IRISH BEACH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMITTEE

PO Box 245 Manchester, CA 95459

www.ibiclub.com  * ibadc@ibiclub.com

MINUTES for MARCH 19th, 2005

 

 

      Open meeting beginning at 11:00AM at the Irish Beach Firehouse, 15401 Forest View Drive.

 

CALL TO ORDER: 

 

The meeting was called to order at 11:10AM.

 

IBADC Board members present:  Chairman Chuck Conners, Directors Nik Epanchin, Gordon Moores and Walt Rush.  Jim Albert was absent.

 

Others in attendance:  Alex & Cathy Corey, Nancy Epanchin, Vera-Lee Kaiser, Debra Lennox, Tim Murray, Gregg Orlik, David Paoli, Susan Rush, Glenn Coleman and Bettye Winters.

 

APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 19, 2005 MINUTES

 

      Nik moved to approve the February minutes.  Gordon seconded and the motion passed 3-0 with Walt Rush abstaining.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

COREY 3/10:  (14640 Cypress Point Road):  Phase II application for new home construction permit with setback variance request.  The Coreys submitted revised plans on 2/26/05 and on 3/16/05, neither have been mailed out to neighbors.  ADC has received a letter from Orlik (3/09) objecting to the variance request.  Chuck explained that the Coreys had submitted two revised Phase II applications with significant changes from the original.  Each was received too late to allow for the required 4 week review by neighbors, therefore an approval cannot be made at this meeting.  Only minor changes to an application, such as moving a window or a change in color, are accepted up to 4 days prior to a meeting.  Major changes are considered as a new submittal requiring a mailing.  The New Home Construction Guidelines will be clarified.  A review of the application went forward.  Alex Corey presented the second revision plans and explained the changes.  The ridgeline now runs north-south instead of east-west, the house has been raised by 1ft to facilitate the septic system, the eaves are reduced from 1.5ft to 1ft, an aluminum rail is added to the north deck, decking has been added to the south and west sides, and the entry way has been reconfigured.  The proposed house is 1530ft 2 with two bedrooms, an office and detached garage.  The house on 3/09, to the west, is setback 10ft from the shared property line and the Coreys’ proposed home is setback 19’-6” resulting in a 29’-6” eave to eave building separation instead of the required 32ft.  The Corey’s are seeking a building separation variance of 2’‑6”.  In addition, the bedroom located in the southwest corner extends out an additional 1.5ft, reducing the eave to eave separation to 28ft at that point.  Mr. Corey argued that the steep slope and septic system requirements limit his buildable area and without this bedroom, the house would be a 1200sqft rectangle.  Gregg Orlik and Howard Fuller (3/09) have objected in writing to the building separation variance because it restricts their ability to expand their small house and/or build a garage.  Mr. Orlik also objects to the 6ft garage setback and its entry from the south.  Chuck emphasized that because the Coreys are applying for a variance they must first seek to reach an agreement with the affected neighbor and must demonstrate the hardship(s), which justify it.  It must be shown that all options to build a reasonable house without a variance have been exhausted.  ADC suggested that the garage be removed or moved east with the entry from the east or southeast and that the bedroom bump out be removed and the bedroom extended to the south.  Any setback variance will effect future construction on 3/9 because the 32ft building separation must be maintained.  Gordon Moores pointed out that the 3/9 dwelling was built prior to 1998 and complied with CC&Rs in effect at that time.  The plans call for a flat roofed garage, which ADC feels, does not fit in with the surroundings and recommends a low pitch roof instead.  A flat roof always requires a variance. Mr. Corey agreed that he will try to reach an agreement with his neighbor and to consider the Committee’s suggestions.  He was reminded that the revised plans must be received no later than April 16 for the required mailing and to be placed on the agenda for the May 21 meeting.  If a variance is requested and granted, an additional letter will be mailed to neighbors with a 30-day comment period.

