IRISH BEACH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMITTEE
PO Box 245 Manchester, CA 95459
(707)882-3183
ibiclub.com ibadc@ibiclub.com
MINUTES for July 23, 2005
Open
meeting beginning at 11:00am at the Irish Beach Firehouse, 15401 Forest View
Drive.
CALL
TO ORDER
Chuck
Conner called the meeting to order at 11:15am at the Irish Beach Firehouse,
15401 Forest View Road.
IBADC
members present: Chairman
Chuck Conner, Jim Albert, Nik Epanchin, Gordon Moores and Walt Rush.
Others
in attendance: Richard Ambrifi, Bob Butera, Gene Cady, Glenn Coleman, RJ Dial,
Annette Fromwiller, Roseanna and David Jones, Lawrence Moglia, William Moores,
Tim Murray, Phillip Roberts, Susan Rush, Ron Sackman, Al and Loretta Thompson,
Ron and Julie Trathen, Steve and Suzanne Whitaker, Bettye Winters.
APPROVE
MINUTES:
Chuck
moved to approve the May 21, 2005 minutes.
Nik seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
TREASURER’S REPORT: April 1,
2005-June 30, 2005 The IBADC funds as of April 1,
2005 were $4996.04. Income received
totaled $1925.00, expenses were $4574.99 leaving a balance of $4574.99. Chuck moved to approve the treasurer’s
report. Jim seconded the motion and it
was passed unanimously.
POLICY STATEMENT: The items 1 and 2 below were discussed late in the meeting under
the agenda item “Communications: Trathen” in response to a request for a copy
of the tape of the IBADC meeting of May 21, 2005 and the procedure for
appealing IBADC decisions. Item number
3 was discussed under “New Business: Trathen” and “Communications: Wm.
Moores”.
Copy of meeting tape: Chuck stated that the tape recording of IBADC public meetings is
for the purpose of assisting in preparation of the minutes, not for public
distribution. The recording can be
accessed one of two ways:
1.
An appointment can be made with the Committee’s secretary to listen to
the portion of the tape related to the requestors property and take notes or,
2.
The relevant portion of the tape can be professionally transcribed with
the cost to be paid in advance by the requestor.
Appeals Process: There currently is no appeals process other than the public
meeting and hearing process.
Major Exterior Modification
as a two stage process: The application process for a
Major Exterior Modification is currently described as a one stage process as
opposed to the two stage application process required for a New Home
Construction permit. Chuck stated that
ADC procedures from 2/15/03 are not specific about requiring a 2 stage process
and the Committee believes it is not necessary if there is already an approved
Phase I building envelope. It should
not be assumed that construction within the building envelope will be
approved. The Committee must establish
that the Phase I building envelope is still valid and workable in regard to view
corridors and any other changes in procedure or policy since the original
approval.
TIM MURRAY 4/10 (15441 Forest View Rd.) Phase
II application for New Home Construction permit with a height variance
request. A previous Phase II
application for this project was heard on May 21, 2005. Tim Murray presented the application. Mr. Murray explained that the steeply sloped
lot and septic requirements leave very limited buildable area. The ground floor of the design is 1180ft2
with a 270ft2 loft.
The height of the loft walls are dictated by County building code. Mr. Murray is requesting a 3ft. height
variance. Chuck explained that the
process for a variance request requires a written description of the
hardship(s) involved and the alternatives that have been tried. Gordon noted that it has not been shown that
stepping the foundation has been considered.
He also commented that the exterior looks stark with few break points in
the relief as seen from the north, or street side and that he would like to see
that mitigated. RJ Dial said that the
addition of architectural details to the entryway, garage doors, windows, etc.
could improve the appearance. Tim
explained that the north side windows will be reconfigured to give a better
visual flow and the design of the woodshed will give relief to the north side,
along with other details not shown in the submitted plans. These details will be included in the final
plans. He has turned the loft 90o from
the previous design and argued that this is more subtle than the previous
design (minutes 5/21/05). Suzanne
Whitaker observed that with this house would be third in row of similar height
and that this design fits in the neighborhood better than the previous one. Nik said he has not heard Tim describe other
designs that were rejected or seen the evolution of why this is the only good
design. Chuck stated that it is
important that the Committee follow proper procedure when granting a variance. The variance request(s) should be made with
the application and must discuss in detail the hardships involved and what
mitigation has been done or considered to solve the hardship. If the Committee
approves the Phase II application with the variance request, a letter is sent
to neighbors explaining the Committee’s findings. If no objections are received in writing within 30 days, the
variance in granted and a provisional permit issued. Written objections will trigger an additional hearing. This process ensures that all options have
been considered and provides a clear and documented explanation to the
community of the reasoning behind the decision. Nik explained that the distance of a height variance must be
added to the side yard set back, therefore this application also involves a
side yard variance for both the east and west. Chuck moved to approve the
application in concept pending the receipt of a written variance request for
the height and side yard variances.
