provides ceptions, but not for building permits? Mr. Edmonston noted that his department typically have not atta., ed dedications to building permits and I know that there is some concern about then us between dedication and improvement costs versus situations in which you require them. That might be better addressed by the City Attorney's office. Commissioner Selich stated that there is an issue here on the dedication policy. Chairperson Kiser noted that there seems some confusion and suggested that this item be continued to allow further research. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item and allow time for this to come back for review as soon as possible. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes: None 1\ 1J file: //F:\ USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \2003PC \0522.HTM 06/06/2003 rt 0 0 Exhibit No. 3 Applicant's justification, letters of support and photographs �5 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 9 0 0 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 corner of Emerald Avenue and the fronting alley of the home. The third floor structure cannot be se:n 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. �1 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. Ciraulo 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 aliow 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 J. 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 enormoujo 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 fmal 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. R� Variance Findings i i • 3. Why will the proposal not he detrimental to the neighhorhood? 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 70% 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. �1 TVr- 01 y5 T 3N 0 .gib • M E 3► 0 • i ✓y 1 r r yf5,rn}S VILh j4 +vim i 1 f • � �' j5 . I 1 ., I�N� iC 1 r�JdR_ \ i.Jl V it %I- .is1 i 51: 1 l Ok I r ;S; t i y " 4 r IlT 'i1 jam'' \ ' ...��irQ •145 '�. 1.$• ,.yt .r , f ' Ilk Jim,., f „v g F ' 1 ? y p a It vv ' WX _ { X V 6jF'j. jjj. • — 7.. .cf:.. :'t -'Iii. :�,, • � .. -.. �:... ,.. — ��<'.e:• -�, ..his: _ 5+^ r�3'.����1._ — 1 ' a ia' - - fly -. 1,��• f �.. r _� i zj :27`14 q OIL : Mme; 3 — �� • ..�� t .� ' -•Y t. �i� ;'i' �nr ..� �'. ': °' 1. � i . ` - , -�. ��� n l '� - #cam -��ti `•� I�L�, MARK FICINSKI STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STRUCTURAL ENG. 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 rely yourl, ark ki, Structural Engineer 0 /Vi?,O E331 9 ti�e� �p�ER F1 co Cz N0. 003534 ,`N� >9�CT01 \\ l 7f CAL%F / Consulting Group. Inc. O CORPORATE OFFICE 1400 Eastan Drtve, Ste 138 Bakersfield. CA 93309 January 7, 2003 Ph. (661) 321.9578 FAX (661) 721 -9579 CA Tel Free 18001297 -4304 E-Mal Address: c-atakei@=CorukAt.com Ms. Carole Chaulo 202 South Bay Front 0 So. CALIFORNIA OFFICE New port Beach, CA. 92662 1805 East Dyer Rd. Ste 110 Santa Ana. CA 92705 Ph. (9491 261 -5650 FAX (949) 2615258 Reference: Roof Top Modifications E -McR: son I gcxconsvtt.com Residence 202 South Bay Front O NO. CAL!FCRNlA OFFICE New Port Beach, CA. 92662 1331 rs�!. C a _6 Scc:omenta. i 95814 Ph. (916) 444 -1SCB !Dear Ms. Ciraul0: FAX (9161 44-L1564 E -Mc1c :cc! Qc:r_cnsU1i.ccm CRC Consulting Group, Inc. inspected the roof of the 202 South Bay Front Residence on December 27, 2002. 1 auNAm CFP.C? e t4.,0 E. Americo Lr7.., a ;E00 Schcvmaumy. a `41 %7 CRC is aware of the "roof top limitations" of the piano deparm cut ... it Ph. (847) 6;9.:146 is understood that a requirement for a n= mums twenty -five (25) square FAX 1847) 3.a -r452 foot structure in excess of the allowable building height is possible- `- al: NP /ADA CFF!CE The inspection reveled that the removal of the roof top stnrcaue(s) would 4625 Wynn Road. ate =i have dramatic cost impact and create damage (of unlcown e ,c=) to tae Las VeDCS. NV 891M fo ''owing building components: Ph. (7e21 an -957a c.AACU:'csIQ cc=rnrtcam I . Granite pavers 2. wate:proofmg membrane 0 TENNESSEE CFFICE 3. Flashings/coTmterflashings Ph. 19311645 -44.1a 4. Setting bed and redundant water-ma membrane FAX (931 645.1010 5. MechanicaUelectrical/plumbing &heating SMcd: enlrsP(--cc nsult.ccm 6. Roof shvcture O TEXAS CFHC: Ph. 1972) 529 -5222 Additional work is necessary to determine the extent of the anticipated FAx (9721 4-' 020 damage; whether there is a means of restoring or modifying these E -MC9: Text3==CrUUtt.Gm components, etc. INTERNET WE3 ?AGE Please call if there are any questions. .v =cconsuit.com Very truly yob CRC Consulting Inc. Bduton/jl ?resident Page t of 7 Mar 03 03 04:58p Carole Ciraula (949) '723 -5509 p.2 J. Carr Contracting •P.O. Box 9461 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Office: (714)964-8911 Fax: (714)964 -1180 NAME /ADDRESS Joe and Carole Cimulol-�_ _..�... _. 202 South Dayfront Newport Beach; CA 92662 DESCRIPTION The following is a description of work to be puiormed to remove roof deck level elevator structure including elevator amiroom, fireplace area and full bathroom. Demolition of interior and exterior plastering, framing, plumbing, i earl{, communication lines. Terminate plumbing„ including supply lines to full bath, shower, lavatory, gas line to fireplace and recirculating system tines. I Terminate electrical lines including sub panel at anti room. electrical fixtures. lighting circuits, plugs at interior of bathroom and at exterior of structure. Terminate tore sprinklers at bathroom and elevator anti room. Terminate communication lines including phone. security system lines, television cable and saralite lines. Install preventative measures to protect existing structure, flooring and Finished areas. i Purchase and install decking- material to match existing conditions. Waterproof sub deck prior to installation ofdecking material. Reptaster at exterior of elevator sha8 strucure. Purchase and install precast concrete/ foam plant -ons to match existing conditions. { Install new roof over elevator structure. ' Thant: you for your business. Page 1 Estimate i DATE ' ESTIMATE NO. 2!28!2003 115 — QTY i�RATE 11.793.60 i 23.81111.00 10.800.00 PROJECT Remocal ofelay. TOTAL 11.7'93.60 28.800.00 10.300.01: I 4.800.00 j 4.800.00 7,200.00 I 7.200.00 ! 10.800.00 10.800.00 i 46.800.00 46,800.70 I 26.400.00 I _'6.400.00 27.600,00 � 27.600J911 6000.00 6.000.nO 4?UO.OU 3300.01/ - TOTAL r) Mar 03 03 04:58p Carole Ciraula I Carr Contracting P.O. Box 9461 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Office: (714)964 -8911 Fax: (714)964 -1180 NAME/ADDRESS Joe and Carole Ciraulo 202 South Bayfront Newport Beach. CA 92662 DESCRIPTION Repair affects of removal to existing,tmaurc u interior. (949) 723 -5509 p•3 Estimate DATE i ESTIMATE N 2/2812003 J 115 PROJECT Retnovai of elec.- -- QTY RATE TOTAL 30.000.00 - — 30.000.00 0 Thank you for your business. - - -- -- ` I - -- -- — I TOTAL S?15.103.60 i ..