 

TIM MURRAY 4/10 (15441 Forest View Rd.)  Phase I application for new home construction permit.  Mr. Murray prepared this application himself with the aid of an architect and his Phase II application is prepared and stamped by a licensed architect.  It became apparent that there was a misunderstanding and miscommunication about ADC’s oral request of Mr. Murray for a letter from his architect stating he/she had reviewed and approved of the Phase I application.  The Committee was reluctant to hear the application without the letter.  Mr. Murray protested and presented the February 21, 2005 letter from the Committee stating that his application would be heard and his Phase II application would have to be prepared by an architect.  Nik suggested that the Committee hear Tim Murray’s Phase I pending receipt of a letter from Tim’s architect.  Gordon moved that Mr. Murray’s Phase I application be heard today because 1) of confusion about ADC’s request, 2) an architect was involved in the preparation and has prepared Phase II and 3) approval is conditional pending receipt of the architect’s letter.  Nik amended the motion to say the architect must specifically state that he/she has reviewed and approved of the Phase I application.  Chuck added a second amendment that review of the Phase II application will not begin until the letter is received.  Nik seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.  The Committee wants to be clear that this does not set precedence and applications for home construction and major improvement permits must be prepared by a licensed architect or professional architectural designer as defined by the Committee at the February 2005 meeting.

Mr. Murray presented his application.  He explained that the buildable area of the lot is severely restricted by topography and septic system requirements.  Due to the limited choices, he is requesting a set back variance of 8ft from his western neighbor, Whitaker (4/12).  The Whitaker’s have written the Committee stating they do not object to this application of the set back rules.  Nik explained that since the 32ft separation is maintained, 24ft on the Whitakers’ side and 8ft on Murray’s, a setback variance is not needed.  The Whitaker’s have a height variance for their home and normally the amount of that variance would have to be added to the separation requirement.  In this case, however, the Whitaker’s merged two lots, the portion of the house with the height variance is on their original western lot or far side from 4/10, and therefore additional building separation should be waived and  not required.  Gordon pointed out that if Mr. Murray seeks to build above the 20ft limit, he will have to apply for height and separation variances and will need to demonstrate hardship.  In response to a question from Nik, Mr. Murray stated he would to do minimum excavation.  Nik moved to approve the Phase I application based on this discussion.  Walt seconded and the motion passed 4-0.

 

HARLEY 4/63 (15550 Forest View Drive):   Phase I application for new home construction permit.  ADC has received correspondence from DeCaminada (4/62) expressing concern about view corridor preservation.  See “David Paoli” under Communications.

 

COMMUNICATIONS:

 

HEMMENWAY-LADEROUTE 4/03 (15301 Forest View Dr.):   2/24/05   ADC letter advising neighbors of variance requests as required by CC&R Section 4.6.  No comments or objections to the variance requests have been received to date.  Nik clarified that ADC intends to approve a 12ft setback from the southern property line (4/04) instead of 19’-10” which is the sum of the standard 16ft setback plus the approved height variance of 3’‑10”.

 

MOGLIA 7/13 (44515 O’Rorey’s Roost):  2/25/05 Receipt of two emails regarding building separation and the proposed building project on 7/15 (Wm. Moores) and drainage from 7/15 onto 7/13.  Mr. Moglia has indicated in a letter that he is willing to work with Wm. Moores on the issue.  The Committee has responded in writing to Mr. Moglia’s building separation concerns by reiterating the separation and set back policies that have been established and clarified at recent public meetings.

 

LANDSBERG 2/25 (44860 Arena Circle):  2/25/05 Receipt of application for minor exterior improvement permit to install a propane tank enclosure and request for a March hearing.  Margaret Ballou, who is acting as the Landsberg’s agent, submitted the application.  The application will be heard in May.  A temporary propane tank is being used until then. 

 