Upon receipt, the Committee will send the required variance letter to
neighbors to begin the 30 day comment period. Walt seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-1. Nik
stated that the construction drawings must show the approved building location
and height as well as other details such as the location of outside
lighting. The siding is Hardie board painted
gray and the trim will be a muted, low contrast color. The roof is 40 year shingle in a slate blend
color. The windows will not be white.
TRATHEN 7/26 & 27
(44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost): Application for a Major
Exterior Modification Permit to construct a garage. The Trathens have submitted a letter from the County Planning
Dept. regarding the Coastal Zoning Code. (Minutes-5/21/05) Additional comments have been received from
Dyson. (7/25) Nik Epanchin and Gordon Moores
recused themselves and joined the audience.
The application was postponed at the 5/21/05 meeting because of
questions regarding the proposed 6ft set back from the east property line, lot
25 owned by Brad and Casey Dyson. The
Trathens have argued that because of a creek which runs along the south
property line of lot 25 and the associated 100ft County set back requirement,
the Dysons will not being able to build within 32ft of the proposed
garage/shop. The Committee required
that the Trathens submit either a notarized agreement with the Dysons for the
placement of the garage or a letter from the Mendocino County Planning and
Building Services regarding the ability to get a permit to build within 100ft
of the creek. The Trathens have provided a letter from the County. Chuck said he has spoken at length with
Paula Deeter at County Planning and can clarify some issues from the 5/21/05
meeting.
Dwelling vs. structure: He explained that there had been a discussion
regarding the terms ‘dwelling’ and ‘structure’ and by County definition, a
dwelling is defined by having a kitchen.
The Committee does not consider the distinction to be relevant to this
application.
Set back from property line
and building separation: ADC policy states that when
building next to a vacant lot, an owner must share the 32ft building separation
requirement by maintaining a 16ft set back.
Chuck reported that, based on the criteria outlined by Paula Deeter, the
creek which runs along the south border of lot 25 meets the criteria for an
ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area). According to Ms. Deeter, the County is very strict
regarding the 100ft set back rule and would only consider granting a variance
of up to 50ft if the ADC determined there was no other buildable area on the
lot. The set back is measured from the
end of the vegetation associated with the water, not from the creek bed. The
Committee believes there is other buildable area on lot 25 and concludes that
the Dysons or future owners will not be able to build less than 32ft from the proposed
structure and therefore the building separation criteria has been met.
Commercial use: The Trathens stated at the public meeting of 5/21/05 and in
writing (5/10/05, 6/29/05) that the garage/shop is for personal use and will
not violate CC&R Section 7.10. The
Dysons have requested a permit conditioned with a prohibition against
commercial activity. Chuck read section
7.10 and verified that the Trathens use of the structure will not include
employees, signs, traffic, noxious odors or noise. The Committee will address any legitimate complaints regarding
use as they may arise in the future.
Site plan with 2ft contours: The Dysons have questioned the acceptance of a site plan with 2ft
contours instead of the required 1ft lines.
Chuck stated that ADC procedures allow the use of 2ft contours if that
was used in the approved Phase I site plan.
Two stage application
process: The question is whether a Major Exterior
Improvement application should be heard in a two stage process like that of new
home construction. Chuck stated that
ADC procedures from 2/15/03 are not specific about requiring a 2 stage process
and the Committee believes it is not necessary if there is already an approved
Phase I building envelope. It should
not be assumed that construction within the building envelope will be
approved. The Committee first verifies
that the Phase I building envelope is still valid and workable in regard to
view corridors and any other changes in procedure or policy since the original
approval.
Similar appearance: The Dysons have questioned the architectural similarity of the
garage/shop and the existing house.
Chuck stated that the siding and color is the same and the height and
style are similar to the house. The
Committee determines no exemption has been made to CC&R Section 5.11.
Height: The garage does not exceed the 20ft height limit.