__ Page 2 -- -- — — -- — 0 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 A� E 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 property 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 neieiborhood by replacing the existing rundown duplex, our personal views of the bay have been expanded on two floors. We also have a sun 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 comer of the building did allow us a bit more actual bay view. From our point of view, the home has not had a negative impact at all. Should you have anything further you would like to discuss, please C Cathi and Kli Les n Berman 949 - 675 -0180 0 • 0 0 May 13 03 03:53p May 13, 2003 Carole Ciraulo 13431 723 -5503 JACK & JOAN NORTHRUP 411 North Bay Front Balboa Island, CA 92662 (949) 675 -9223 FAX (949) 723 -5615 e-mail: jknrth@adelphia net 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 make 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 (BHA) and it's Beautification Committee and are always very concerned about non - conforming 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, ck & Joan Northrup p.2 0 May 12 03 07:20p Carole Ciraulo LAURA G. GALE Coldwell Banker 201 Marine Avenue Balboa Island, CA. 92662 Offilce: /949) 673 -8700 Fax: (949) 675 -9885 Mobile: (949) 500 -6418 eye /andglr / &Dmsn. can Dear Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. (949) 723 -5509 May 10, 2003 -Re: 2O2 Swth Bay front Bdlboa Is /end CA. I heve been a /oW time Is /and Resident and an active Rea /tor With Co/dwell Bam)rer. As you can well imagine I seb a ldge vdardty of heists that have either been built or remodeled a// over the is /and. "i /e I am extremely cognizant of both Planning and Bu! /ding issues, I am absolutely astounded that the Ciraulos at 202 South Bay front are having such difficulty obtaining a variance for what, in my opinion, is a very small amount of space (not living space) on their roof deck. I was around many times during construction. Now that the building is finished, beautifully built and offers all of the neighbors a much more panoramic view than the old building did. I understand that the Ciraulos have yet to get a Certificate of Occupancy. I am writing in support of their plight. I simply cannot see how a building can reach completion and then be red tagged" for something that occurred in the very beginning stages of bui /dung. I persona //y hope that the City can weed throaJh these problems and grant the Cirau/os the necessary variance. Yours � truly, _ Laura 6. 6a /e P. 1 r � LJ r 1 q� May 12 03 10:30a Carole Ciraulo [9491 723 -5509 p.l 0 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 in your Balboa Island "dream home." Best regards, Adrian and Kathy Fsnard it May 12 03 05:42a L_ G. GALE May 9, 2003 Re: Carole Ciraulo (9491 723 -5509 226 Ruby Balboa Island, CA 92662 Ciraulo Residence 202 South Bay Front TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 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 live 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. Sincerely G. Gale p.4 A • 0 n� r� May 12 03 05:42a May 6, 2003 To: From: Carole Ciraulo (343] 723 -5503 The City of Newport Beach Vincent Arranaga 210 Emerald Newport Beach, CA 92662 My wife and I are -long time residents of Balboa Island and close neighbors of the Ciraulo family at 202 South Bay Front (Corner of Emerald). 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. ft We note that there is an elevator shaft on 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 I 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. Sincerely, t IVI Vi cent Arranaga 0 p.3 I✓ May 12 03 05:42a Carole Ciraulo 19497 723 -5509 p.2 Greg Hughes May 5, 2003 Joe and Carole Ciraulo 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 there), 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 now, 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 of people were never overcome, can you imaagine what the homes lining the bay would be hke? 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 beautiful 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 etyoys all the benefits of this real as well aesthetic appreciation. In short, ALL parties benefit. Therefore, only a pessimist 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 mobility of your property values. Any delay works to the detriment of ALL parties. The many people I chat with at Dad's Donuts 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. 0 L..J 2283 Waterman Way, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ♦ Tel: (949) 548 -8681 • Fax: (949) 548 -6868 0 1 May 12 03 05:42a Carole Ciraulo (949) 723 -5509 p.l • MICHAEL & KAREN SMITH 327 ONYX AV BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662 Joe & Carole Ciiaulo 202 South Bav Front Balboa Island CA 92662 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 tong time. We have been keeping an eye on the progress of your house during our regular walks around the island and are very impressed at how well it tamed out. The overall design and look of the property is beautiful and is definitely an improvement over the ugly duplex that used to be there. Your new home is not 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. Best regards: rchaci S. Smith �l May 12 03 05:41a Carole Ciraulo (949] 723 -5509 p.l ell \_J • 5b May 12 03 05:33a Carole Ciraulo (343) 723 -5503 P•1 , v. wrs-A clou 6vwcG, OK- 11 it Ir Ft'; ewidltw l r' s r' PCI op co Alt P=4 F. rm 3i �, �e s� �, �, oF, �, y� A p/� �✓� M/d e b q -. � �� `;_��_ -.�= ., k •S �I q� qITI �0 r QF� III . i Y l f r ` I" �I 1 � 4 �t - a _ MIA u r r. K' .V_. _ .. 1 pn P. Y l 6' �1 1. f r ` I" �I 1 � 4 �t - a _ MIA u r r. K' .V_. _ .. 1 - I Pit I: Z q..; l`\ aj I pl -2 SW U C: Q Q) Lu Q) vi pl v Ali im 0 17A 6� 0 0 Exhibit No. 4 Building Department Memorandum dated June 13, 2003 >� This Page Intentionally Left Blank u 0 0 �;u • Memorandum To: James Campbell, Senior Planner From: Steve Hook, Senior Building Inspector Date: June 13, 2003 Re: 202 S. Bayfront Framing and Related Inspections at 202 S. Bay Front Exterior Shear Panel and Hold Down Inspection was 5/2/02 by Mel Fleener. At the time of this inspection, Mel looked at all exterior walls and they were per plan. Roof Framing and Building Height Inspection was 5/6/02 by Mel Fleener. Mel remembers seeing the elevator shaft on the roof with the outdoor shower and specifically looking at the plan and confirming that it was built per plan at that time. . Exterior Lath Inspection was on 6/10/02 by Ed Hotz. Since the shear and hold down inspection was previously approved and signed on the card by another inspector, Ed only looked at the lath and did not go back and review the framing plan. Balance of the Framing Inspection was 6/20/02 by Ed Holtz and was pending the rough fire sprinkler inspection. Mike Dexter stated that all of the exterior shear and hold down inspection and the roof framing /roof height inspections were previously approved and signed on the card by another inspector so he did not go back and review those areas when he inspected the balance of the framing on the inside of the building. Stucco Scratch Coat Inspection was 6/22/02 by Mike Dexter. With the exterior lath approved and signed on the card by another inspector, Mike only looked at the stucco scratch coat and did not go back to the framing plan. Rough Fire Sprinkler Inspection was 6/25/02 by Mike Dexter. The f re sprinkler plan was a deferred submittal with changes to the architectural plans that were not highlighted or pointed out to the plan checker. Upon later examination we found these changes to this sprinkler plan that were approved in error. When Mike Dexter inspected the rough f re sprinklers in the f eld the f eld condition matched this plan. • (r, This Page Intentionally Left Blank • 0 0 Exhibit No. 5 Excerpt of original plans 0 This Page Intentionally Left Blank • 11 J \1 yYly a CIL J I, I Z _ pl O O LL' F F S� -AN O�x Q E b C6 N J W Rolu' � 11 e r____ 1 I 1 I li I I� f 6 i LJ � / N I I T � Ti It7I Ln I Rolu' � 11 e r____ 1 I 1 I li I I� f 6 0 E Exhibit No. 6 Project plans 0 OVA This Page Intentionally Left Blank P 0 �,K ii I =fll d_. :I::. • dig � '!;I!ll�� {E � � I � � � � �.