DAVID PAOLI:  3/2/05   Mr. Paoli submitted a portfolio of homes he has designed and seen to completion for the Board’s review.  See minutes of 2/19/05 “Unfinished Business: Harley”:   All Committee members with the exception of Nik Epanchin have reviewed Mr. Paoli’s portfolio.  At the January 2005 meeting, the Committee resolved to define a professional architectural designer (PAD) as an individual who has developed a portfolio and has derived income from the design and completion of at least five homes.  Mr. Paoli was asked to present his argument of qualification as a professional architectural designer.  Mr. Paoli stated that he had submitted the required five plans of homes and remodels he had designed and explained that the typical design process he follows as a representative of Lindal Cedar Homes.  The initial home design is done locally and sent to Lindal Cedar Homes for the detail design work.  The project continues to be modified locally and worked up by LCH until the final design is reached.  He develops the design with the clients input and draftsmen works under his direction, similar to the way an architect’s office typically functions.  Chuck stated that the portfolio did not give him the sense that Mr. Paoli had actually designed the homes as the criteria requires.  Overseeing projects in itself does not meet the Committee’s definition of a PAD.  Gordon stated that the Committee was clear in the last meeting that they are looking for five home designs, not remodels or adaptations, as have been submitted.  Gordon talked with the owner of Victorian Gardens about one of the portfolio items, and was told that the design originated with the owner, and had been drawn up by a draftsman.  Mr. Paoli was hired for the septic system and structural design.  Nik stated that there might be a definition misunderstanding between the Board and Dave Paoli.  Per CC&Rs, this Committee is strictly responsible for the exterior aesthetics of dwellings, view corridors, setbacks, building separations, and how the structures fit into the Irish Beach environment.  It does not care about structural integrity, interior layouts and designs.  Dave interjected: “you should be”.  Nik responded that that is the County’s responsibility and that the Board would like to know if he conceptualized the exteriors of the examples in his portfolio, demonstrating that he took the customers’ concepts and worked to complete the final exterior design that was eventually built  Mr. Paoli replied that clients usually arrive with a concept and he works with them to developed it.  He argued that while he does not do the detail design work, he does the calculations, oversees the work, stamps the drawings, receives income, and is responsibility and liable for it.  Chuck explained that the Committee must consider both design and how it fits into the landscape and that Mr. Paoli’s portfolio does not meet the criteria for a PAD as defined by the Committee at the last meeting.  The Committee’s definition of a professional architectural designer and its authority to define the term is based on the advice of legal counsel, as described in the February minutes.  In order for the Harley project to move forward, the plans must be reviewed and signed by an architect or accepted PAD before the application will be heard.  Walt Rush moved to postpone a decision until Nik had reviewed Mr. Paoli’s portfolio.  The motion was not seconded.  Chuck moved that the Committee vote to accept or reject Mr. Paoli as a professional architectural designer in Irish Beach.  Gordon seconded the motion.  Mr. Paoli was not accepted by a vote of 2-0 with Walt Rush abstaining.  Nik Epanchin recused himself.  Mr. Paoli stated that he intends to look into legal action against the Committee. 

 

AMERIGIAN 4/45:  3/8/05   Receipt of email message delivered via Ron Trathen asking about the status of their permit extension.  In January of 1999, the Amerigians were issued a Major Exterior Improvement permit and an extension was issued in January of 2002.  The Amerigians requested another extension in April of 2004.  ADC requested a new submittal because the design of the project had changed from the original application.  A new submittal was not received.  Permits for Major Exterior Improvements are good for 18 months with a one-time extension of 3 months allowed.  The Amerigian’s application has expired and a new one must be submitted in order to proceed with the project.

 

ISSUES FROM THE FLOOR

 

Tree Removal in Irish Beach:  Susan Rush, as IBIC Director, stated that she had written a letter to the Committee several months ago regarding tree and vegetation removal. The letter was the result of a discussion at the November IBIC meeting.  She stated that Irish Beach has unique ecological situations including exclusionary zones and possibly wetlands and buyers should be aware of these.  Tree and vegetation removal do not require ADC approval and it is often done before a Phase I application is made.  Nik said that most often sites are cleared well before Phase I applications are heard.  Nik recalled that in the past, new owners received a welcome packet which would be a very logical place to include regulations for tree and vegetation removal.  He also suggested indicating unique areas, exclusionary zones and wetlands in Irish Beach on a subdivision map and distributing it to local real estate agents to pass on to clients.

 

Debra Lennox:  Ms. Lennox stated that she is preparing to submit the Phase II application for her client, Mark Rapelje (1/003) and she wants to ensure that the portions of the application previously approved are still valid.  Gordon confirmed that a height of 19’-6” above the mean natural grade had been approved and the Phase I approval was still good.  The house design may include a flat roof deck, which requires a variance application.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

The following agenda items were not addressed:

 

BUCKE 4/18 (15601 Forest View Drive):  Issue of whether or not an after the fact permit extension is required.

 

FROMWILLER 4/68 (15700 Forest View Road):  12/20/04   Notification from Ms. Fromwiller that the installation of her propane tank, woodshed and fencing was completed on 10/9/04 and request for closure of her permit.

 

HUNOLT 7/11 (44500 O’Rorey’s Place):   No reply has been received to ADC letter of 9/18/04 regarding excavation on property.

 

 

 

Nik moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:30PM.  Walt seconded and the motion passed unopposed.

 

The next meeting will be held on May 21, 2005 beginning at 11:00AM at the Irish Beach Firehouse located at 15401 Forest View Drive in Irish Beach.

 

 

Minutes submitted by Jean Selk