Chuck
stated that if the proposed garage is within the approved building envelope it
is acceptable. Upon review, the
Committee believes the original building envelope is 10ft from the property
line. The proposed 6ft set back
requires a variance. The Trathens
agreed to move the building 4 ft west to bring it within the building envelope. Bill Moores listed 3 objections to the
proposal. 1) He produced copies of
County regulations and argued that a commercial wood shop requires a special
use permit and requested approval conditioned on an agreement to non-commercial
use. 2) He argued that the building
envelope for lot 25 has not been determined and it is possible that the owners
can get as much as a 50ft variance. 3)
He also argued that although the house is within the height limit, the proposed
garage is 4-5ft up slope from the house and will exceed 20ft. He stated that a
1ft contour map should be required as stated in the procedures and as was
required for his application for 7/15.
Chuck reported that in his conversation with the County planner he
learned that they determine a commercial use in much the same way as the
CC&Rs in terms of traffic, signage, employees and noise. A person can have a hobby and sell the end
product without falling under a commercial use designation. Nik clarified that the originally submitted
topographic map for 7/15 was based on an aerial photograph of unknown origin
and date and therefore a new map was required.
Chuck added that the ADC procedures state that in the case of a major
modification, the approved Phase I site plan and topographic map can be used. Bill Moores claimed that there was no
building envelope for the original application because none was required at
that time. A break was taken and the
original site plan for 7/26 was brought out and studied. Chuck explained that the site plan clearly
shows an envelope with 10ft set backs.
The Committee and owners assumed that was the building envelope. It is now concluded that the set backs shown
represent the County setbacks although all the elements are present to
determine the envelope (location of house, septic and setbacks) except a
topographic map with 1ft. contours. In
addition to a corrected topo map, the Committee also requires the Trathens to
agree that, should it ever occur that the owners of lot 25 are limited in where
they can build and must build within 32ft of the proposed garage, the Trathens
will not object. Walt moved to give the
Trathens 15 working days to submit a corrected site plan with 1ft contours and
the building envelope defined per the setbacks shown now (10ft), and a
notarized statement indicating that they will not object to a building separation
of less than 32ft if it is found that the owner of lot 25 has no other options
due to constraints inherent in the lot.
This does not set a precedent because no view corridor issues are
involved. Jim seconded the motion. It was passed 3-0. Nik rejoined the Committee.
WM. MOORES 7/15 (44290
O’Rorey’s’ Roost): Phase I application for New Home
Construction permit. A corrected site
plan and revised drainage statement were received on 6/11/05.
(Minutes-11/20/05) Comments on the
application have been received from Moglia (7/13) and Hemingway-Stock (7/12). Gordon recused himself and remained in the audience. Chuck reviewed the results from the first
Phase I hearing on November 20, 2004 in which Bill Moores was required to meet
four conditions. 1) A topographic map
showing 1ft contours within the building envelope. 2) A letter from the County indicating that it may be possible to
receive a variance to the 20ft backyard set back. 3) An agreement with the neighbor, Moglia (7/13) regarding
drainage and 4) a notarized statement from MCP agreeing to a variance to the
6ft side yard setback on the north property line. The first 2 conditions have been met. A discussion followed regarding drainage onto lot 7/13 in which
Lawrence Moglia stated that he has concerns about the concentrated rain water
from the roof of the proposed house running onto his property and compromising
the integrity of his garage foundation.
He would like to see an engineered drainage system in order to ensure
that his property is protected. Glenn
Coleman, the architect for the project, stated that there is an option to
design a closed system which directs the water collected from the house to an
8ft diameter rock bed dispersion system.
In answer to a question from Lawrence, Mr. Coleman stated it most likely
would be located toward the front of the lot due to the placement of the septic
system. Mr. Coleman said there is also
an option of a French drain that would direct the water to the other side of
Lawrence’s garage. Lawrence agreed that
the rock bed system would probably work but is wary of the French drain
option. He also explained that when the
final system is configured he plans to get the opinion of an engineer. Lawrence and Mr. Coleman agreed to discuss
the issue further. Chuck stated that there appears to be two possible options
and an agreement in concept between Bill Moores and Lawrence on drainage. Lawrence questioned whether the 32ft
building separation was being maintained, followed by an inconclusive
discussion. Chuck asked if Bill would
be able to provide a notarized agreement from MCP within 15 working days to
satisfy condition 4. Gordon Moores, as
an audience member, stated that MCP has rescinded its original agreement to the
side yard variance request and has always opposed granting a variance to the
20ft rear yard set back (west side).