� 1pl @� w5 lift 11111111111 �2 J� CD t ��SI H6 ifi�� p � � {ff •I .:moo}` k � ��� ;y'; • _ W o , ' F 1• ;9B l�f@ �P �S it E ti 4 4 . a fop !Ei gy� F @ 5p �C f M Of Lu LL .: gFg3ggggqhi 1 ' fppgpRpfyy PIPIFEp y@ �B 4e111 Ef @eEFR 4 O�egP �SF�4�JJ {i° #8sdfp3p ° �jyyyg44 �r' 14,111111 i 11111 {1 @A{ •y�•P Y€ tl ^i p R §E7P A 3€ Ae %Bdpptr F 6 F t'e `P °L BF F 3 I $ 1. FF F ° pg'1pqF• °�fg f I Sf p p ege @�Ele° f @9fl a I' f°�I11 9PP A g6BFf pFo QEP HIM f� ER f3f {I lrf I Ff @ @d P { {3R >gg�!lg €f¢�I f1 e,saldiP °PX�PtIek1 @ @lfPff el'`�Rllgl6� g l sal¢ g;l °af Q F-- w ff�I f@a; { a;tF�Ii w I li? Me f� J 9 w E R 4 e! �p¢lffd,g� le �fy ga v All I 991dt`B Ya i'f =1° s P ` v RR E 1 @@@ f 4gal 1a1' lair Etfa 1 € @i it ilI $asa� N a if i ¢ a� ° (s�G@ep9@y@f@ ifFfF��f pla Nil $.gg�g{ll , g @ 1FFIg f .1p1 RR g it 01illIE4� {Ellf @iBlEf c6@i 1191@ _ �7fif SEi oi° f3 P f6` Wa 1- Ir n f 1 111 -��r rt P9ifI;ElN11lgid�r P PElili61i1!(lalfgrllld { {II 1 €lftl�flfl li irilrtEl mmz�IfE {1111;1 ' E w'Woff (thfLut H1111d 11111 th fill dild 1 iElfllig{i1E111111 11 11111111; aiFhvfmdfandl .tYPFIE TN V J U 2 U W m Ih- O W Z s � 1 a$ ooaaaoaooaooaaoo q�;i aooao�0000 ©oo ©o ©o i i 4aaaQ d TEAM 0000oaa ©oo0 q 9t r o0000oo�oorJ ©orJu j ° q i nill g, fill., o Sf�IaS °93 OI �t$�g58°.t�3�ieiR _Z! 33�[�epg Z pgEgpa4��� glib 4 W OI Z Q Q I a ' -- � WI�� CJIQD c jera �� i�i ill �� is Inc i$ wil Z: leg $•a $ a5 J 0 /^1• 4� Uy;,t.d }- �: } •. _ q� `l;`I� °lit ' - Q 194,, II � 1 a$ ooaaaoaooaooaaoo q�;i aooao�0000 ©oo ©o ©o i i 4aaaQ d TEAM 0000oaa ©oo0 q 9t r o0000oo�oorJ ©orJu j ° q i nill g, fill., o Sf�IaS °93 OI �t$�g58°.t�3�ieiR _Z! 33�[�epg Z pgEgpa4��� glib 4 W OI Z Q Q I a ' -- � WI�� CJIQD c jera �� i�i ill �� is Inc i$ wil Z: leg $•a $ a5 J 0 /^1• 4� �Y X1uNr. �"IM�I�rIN yG pp 73: �49 @8i �5 lill��i�e�� ?� i i ?i' •. .7. 1, 0 i ZI wl da E d aataae�aae 9 r2 y o, oo� y 0 :.J W �W Z :Q w W / 3 S �ow. ;� �- �� , .... I ;'- -�— 7� . �7 a Ag :O. IN ��9 I:�ii it 11 I I III a i4 I 1llIlliMl is Its I ,l II ol 0 id 0 z rT d I V1 F-A 0 CD 0 • Ciraulo Variance 202 S. Bay Front PA 2003 -067 Council Hearing June 24, 2003 Variances • Authorizes construction out of compliance with development standards May be approved only when strict application of code would deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other parcel in the same zone • May be approved only if the parcel is unusual in terms of shape, size, grade, topography or orientation 1 Office of Planning and Research: Approval of a variance allows the property owner "to use his property in a manner basically consistent with the established regulations with such minor variations as will place him in parity with other property owners in the same zone" (Longtin's California Land Use, 2nd edition). State Law Section 65906 of the California Government Code • Establishes the basic rules under which counties and general law cities may consider variances • As a charter city, Newport Beach is not subject to these rules • However, the variance provisions in the Zoning Code are based on State law and virtually identical to most other cities 2 Special Circumstances • To approve a variance the City Council must find, based on substantial evidence, that the property is different from other parcels in the same zone • The property must be different from the other parcels in terms of the size, shape, location, topography, orientation or surroundings • A variance should be granted only when the PROPERTY is "special or unique in contrast with that of other property owners in the same district." Is the Ciraulo property different than others in the zone? • The property is flat with normal orientation • The property is approximately 4,000 square feet and most R -1.5 lots on Balboa Island are less than 3,000 sq. ft. (Ciraulo property is slightly larger than most) • The property is surrounded by similar parcels developed with residential structures • There is nothing about the parcel that deprives the applicant of any entitlement under the Zoning Code 3 Hardship • The hardship must be based on the problems that are caused by strict application of the zoning code to the peculiar physical characteristics of the site The City Council should not consider self induced hardships — or the cost of removing that portion of the structure for which the variance is sought • City Council should not consider factors such as the architecture or beauty of the structure or use of special building materials 51 NOM 'VICINITY MAP 0 31.575 150 Feel • qp ��'� �`Te • ty• 'SCE �� ms's Hardship • The hardship must be based on the problems that are caused by strict application of the zoning code to the peculiar physical characteristics of the site The City Council should not consider self induced hardships — or the cost of removing that portion of the structure for which the variance is sought • City Council should not consider factors such as the architecture or beauty of the structure or use of special building materials 51 What are the hardships associated with the Ciraulo request? • The Ciraulo's contend that removal of that portion of the structure that exceeds the height limit will be extremely expensive • Strict application of the Zoning Code allows the Ciraulos to build and occupy the 4,675 square foot single family residence that has been constructed • Denial of the variance would not preclude the same use of the property that other owners enjoy No Special Privileges • Approvals cannot constitute the granting of a special privilege • Must bring parity that is based on the characteristics of the property • Variances may not be granted on the basis of the identity of the owner — variances run with the land • Granting special privileges destroys the uniformity of zoning that is essential to its validity 5 Does approval of the Ciraulo variance constitute the grant of special privilege? • No R -1.5 property on Balboa Island has been granted a Variance to exceed building height • All R -1.5 lots on Balboa Island are allowed a 25 sq. ft. area for an elevator, stairwell or mechanical screen • Approval would grant a 127 sq. ft. area with a bathroom, elevator, elevator foyer and fireplace No Harm • Cannot adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity • Cannot be detrimental to the public welfare • Cannot be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity C1 Would approval of the Ciraulo variance be detrimental to the community? • Approval based upon a reduction in building mass or other design aesthetics would mean that good design can dictate a deviation from standards • Approval would grant a special privilege that would impact legality of zoning for that district • Approval sets a poor precedent — variance approval without a strong factual basis relative to the findings. • Approval sends a bad message to other contractors, developers and property owners — Newport Beach is willing to bend its standards The standard of hardship with regard to applications for variances relates to the property, not to the person who owns it California Zoning Practice Financial hardship, community benefit, or the worthiness of the project are not considerations in determining whether to approve a variance Orinda Association v. Board of Supervisors PI �l� s °YFj O•r•.r. y% - -'N i E14 V.. LIFOR�.:: Building Department Activity for 202 S. Bay Front PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Date Action Remarks 10/17/01 Applied for Approval in Concept (Planning) P/C 2551 2001 10/26/01 AIC approved (Planning) 12/14/01 Applied for new SFD (Plan Check) P/C 2957 -2001 12/14/01— 2/6/02 Plan Check and resolution of corrections 2/7/02 Pre -grade meeting Sobek 2/15/02 Inspection of Plumbing (soil pipe); Footing pads Sobek 2/27/02 Inspection of Electric -ufer ground; Foundations; Slab Sobek Date Action Remarks 5/1/02 Inspection of second floor framing; Fleener Roof Sheathing; Exterior shear & hold dooms 6/03/02 Applied for fire sprinkler permit P /Cf 1177- 2002 6/10/02 Inspection of rough plumbing, gas piping, HVAC; Hotz Exterior lath 06/17/02 Fire Sprinkler Plan Check completed — Note entered on Nap Computer approval screen "does not match arch set' r i'I� �I i _..L'K.1' �1 2 Date Action Remarks 6/20/02 Inspection of framing, rough electrical,55 walls and ceilings Hotz 6/20/02 Sprinkler recheck done. (Corrections pending) Naji 06/20/02 Correction list issued for revised architectural plan Naji 06/20/02 Fire Sprinkler permit issued Naji OCITY of NEWPORT BEACH d/�j ,i\^ poAOx earl. NAwpoarer ca. cn msseepls u �..e•.,. n Enn.DING DEPAETMEW Prvpttpddmv: 211]5 HAYPpONT Dete: Thwldl. Jwe 20,2p PWUCbvk NO: 198/2001 Plm Chxk Augveer. Ali Neli Vheve 1We16MiID2 MpGva wv�den uWm eneed...d me.k. •npbu Ce.rtN® Lm Pe.ue ell elennom.mrcneel ebev¢eewtbe OOOr Plens.CWW bwld�nebeagE; elw �n 1'_"at'Nem¢ mise.m �.. mbeamnmas.;.dnvtr mebm.mem,e.u�, comae... m.,imaae. 11-- 1—d ¢.,man¢. metea;n.mv pevue a &ned aw mR�nnx F rcpeet ehmyex w nme plena �L_H6d1^L''Fe.a •emum eeueAnv RUaRi Ma�wvmY[mMnwe t Wuvn °Deco. reti 3. Neer wPbemuMplm,eb¢t$'36 meYL rtwed ertlu¢RVeelplena. MOrt (Wore. at ^v BSBS�:,w.,.o.w¢�,.r.amu m ema.u.eeaee: eau. adu. e umhvrtre deh Aevue eMV mLrrn[rba come Ndtewe3nm. Nene Avntl. ukW.4nne ee.rtled Swmwe(y/em kulmlevmr eAeLbe¢nevNm¢ fbn ameM avme4onem h /Inv Awuegwrefw46. (m the pmpvied® ouplem jj?[fy'dgJ: PlueeaXe sb¢tAnr efL /n[eam dervvue} 6. Wvim the buJdx¢peemitwepmlb ltr renmd egvere fwuR. � :Anev rmiteb.11letmuMmmrvrmxune e¢fin.lieM e. 1M.�mmaem.a ¢a.se pWm m m.tW ¢..ma am. Plem. t. Aenm bwa.new40m. 6.mineplewwmA.n nmW Lmepl.n. ae< :wn..om.cnp¢mewped s¢xaexi. Plee<no[e tlut e11 rta+mv m plw, mdvamp nmr pLva, to be alovtletl mth e delta, a vumbee & e aem. Pleece delete ell Pt^^^m eeruwn.tloude k de1W fiem rbu eubwatal. Mwv mmcdme mev fo11w m¢ the dove. am 'swan..; ran, <n bercn¢e.. demn.d Pm. r.., nb. ne¢.m.ma umnmmpletim of pl.n ehmk nod¢� . o I.mm�2a a ppm.a. Date Actio n Remarks 6/21/02 Inspection of rough fire sprinkler Dexter 6/22/02 Inspection of insulation; scratch coat Dexter 6/25/02 Fire sprinkler pressure test Dexter 7/9/02 Inspection of drywall Sobek 7/31/02 Rough electrical service Sobek 9/26/02 In response to referral by Planning, the Building Inspector Dexter', 11/27/02 issued a correction notice: Fleener 1. Approved plan must reflect added square footage on the 12/2/02 roof deck, i.e. bathroom, wall added to screen elevator door, and changes to fireplace and BBQ area. 2. Wall in front yard encroaching into public right of way must be removed or approved by Public Works Department. 3. No further inspections until corrections have been resolved. Date Action Remarks 10/16/02 Stop work issued due to lack of progress on resolving Fleener corrections 10./17/02 Stop work: rescinded per Building Director. Corrections Fleener were emphasized. 10/29/02 Fire sprinkler final approval to grant temporary Morris occupancy 11/27/02 Inspection to determine if house is in safe condition for Fleener temporary occupancy approval 12/2/02 Temporary occupancy approval granted until 2/27/03 9 December 4, 2002 This phone message was received on voicemail on 12/4/02 and transcribed as follows: "This is Marcelo Lische. I am the architect for 202 S. Bay Front, Newport Beach, Permit # is 82001 -3819. I received a notice from the owner that apparently the City send my office back some corrections with changes they did on the house. I have never received anything from the city or no one ever called me. The only thing I know so far is that I gave the contractor a set of as -built plans to submit to the city and that's the only thing I know so far. The changes were made during construction. I went personally to the site and measured all the changes, showed them on the plans. We did a set of as- built, meaning that this is just per construction, doesn't mean that we designed or approved that. Anyway, we would like to speak with you to see what is going on with this project. Please give me a call at 949 -293- 5406. Thank you very much." Date Action Remarks 12/20/02 Planning review of revisions. Correction: "The to proposed additional square footage on the deck 1/06/03 exceeds the height limit and is not permitted. See Section 20.65.07 of the zoning code'. 2/27/03 Temporary Occupancy approval extended to 5/27/03 5/15/03 Letter from attorney (Kevin E. Monson) stating that a Sent to Jay permit to repair the deck leaks would not be used to Elbettar create an estoppel against the City 5/19/03 Temporary occupancy approval extended to 8/27/03 To allow for hearing and appeals 5 '03 JUN 18 A 8 :48 0­171C — " ­� E MY 'LEeV, p ': - 0 '— IH I , 1� -IT � U NEWPOURR'l SPEACH CIRAULO VARIANCE (PA 2003-067) 202 South Bay Front • INTRODUCTION Good evening Gentlemen: Thank you for your time. We will try to present our case to you within the time constraints allowed, focusing, for the most part on what we believe are the most important facts. We would like to thank the twenty or so citizens who attended the Planning Commission meeting and especially those who spoke on our behalf at that time. (Letters showing strong community support are attached) E 0 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 property 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 constriction improved the neighborhood by replacing the existing rundown duplex, our personal views of the bay have been expanded on two floors. We also have a sun deck and their rooftop room is considerably smaller than the frill-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 comer of the building did allow us a bit more actual bay view. From our point of view, the home has not had a negative impact at all. Should you have anything further you would like to discuss, please Cathi and Les Klin `JM Berman 949 - 675 -0180 CJ 0 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. (�$incerely Qt4wu 41 Donald M. Cleland Ann S. Cleland 0 C� May 15, 2003 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach, Ca Dear Commission Members, We are neighbors of Carole and Joe Ciraulo, living and owning a home at 114 Emerald Ave. Balboa Island. The Ciraulo home has been a definite improvement to our block and to the south baytront. The view from our front patio is better than when the previous home was in that location. The setback seems greater than before. Sincerely, ` a-7 � CY Ann and Frank Piani 114 Emerald Ave. Balboa Island, CA 92662 (949) 673 -8633 C� May 6, 2003 To: The City of Newport Beach From: Vincent Arranaga 210 Emerald Newport Beach, CA 92662 My wife and I are long time residents of Balboa Island and close neighbors of the Ciraulo family at 202 South Bay Front (Corner of Emerald). 