Bill argued against Gordon’s authority to speak for MCP. Chuck stated that at this point the main
issue to be addressed is the building envelope and suggested that variances might
not be needed. He asked if a building
envelope can be shown today without set back variances. Bill requested a
conditional approval pending County approval of the rear yard variance and an
agreement from MCP. Chuck said the
Committee is not prepared to grant a conditional approval for such a large
issue in part because there is protest from neighbors (Stock-Hemingway and MCP)
regarding the proposed set backs. Bill
and Glenn said that the septic system and location Moglia’s garage is driving
the location of the house. Chuck
countered that consideration must be given to how the house can be changed to
fit the set backs before the need for a variance is assumed. Bill argued that even with the back yard
variance a 32ft separation is maintained between his proposed building envelope
Stock-Hemingway’s house and no views are affected, the Committee cannot require
a greater separation. Gordon Moores,
still in the audience, stated that when people buy a lot, they assume the 20ft.
County rear yard set back requirement will be maintained. Nik suggested that moving the house slightly
may remove the need for variances.
Steve Whitaker said that the house was designed 20 years ago and has not
been modified to fit into the space available on the lot. He cited the Tim Murray project (4/10) as an
example of an applicant who was required to design a house to fit a small
space. Nik moved to table the
application until such time as the variances are worked out. Walt seconded the motion and it passed
4-0.
Walt
Rush left the meeting. Gordon Moores
rejoined the Committee.
CONOVER 3/40 (43580 Sea
Cypress Dr.): Phase I application for New
Home Construction permit. Glenn
Coleman presented the application. The
Conover’s were not present. Mr. Coleman
explained that the lots to the east and north are higher in elevation so their
ocean views will not be affected. The
septic system will be on the front, or west portion of the lot and the building
envelope is on the east or back side which allows Dean and Patty Wolfe (3/39)
to retain their ocean view. The
proposed north side yard set back is 6ft from the property line and 34ft from
the Wolfe’s garage. There is a right of
way easement of unknown width which runs east/west on the south side of the
Wolfe’s lot. This easement restricts
their ability to build and they do not object to the Conover’s house placement,
according to Mr. Coleman. The Committee
will need clarification on the width of the easement. Gordon stated that due to the slope of the lot, stepping the foundation
and/or roof lines should also be addressed in Phase II. Gordon said that if the Conovers intend to
make a height variance request in Phase II, a distance equal to the variance
must be added to each side yard set back.
Mr. Coleman stated that neither he nor the Conover’s were aware of that
requirement and concluded that the proposed building envelope will need to be
changed. He indicated the leach field
can be moved west to increase the buildable area. Nik emphasized that applicants should always take the
biggest possible building envelope in Phase I, although most do not. Nik moved to table the application until the
new proposal is submitted. Jim seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.
BUTERA 2/07 (44881
Arena Circle): Phase II application for New Home
Construction permit with height variance request. Chuck Conner announced that he has hired Mr. Butera’s architect,
Phil Roberts, for his own project and unless there is any objection, he will
remain on the Committee to hear the application. Architect Phil Roberts presented the application. He explained that the lot presents a number
of constraints to building including a 12ft slope to a vertical bluff which
drops about 20ft to Highway 1. A
geotechnical engineer has determined that any structural foundation must be no
less than 12ft from the bluff although they can cantilever the building beyond
that point. The septic system was designed by Carl Rittiman to accommodate a
two bedroom house. The leach lines are
located on the west and northwest, or highest part of the lot and the minimum
required set backs have been used.
Water from Arena Circle presently flows onto the lot and needs to be
redirected. Mr. Butera has hired a
drainage engineer who, with the agreement of the neighbor, Ramirez (2/08), has
designed a system whereby a ditch will be dug from an existing culvert that
runs under the driveway of lot 8, south into a drain inlet on Butera’s lot and
then southeast into a second drain inlet, then over the bluff edge for
engineered dispersal on the lower portion of the property. Water from the roofs will be collected into
the same system. A French drain will be
installed between the septic system and Arena Circle to catch subterranean
water and direct it northeast to the drain.
A French drain must be 25ft from leach lines that are down slope,
therefore the portions of the drain that are within the minimum will be solid
pipe. The proposed house will have the
greatest impact on the view from lot 25 (Landsberg) and Mr. Roberts stated that
only part of the Butera house that will be seen is the southwest bump out. No other views are affected because of the
slope. The proposed house is 1767ft2
with a 480ft2 garage and 479ft2 of porch and deck
area. The roof is Elk Prestique 40 year
shingles in Sablewood color. The siding
is Earthscapes Mountain Ash. The
windows will blend with the siding. The
house is placed as far down the slope as possible and part of the house (246ft2)
is cantilevered over the bluff edge.