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 on 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 I 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. Since ely, Vint Arranaga 1 1 • LAURA G. GALL Coldwell Banker 201 Marine Avenue Balboa Zsku ut CA. 92662 Of'/ice. (949) 673 -8700 Fax: (949) 675 -9885 Mobile. (949) 500.6418 ¢tom /andWHOM= tarn flay 10 2003 Dear Planning Commission, City of Newport Reach. Re. 202 South Ray Front, Balboa Is /and, CA. I have been a long time Is /and Resident and an active Rea /tor tel th Co /dew // Banker. As you can ewe // imagine I see a large variety of houses that have either been built or remodeled a// over the is /and. • While I am extremely cognizant of both Planning and Building issues, I am absolutely astounded that the tirau /os at ZOZ South Bay front are having such difficulty obtaining a variance for tAat, in my op coon, is a very small amount of space (not living space) on their roof deck. I was around many times during construction. Aloes that the building is finished beautifully built and offers all of the neighbors a much more panoramic view Phan the o/d building did I understand that the C/rau/os have yet to get a Certificate of Occupancy. I any writing in support of their plight. I simply cannot see how a building can reach completion and then be red tagged" for something that occurred in the very beginning stages of building. I personally hope that the City can wed through these problems andgrant the Cirau/os the necessary variance. yours ft*, "s ox&� • Laura 6. &a /e • 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 make 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 non - conforming 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, c� Yck& Joan orthrup �J • May 15, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: We have lived on Balboa Island at 310 South Bayfront for over twenty years. During our daily walks, we have watched the home at 202 South Bayfront being built over the past year to completion. The three story fortress that was torn down in order to build the new home was very large and unsightly. The new home that now occupies the property is a welcome and beautiful addition to our Island. Locals and tourists alike are treated to a magnificent piece of architecture as they stroll the Island. Sincerely, Marilyn and Ter obinson 0 r� Greg Hughes May 5, 2003 Joe and Carole Ciraulo 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 there), graduated from what was then Arizona State College in Flagstaff 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 now, 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 of people were never overcome, can you imaagine what the homes lining the bay would be lice? 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 beautiful 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 pessimist 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 mobility of your property values. Any delay works to the detritient of ALL parties. The many people I chat with at Dad's Donuts 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. 2283 Waterman Way, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ♦ Tel: (949) 548 -8881 0 Fax: (949) 548.6868 • MICHAEL & KAREN SMITH 327 ONYX AV BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662 Joe & Carole Ciraulo 202 South Say Front Balboa Island CA 92662 Bear 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 during our regular walks around the island and are very impressed at how well it turned out. The overall design and look of the property is beautiful and is definitely an improvement over the ugly duplex that used to be there. Your new home is not • 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. Best regards Nuchael S. Smith • 0 L. G. GALE 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 live 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 758 better than when the prior three story house was on the property. Sincerely, � L G. Gale • /S 7a //S-//l V'ou ,XZjc-A u..,ez� hfflxe-- U- B�/e&-1 �� : y • � b���., b�Se. GC dlG�e `7 /y ko—<,hz4,4e Y-- -/-� b/azlc C136 o G7,f.v-e God &AO� � j /;? v69ea,-< G?W"2f has 77a 57Y/e V- wtel /s-zaAlzz, • r hWl�� 17- 7iF / 160 ZME-ov �- G�a�i�� 7- q d 0 0 • ,j • 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 in your Balboa Island "dream home." Best regards, /12 AA4 -C Adrian and Kathy Fsnard 4 • 0 Gary L. Quiggle 217 Pearl Avenue Balboa Island, California 92662 May 20, 2003 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Re: 202 South Bay Front Balboa Island It has come to our attention that the City of Newport may be requiring Mr. and Mrs. Cimulo to make substantial and costly changes to the roof of their home at the referenced address. We have watched the metamorphous of an old, unsightly duplex into a wonderful and elegant single family home. What a welcome change, both from the water and from the island. We cannot imagine one thing that is objectionable to this marvelous improvement. While we do not know who is objecting to what or why, we feel it would be unconscionable to require the Ciraulos to make any changes, after the City approved the house and its design in the various stages of planning and construction. n CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS 0 CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS • INrI1AL INSPECTIONS BY SOBEK — 2/7 through 2/27 covered all underground, up to slab. Everything went smoothly and was signed off in a timely manner. • FRAMING PROCESS STARTED — 4/1 Subfloor signed off by FLEENER 4/1. At this time owner (Ciraulo) requested several small changes, i.e. removal two windows in the kitchen and a small non - bearing wall which blocked the view. It was also noted by the owner THAT A SHOWER HAD BEEN APPROVED ON THE ROOF and the owner ASKED THE CONTRACTOR TO APPLY TO THE CITY FOR PERNIISSION TO REPLACE THE SHOWER WITH A TOILET AND A SMALL WALL HUNG LAVATORY. The contractor indicated that he would consolidate all of these requests in one new plan and present it to the City. It was also noted that there were very strong winds on the roof deck AND THE CONTRACTOR NOTED THAT THE FIRE PIT THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR THE ROOF DECK AUGHT BE UNSAFE AND SUGGESTED THAT IT BE REPLACED BYA FIREPLACE. The owner asked if this would be approved by the City and also asked for a price. The contractor said "don't worry about it ". The owner left on vacation and upon . returning the ENTIRE ROOF DECK WAS FRAMED AND INCLUDED A SHOWER, A TOILET AND A LAVATORY. A FIREPLACE WAS ALSO INSTALLED. When asked if this had been approved, the contractor said "don't worry about it ". It was at this time DURING LATE APRIL that another City Inspector visited the jobsite several times, at least three. This inspector has not signed the card, but he was introduced as Ray Baltazar and we can only assume that he saw the entire roof structure many times. (ATTACHED ARE TWO PICTURES, ONE OF THE STRUCTURE CLEARLY NOT READY FOR FRAMING INSPECTION AND ONE OF THE FHMHED STRUCTURE. THESE TWO PICTURES CLEARLY DEPICT THE EDGE OF THE ENTIRE ROOF STRUCTURE PRIOR TO FRAMING INSPECTION) i AWL.