Because of the lot restrictions, the driveway will have a steep slope of
17%. Chuck asked about the status of
the County septic approval. Mr. Butera
explained that Paula Deeter told him that the County will not issue any permits
for septic or drainage until the entire project is designed and has received
Irish Beach approval. The Committee
agreed that this is not the usual procedure for either the County or the
Committee and requested some type of confirming documentation be obtained from
Craig Rivera in the County Health Department.
The issue of the need for Ramirez to also have a permit for the work
that will have to be done on his lot was discussed but no conclusion was
reached. Mr. Roberts explained that the
required set backs from the septic system and bluff edge leave a remaining area
of 1163ft2 where a cut can be made to step the foundation and
mitigate the height. He argued that
the Buteras do not want a stepped foundation for health reasons and that the
requirement to step the foundation was not disclosed upon sale. The house and garage are placed as far down
the slope of the lot as the set backs will allow and the roof ridge does not
exceed 16ft 8in above ground level. The requirement of the 4:12 roof pitch also
affects the height. The height variance
will not affect the views of neighbors.
Mr. Roberts also said that because it is a downward sloping lot the bulk
appearance of the house will be lessened.
Nik asked if they had explored the possibility of moving the septic to
allow more flexibility. Mr. Butera said
that both Steve Miller and Carl Rittiman indicated the same best location. The elevation on the street side will be
20ft 8.5in. but the visual effect will be less because of the downward slope. Excavation will bring the elevation from
finished grade down 2ft from mean natural grade which will further lessen the
impact. Gordon argued that, although
the lot is difficult, the decision not to step the foundation is really being
driven by the owner’s choice and he is concerned about setting precedent. Chuck argued that the CC&Rs do not
address medical necessity and that he is sympathetic to the realities of an
aging population. Nik concurred but
stated that he would like to see the house adapted to a 3:12 pitch which would
lower the height by 18in. Mr. Butera
expressed serious concern about a low roof pitch facing the southwest, which
could result in water being driven under the shingles by a strong gust in heavy
rain. Mr. Roberts argued that the
aesthetics will suffer with a 3:12 pitch.
It was agreed that two versions will be submitted in PDF format showing
the house and garage with a 3:12 and 3.5:12 pitch. The Committee will then make a final decision. Chuck stated that the Buteras need to make a
written variance request stating the arguments that were laid out today. Nik
said they must also address the issue of not increasing the east set back of
6ft by an amount equal to the height variance.
Nik moved to conceptually approve the project. The applicant will submit 2 variants based on roof pitches and a
written variance request within 15 working days. Jim seconded and the motion was approved 4-0.
CONNER 1/063 (44000
Noyo Way): Application for Major
Exterior Improvement permit to construct an addition with a height variance
request. Chuck recused himself and
joined the audience and Nik took over as chairman. A letter was received from Beran (1/062) requesting that Conner
maintain a 16ft (sic) setback from their shared property line in order that
Beran retains the option to expand in the future. (The required building
separation in unit 1 is 28ft; therefore a shared setback is 14ft.) Architect Phil Roberts presented the
application. Mr. Roberts explained that
the current house will be reconfigured and expanded to the north and west in
two stages to increase the floor space from 1393ft2 to 2435.7ft2. The existing driveway and decks will be
retained and the finished floor height will remain the same at 3ft. above
grade. The design includes a
basement, which may or may not be built, pending the outcome of soil tests and
County permits. The presence or absence of the basement will not affect the
footprint of the house. They believe
the current roof pitch is 3:12 and the plan calls for a 4:12 pitch which raises
the height and a variance of 1ft. 9.5in. is requested. There is a building separation of 28ft
from the home of the north neighbor, Beran (1/062). No views are affected.
There is no prior building envelope therefore one must be established
now. Nik stated that the envelope on
the west side is obviously the line created by the existing structure but the
north envelope boundary must be established.
The Berans have made a written objection to the Conners proposed north
set back of 6ft and request that the required 28ft separation be shared. Mr. Conner argued that the Berans’ septic
tank is located about 8ft from the house, which limits their ability to expand
south by no more than 4ft. After
discussion, Nik stated that a setback of less than 14ft requires a variance and
letter of agreement from the affected neighbor. In this case the latter will be difficult. Since the location of the septic tanks and
lines directly affect the building envelope, it was agreed that a site visit
was required to try to determine their exact location. In addition, Gordon questioned the accuracy
of the site plan to the actual location of the house. It was agreed that, while it is possible the Berans could move
the septic system in the future, the building envelopes for both lots must be
based on what exists currently. Mr.