- fi m 1 -j X ....,,yR•x K L.5 i i. _ a g, INSPECTION OF 511 DATED PHOTO - ROOF • • FRAmiNG AND BUILDING HEIGHT INSPECTION — 5/1 signed off by FLEENF.R_ (COPY OF STATENTENIS BY SUBCONTRACTORS STATING ENTIRE ROOF STRUCTURE WAS IN PLACE ON 5/1 ARE ATTACHED. ALSO ATTACHED IS HEIGHT CERTIFICATION FROM ENGINEER. ALSO ATTACHED IS A COPY OF A PHOTO WHICH IS DATED FROM THE PHOTO SERVICE — 5/a3 — SHOWING ENTIRE ROOF STRUCTURE IN PLACE AT THAT TIME Please note that the electrical contractor also spoke to Mr. Fleener on 5/1 and Mr. Fleener commented that the electrical "looked good ". The electrical contractor states that Mr. Fleener saw the entire roof structure in place at that time. 0 PHIL R. GOODLETT Regarding: 202 South Bay Front Newport Beach, California TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that I am a licensed Electrical Contractor. My place of business is 515 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663. My Contractors License Number is 799557. I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Ciraulo are having some difficulty obtaining their Occupancy Permit. There seems to be some discussion about the roof structure being built after inspection. • On May 1, 2002, I was doing electrical installation work on the project at 202 South Bay Front. On that date I observed Mr. Jim Santaniello the contractor walking the job with Mr. Mel Fleener who is employed as an Inspector for the City of Newport Beach. I was, in fact, doing electrical installation mainly on the roof structure and I observed Mr. Fleener and Mr. Santaniello measuring the height of the building. Additionally Mr. Fleener addressed me personally at that time and told me the electrical "looked good". I want to expressly state that the entire roof structure was built on that date, not just the elevator shaft. There was a small anteroom off of the elevator shaft, a fireplace and a small srzed bathroom at that time. Sincerely, 4) ly 11a91o3 hil R. Goodleft • FARID K. MANSOUR COMM ... 1282506 p m � �-i My Term Exp. Nov.18, M :�1., ne /en /ZOOS US: 4:1 7140412120 COASTAL ROOFING CO PAGE 02 R O O F I N G I N C 17871 MW W Laos, U& 172 • amda@m Bc=L CA 926476764 = 714-842.2830 • Fu 714.841 -2120 Smro Lie. N4.OM65 June 5, 2003 The City ofNewport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Brat 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 42658 -8915 RE; 202 S. Bayfront Newport Beach, Ca s This letter is regarding the house at 202 S. Bayfront, Newport Beach, Ca. Coastal Roofing bm did the entire mofiog, wammmofing and flashing at this site According to my n oords and my incom ry, the square footage an the.eleyator shaft was always there According to our time cards and im ones, we roofed the eaifte area at ove tine prior to May 1, 2002. Thank you for your c6asideration ivznll�- . License # 767366 L FROM :SANTANIELLO FAX NO. :714 665 -0241 May. 30 2003 07:06PM P1 Abstract Consulting Group 6646 E. SAN JUAN ORIVE • ORANGE, r_ALIFORNiA 92969 • (714)639 -7440 i F=AX [714)639 -7442 May 6, 2002 City of Newport Beach BuOding Department Reference: Building Permit #: B2001 -3619 ACC Job No. 014M Subject Height Certification Certification 202 S. Bay Front Newport Beach, California 92662 This letter hereby certifies that the elevation at the top of parapet is 3025_ Plan elevation for the top of parapet is 3027. The shuchue is within the height envelope as shown on the approved building plan. ABSTRACT COIVSULTINO OROUR • FROM :SANTANIELLO FAX NO. :714 665 -0241 May. 30 2003 07:06PM P2 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 826688915 SETBACKS AND TOP OF SLAB/FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATE The purpose of this Certificate is to insure that the structure is located properly on site per the approved drawings: This Certificate also verifies the top of slab /floor elevation noted on the approved drawings. After the top of slab /floor elevation is verified to match the elevation specified on the approved drawings, the contractor and inspector can measure the height of the structure to the top of slab/floor to verify that it is equal or less than the dimension shown on building sections and elevations. This form must be filled out by a registered surveyor or civil engineer authorized to perform surveys. The survey must be done after the concrete forms are in place or* preferably after the concrete slab is poured or raised floor is built, but prior to starting wall framing. Engineer/Surveyor's Name_ 46011GE bAr.N license M 110%Z Engineer/Surveyor'sAddress 36/431 E QW Ault* DRWILo42MV6B A6 �9 • Job Address 202 S 2A ryRomT M9.wrRjLr QC.A61i, 0—q —SZ"v- Setbacks: Sketch a site plan and specify surveyed setbacks (use back page). *Top of slablfloor elevation: G.7 *If slab /floor elevation varies, sketch a plan or section through slab on the back page and specify the elevations. Use same datum used in the survey of record. I certify that the setbacks Dare 0 are not per City approved plans. Describe any deviations from plans: I certify that top of slab /floor elevation(s) d is 0 is not per City approved drawings. Describe any deviations from plans: stamp and signature 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach r f i-. +k►ldy�.Y� � F ;A ••i s •R a' ��yyy lam' C O N N N N N O a. W U H a W cn a) O� F to W N {) A> N 3 O m C N O N u1 N CL O E N ro NN ro m A N O• N 4 4J a to to 0 to r r b. . •rl C 00 - ��yyy lam' C O N N N N N O a. W U H a W cn a) O� F to W N {) A> N 3 O m C N O N u1 N CL O E N ro NN ro m A N O• N 4 4J a to to 0 to r r b. . •rl C 00 CORRECTION ON ROOF STRUCTURE - 6/18 • • CORRECTION MADE ON ROOF STRUCTURE — 6/18 — Sobek Request was made for engineering and an additional beam to support the weight of the roof structure. (COPY OF ENGINEERING REPORT AND PICTURE OF ADDITIONAL BEAM ATTACHED) • THIS CORRECTION WAS SIGNED OFF BY HOW — 6/20 • 0 JVL -15 -12 SUN 08:38 62696085W6754 6269688599 P.01 • M KIP It I 1S IACAI STRUCTURAL ENCTMER MUCTURAL ERG SrATBLi UM 49%N.LAME ST., BALDWW PARK, CA 9I706 PR- 626.960.1978 FAX 626.9601599 July 14, 2002 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Ca 92658 -8915 Re. 202 South Bay From Newport Beacb, California • Gentlemen: On duly 12, 2002 a structural observation of frawiog in the garage ceiling has been performed. Connection of the 6x12 beam to steel beam is provided with the adequate capacity. Reidorcemmt of the Parallam beam with 2x12 beam rte has been properly completed. ZYYu Q- 4POFESSIO, c i�a, Engineer ti ran. ooa�s T ; • �� OF • 57111/2002 10:54 5629973972 Lsi PAGE 03 Landmark Structures, Inc. 3939 Long Beach Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90807 (562) 997-1937 Fay- (562) 997-3972 AT Ml A.- I 45W EM New 2-- III's OV11l2002 10:54 5629973972 LSI Landmark 5tru.ctures, Inc. 3939 long; Beach Blvd. • Long Beach. CA 90807 4) I. (562) 997 -1937 • 11 TQP�amr . (t) RE&M _-I 2 %z" ., PAGE 02 Fox. (562) 997 -3972 New ...... �Y L= to 13 4 %WAM T.KTrw rj-s T TO si7WFSL r. - ISEA.H © �N A- MM.WW4 , tc SP4.ct M fo , .Bot'TS IYgX iOAa t 0 �. �iY, � - [r $�_.. i; i': -�} :: i, '` �. _ _- ; . T `� r r. - i fz� �� i -L �. c zi3§9s� � �.'� � �. '1 "'� �_ . � _ ;; - ', ' # �' �- _ + ` -� -- � '� _ ;t �4 's: �� � �� � -x .- - �k �s' PLAN SUBMITTAL MECH /DRYWALL INSP. • • AS BUILT PLANS SUBMITTED TO CITY ON 6/18 These were in the form of a fire sprinkler site plan and a fee of $17o was paid to the City for a Building Plan Check. On June 21 the contractor paid another $3o8 to the City for a Reinspection /Special Inspection. An email from Jay Elbettar, Building Department Director, to Mrs. Ciraulo dated 12/02 states that the plans were informally submitted on 6/2o and returned to the architect with a list of items. Then project architect, Marcello Lische maintains he never received any documentation from the City. The as -built plan was stamped by the Building Department on 6/2o and registered on 6/21. The fees for this submittal were never returned and the project file at this date has the stamped as- bu8ilt plan on file. No list of items or anything indicating submittal was informal and returned was found in the current City file. • APPROVAL OF PLUMBING, ROUGH WALLS, CEILINGS AND GAS PIPES ON 6/20 — Hotz • The entire third floor roof structure was visible at that time and original as well as as -built plans were on the jobsite. • DRYWALL INSPECTION ON 7/1— Sobek (original inspector) This inspection requires plans. No notation of any violation was ever made at this time. As one can clearly see, many inspectors including the original inspector had seen the job, made inspections that required plans and had never tagged the third floor roof structure. FROM : • C� MARCELO E. LISCHE, Architect AIA January gel, 2003 Tot Joe and Carole Clraulo Cc/ Pat Temple Ref: 702 South Bay Front Newport Beach, CA. 92662 Dear Joe and Carole: As you know, back in June 2002 the City inspector requested the General Contractor to provide a set of drawings reflecting all changes done with respect to the approved set of plans. J personally visited the job site and picked -up all the changes done so far during construction to that date. I also had the structural engineer to review the changes and provide any additional calculations and/or details needed. The plans were updated and given to the contractor for submittal and review to the City ofNewpon Beach. After that I haven't received personally any comments from the City till I talked with Jay Elbettar and he faxed me the correction list on December 5'� 2002. A newly updated set of plans was submitted to the city by December 12'h,2002. On Monday January 0, 2003, the General Contractor picked -up minor correctioas from the Building Department. Those corrections are being reviewed by me and the structural engineer and the updated set of plans should be submitted for final review next week. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely. �M to B. Ltsrdte, AIA 384 Forest Ave. # 19 • Laguna (leach, CA 92661 • Ph. 949.464.9426 • Fax 949 - 464 -9436 FRONT ENCROACHMENT • Please note that on the original puns which were stamped by the City; Si shows the footing for a fence /wall along the bayfront and Emerald. Sa shows the fence but does not notate it However, the fence /wall is clearly shown and noted on A-oi, A -i and A4. A detail for the condition is referenced and shown as detail 2/Su and 3/A-u The elevations sheet A-4 most clearly shows the condition and notes that it is dimensioned as being S above the sidewalk. This fence is exactly where it was originally and since it was approved by the City on the original plans, Ciraulos maintain that they are not in violation. An encroachment permit was fled on 12/9 with the City Public Works Department with documentation showing over i8o such encroachments. 0 REASONS FOR VARIANCE • REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: • SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER FOOTPRINT THAN FORMER (See attached pictures) • STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT (See letters, one neighbor stating they have a 7o% better view) • OWNERS RELIANCE ON CITY INSPECTORS (No notice given to owner until io /i6 in the form of a Stop Work Order which was immediately rescinded. Permanent Certificate of Occupancy has been withheld) • ALL BUILDABLE ALLOWANCE HAS NOT BEEN USED even including roof structure. • Roof structure is mostly architectural space, not living space. • ELEVATOR SHAFT WILL LEAK if surrounding structure is removed. (See attached letter from Elevator Company, CRC Consulting and Jeff Carr, General Contractor). COST TO HOMEOWNER TO REMOVE ROOF STRUCTURE WHICH PASSED CITY INSPECTION WOULD BE EXTREMELY HIGH AND PRESENT A HARDSHIP ON OWNER SITUATION IS UNIQUE BECAUSE OF CONFUSION CREATED BY THE CITY IN THAT OWNER WAS NEVER INFORMED OF ANY VIOLATION UNTIL HOUSE WAS LITERALLY COMPLETE. OWNER COULD HAVE HAD A PITCHED ROOF WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE OBTRUSIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD (ARCHITECT'S RENDERING AVAILABLE) SEVERE HARDSHIP CREATED IN THAT OWNER HAS NO PERMANENT PERMIT OF OCCUPANCY. 0 0 0 �4 73 40=4 -Fl ii,xi Ni. I r ii,xi Ni. I Lm® Qj OQj 4J J FOR MIMI 11 Em- WON all • Gy 7 i V q� l4l l�l o �1 0 . u I I _ 1 l I. 4- -Ilk I . — — — — — — CRC SANTA ANA PAGE 61/81 WMW�1` CDns Wg Group, Inc. Reference: Roof Top Modifications 0 CORPORATE OFFICE January 7, 2003 1400 Eaton odve. Ste 13B 202 South Bay Front BokefgaW. CA 93509 Ms. Carole Ciraulo Ph, 1 31 -9578 FAX (661)321 -9379 ("1) 202 South Bay Front CA Toa Free (SM 287 -43D4 New Port Beach, CA. 92662 E-Mail Addfess: CrCbak0I9=C0f6Wt Cate Reference: Roof Top Modifications Residence 0 $O. CAUPOWA OFFICE 202 South Bay Front 1813 Eat Dyer Rd. Ste 4D8 Newport Beach, CA. 92662 Santa Ano. CA 92705 Ph. (949) 261 -5650 FAX (949) 261.3258 Dear Ms. Ciraulo: EA40i: satl®uccomAt.Com CRC Consulting Group, Ine. Inspected the roof of the 202 South D No. CAUFORa+w OFFICE Bay Front Residence on December 27, 2002. 1331 TStreet, $ure 26 Spponferda, CA 95814 CRC is aware of the "roof top limitations" of the planning g 9161 444 4 FA FA X 17161444-1564 department... it is understood that a requirement for a maximum E-MW: sacl®abcrnmm com twenty -five (25) square foot structure in excess of the allowable building height is possible. D ItUMOIS OFFICE 145D E AMMIGM IR Ste 1408 The inspection reveled that the removal of the ro& trop struciure(s) 3dmuMb"`&'t60173 • would have dramatic cost Impact and create damage (of unknown extent) to the following building components: Ph. 18471619-5146 FAX 1847) 330 -4452 E is chneacconwR.com I . Granite pavers Waterproofing membrane a OFFICE O 0 N AD 3. Fla3hingS/COUnterflaShingS Rood Ste 221 4. Setting bed and redundant waterproofing membrane Los vegm Nv 89105 Ph. tnA 8739578 S. MechanicaVeiectricat0plumbingS .heating E- Maklo=leaccorultcom 6. Roof structure Additional work is n ecessary to determine the extent of the CYIENNMMOFPICE 1931) 645 -4444 anticipated damage; whether there is a means of resWr(ng or FAX (931) 6451010 modifying these components, etc. E4hc&tent @c=nrwltcar Please call if there are any questions. 17 TEXAS OFFICE Ph (9724 529 -5222 Very truly yoVre, FAX (972) 540 -1020 CRC Consulting Group, Inc. Z-Mo' leXlecrccnluWt.cot ,a Gb SIN Q IN7ERNEt WEB PAM Dwain D. BOUtOn wwwXMC0nsu8.com OM41 President Page 4 OF 2 May 23, 2003 Joe & Carol Ciraulo 202 South Bay Front Newport Beach, Ca 92662 Dear Mr. & Ms. Ciraulo: I wanted to confirm in writing our most recent telephone conversation regarding the third floor landing of the recently installed home lift. It is my understanding that the City ofNewport Beach is requesting that you remove everything from the roof with the exception of the elevator shaft itself I wanted to bring to everyone's attention that the elevator landing itself is not weatherproofed and was not designed to be a freestanding unit_ The surrounding enclosure has several purposes. Some of these purposes include. Protection from atmospheric conditions. • - Is integrally intergraded with the structural support for the elevator shaft. - Provides the support and houses the third floor landing. r 1 LJ Removal of the surrounding structure in our opinion would compromise the integrity of the elevator unit. I hope letter answers any question you may have regarding this matter, however should you need any other information please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Matthew Smith RS Elevator Corporation 10621 Bloomfield St., #9 • Los Alamitos, CA 90720 • (562) 430 -5700 • Fax: (562) 430 -4510 RS ELEVATOR CORPORATION C -11- 757608 • Elevator Service - Repair - Modernization "Committed to Excellence" May 23, 2003 Joe & Carol Ciraulo 202 South Bay Front Newport Beach, Ca 92662 Dear Mr. & Ms. Ciraulo: I wanted to confirm in writing our most recent telephone conversation regarding the third floor landing of the recently installed home lift. It is my understanding that the City ofNewport Beach is requesting that you remove everything from the roof with the exception of the elevator shaft itself I wanted to bring to everyone's attention that the elevator landing itself is not weatherproofed and was not designed to be a freestanding unit_ The surrounding enclosure has several purposes. Some of these purposes include. Protection from atmospheric conditions. • - Is integrally intergraded with the structural support for the elevator shaft. - Provides the support and houses the third floor landing. r 1 LJ Removal of the surrounding structure in our opinion would compromise the integrity of the elevator unit. I hope letter answers any question you may have regarding this matter, however should you need any other information please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Matthew Smith RS Elevator Corporation 10621 Bloomfield St., #9 • Los Alamitos, CA 90720 • (562) 430 -5700 • Fax: (562) 430 -4510 BUILDING CARD MISCELLANEOUS City of Newport Beach Building Department Inspection Card 3300 Newport BW_ Inspection RequestsTelephone (949) 644-3255 Building Permit #: 820013819 Date: 02-06-2002 E_ jZ7;gj6a M I5 H Z&c-'71-40010 Job Address. 202 S BAY FRONT NB P t Owner: CIRAULO JOE & CAROLE G 7.00j_oA-79 j9hrmntmr:tnr: SANTANIELLO JAMES Plan Cheok Number. 'W,rA-E IfTEM 1"WECTM JDATE ISIGNATURE 'GRAD x010 UNDERGROUND PTWada Me_ I ITO REQUEST INSPECTIONS IQNJL THE REQUEST TINE :PLUM isio ism Pipe 2-- L 54V-2- IAT9421644,31255 U.FN1' 820 Sever uiM— 1830 wowpk e A RECORDED MESSARE PLUM 1040 Gas Pipe WILLASKYOU TO RECORD .W6 1410 ---- UnderabblFloor Mea l i THE FOLLOWING INF;0_* ­66FM 1210 UfarGiound - %,12.1 vv,,& 1220 Undergrowid E X7.7.02 i. PERMIT NUMBER FOR -GRAD 1630 RQUAh Bade THE TYPE OF WSPECTION BWG 115 Endo (PLUMBING. ME0iANr_V_ (PLUMBIN(PLUMBING. :8= !20 lFatirdationSeftscks 2 -L7 IZ2 EUECTR1C.4I_E7C)____ 130 jftoM�ris -4 -:ELM .40 iftbonGrado AoDREsSdNCWDE SUDO ;45 sufrEcRuNrrNuiimF) i ;BLDG 100 NOT COVERIPOUR CONCRETE UNTIL MOVE SIGNED OFF ROUGH Y PFO-GW Il. TWE0FmPwnoN f(FOR WS13Ecnom TYPES.- - !REFERTOTHLS Deu GhnnbhV Lh�o�! REOPRO PLUM D�= C A4_ CARD :MECH W20 WAC _i_PRiTW_ 4 TO SAVE Vi(5R ­ _1425— HOW LBLRa-'. 1190 Fwep'=eT?.oat —:PLUM 1845 q230 i23Rough WnftftorPFw O UadvrFk=EftcbftW Rough 1� PLEASE SPEW SLOWLY 4.7 ,- of AND CLEARLY SO MESSAGE WILL E1.9 .ELEC 240 tRoulg! Caed,e8Waft TN_D8Wr0M I or ELEC 7260 Rough Elect;W Service 7- 31- oZ Tor2� WUMAY REQUEST ;BLDG 160 BLDG 80 subtlour Root tuft & BWWvW It Ext. StUM & Hold Downi; /I () 21 1 �S. A el 7. IZ 1. I)IL— "NsMI _v !F0LL0%VWGAMRESS: INSPECTIONS VIA THE INTERNETUSINGTHE GermW IwwwxftyjmwpM1-b8*dr. Gazer DO NOT COVER WORK UNTIL ABOVE SIGNED OFF T.0 INTERIOR & EXTERIOR SLD43 kisubifim MADE PROR TO &-00 AM :BLDG 120 susperufted Ceft iFORAPPROVEDSTATUS �BLDG 1130 EMADF _BLDG 0 I:F J!W :-ENJIG ;150 Pbstar-Scratch ----]W 00 (PERMITSISSUEDUT—ESW- FINAL THE0AYMAYNOTBE :PLUM 1890 Gas PnissmTest PROCESSED IN TIME FOR UW&sD1*t.94&S"-=1 NEAT OAY INSPECTION. ^UM _19W P4urIM11119 ;MECH 1470 ELEC 1290 Mectewdea! -- — :GRAD 1740 _--T-- 75D am� jFbLW ;200. tbl W1 DOMMn GraftgUrArsp SUILDIM FKAL NOT OCCUPY UNTIL F94AL SIGNED OFFIl! /rzo.o'+- �E�r2.�L �/t.•4 -m �wG o� ��'�oi�G �O/ifw.tiG�`c� . 4p ®2o f IAu,FpeGTicK,, �2c�•'a'L Jolt L-Tf Ox /1�•�f�Lh G"4GG /GEjfiJE/vTJS� i— L'k�EP% GR��Oi�++C '�"Ybs(D7+ ' 0 0 n u January 7, 2002 Re: 202 South Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I have worked for the General Contractor, James Santaniello on several jobs in the capacity of Job Superintendent. I have noted that customarily Mr. Santaniello makes extensive structural and cosmetic changes. In the case of the Ciraulo residence at 202 South Bay Front I was present on several occasions when Mrs. Ciraulo questioned him regarding changes made to the roof structure including a fireplace. She was very concerned about whether these changes had been approved by the City. On each and every occasion Mr. Santaniello would tell her "don't worry ". In addition to this, in mid -June there were several inspections •made on this structure and I was with Mr. Santaniello when he called her to inform her that these changes that he had made "had passed ". If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 217 -5051. S i n/c�e ly�/�� Robert Preciado June 15, 2003 COUNCIL AGENDA NO.25 to-?-ti -z3 Office of the City Clerk City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884 RE: Ciraulo Variance PA2003 -067 In the above referenced matter, we have requested that Mr. and Mrs. Joe Ciraulo return to us our letter of January 2, 2003, and that the letter not be used as support in their controversy with the City of Newport Beach. Copy of letter is attached. As long -time property owners at 106 Emerald Avenue, Balboa Island, we do not support the building of third -level structures at 202 South Bay Front without a building permit, as the City contends, nor do we support structures that exceed the height and square- footage limitations. Our view currently is not obstructed by the roof top bath because our house, built in 1940, is much shorter than the Ciraulo residence. However, looking to the future, the view could be obstructed if our house were remodeled or rebuilt. cerely Donald M. Cleland Ann S. Cleland 45 Colonial Irvine, California 92620 (949) 857 -5775 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. cere'lyn Donald M. Cleland Ann S. Cleland "RFCE{ ED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" 2-5 (0-'1L/-03 ROBERT H. NICHOLSON, JR. 2o6 SOUTH BAY FRONT BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 (626) 448 -6183 . FAX(626)448-5530 June 19, 2003 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 Subject: Ciraulo Variance (PA2003 -067) Dear Council Members: I am requesting that you do not approve Variance No. 2003 -003 on the property at 202 South Bay Front, Balboa Island. This variance deals with a violation of the height limit and is being requested "after the fact." Apparently a portion of their third level was constructed without approval and without a permit. I understand the Planning Commission staff found that none of the four hardship issues required for a variance were met, and for this reason their request for a variance was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission. Variances not approved in advance should not be approved. I am aware that one of the Ciraulo violations, which is not being taken up at this time, is an intrusion by their front wall /deck into the setback area. When I rebuilt my house at 206 South Bay Front in 1995, I had to abide by the building requirements. In fact, I had sought a variance, in advance, for my front wall, but it was not approved. I accepted the City's ruling. The Ciraulo's should also have respected the requirements, rather than ignoring them and flaunting the rules. You must consider what kind of precedent would be set for others requesting variances in the future. The rules should be applied fairly and evenly to everyone. Very truly yours, Zdf,A� iwlt