Conner argued that the proposal still allows Berans to expand about 4ft south and
maintain the required 28ft separation.
Nik asked why a height variance was being requested. Chuck stated that the existing foundation is
3ft above grade and the cost of tearing out the floor and redoing the
foundation is prohibitive and a hardship.
Mr. Roberts stated that the increased height is in part a function of
raising the roof pitch from the existing 3:12 to 4:12. He showed the Committee a rendition of the
design with a 3:12 pitch and argued that it has a very suburban, “ranchy” look
and that would not fit in Irish Beach and that the 4:12 pitch has a more
interesting look. The Committee
agreed. Since it was 4:45pm and only 5
people remained in attendance, it was decided to close the firehouse, make the
site visit and finish the rest of the Agenda at the Conners’ house. Prior to the site visit, the Committee
addressed Mr. Sackman’s (7/14) application for Minor Construction of his septic
field (see “Communications” on page 7). The site visit was made. The Committee took measurements of the actual
distances between the Berans’ home and their south property line and found them
to be greater than indicated in the Berans’ original site plan. As a result, the distance between the
Berans’ house and the closest point of the Conner’s proposed expansion is 38ft,
which allows room for the Berans to expand south and west. The Conners are restricted from expanding in
other directions because of septic and County set backs. Gordon moved to approve the application
based on the Berens’ ability to expand 10ft west and 10ft south whereas the
Conners have no other options. The
Conners must submit a formal variance request within 15 working days. Nik moved to amend Gordon’s motion by
striking the words “10ft west and 10ft south” and replacing with “sufficiently”. Gordon seconded Nik’s amendment. Nik seconded the amended motion, which
passed 3-0. The Conners will submit a
sample of the stain color when it is chosen.
COMMUNICATIONS:
RAPELJE 1/003 (15400 S. Hwy. 1): 6/4/05 Receipt of corrected and signed Phase II site plan. (See
Minutes 5/21/05). The
Rapelje’s have been issued Provisional Permit number 0605-1003 following the
receipt of the corrected site plan and the 30 day variance comment period. The one year permit has an issue date of
June 26, 2005.
GORDON MOORES 1/95:
5/19/05 Receipt of revised
plans for approved minor exterior improvement project for the office deck and
stairs. A letter of objection was
received from Bill Moores. The
Committee has approved Gordon Moores’ revision and has responded to Bill
Moore’s objection. The IBADC retains
the authority to approve minor revisions to approved applications without an
additional public hearing.
DROLET 1/107 (15225 Irish Beach Dr.) 6/13/05 & 7/7/05
Receipt of letters verifying location of foundation and structure height
conform to the approved Phase II plans.
MOREALI 2/12 (44801 Pomo Lake Dr.) 6/14/05 Notification of
change in roofing materials. The originally selected materials are no
longer available and will be substituted with Elk 40 Year Prestique High
Definition in Sablewood color.
SCHEAFFER 2/21 (44641 Pomo Lake Dr.) 6/27/05 Receipt of Phase
I application for New Home Construction permit. The Scheaffers subsequently withdrew their application.
KUCALA 2/47 (14950 Mallo Pass Dr.): 6/6/05 ADC letter
requesting advisement of progress on deck remodel. (See minutes of Sept. 18,
2004). Mr. Kucala has replied stating
he will submit the plans. Bill
Moores has protested the lack of progress on the deck and that request that the
work be performed within 45 days of issuance of the permit. The Committee thinks that Mr. Kucala is
currently on an extended vacation. A
second letter will be sent requesting that the deck revision plans be submitted
30 days after his return and a date given for completion of the project.
TRUJILLO 3/1 (14780 Cypress Point Road): 6/1/05 ADC letter
requesting verification of building height and location. A second letter will be sent requesting a
response within 15 working days.
CHIRCO 3/7 (14700 Cypress Point Road): 6/8/05 Receipt of letter
of concern about drainage from 3/8 (Ross). Nik explained that Ms. Chirco is concerned
that a small berm constructed between her shared property line with lot 8 to
the east, should be extended to the street to prevent flooding onto her
lot. Nik explained that the berm was
constructed to attempt to stop sheet flow.
In his opinion, flooding onto the Chirco lot is a problem which can only
be solved by County action to improve the ditch on Cypress Point Road. A letter will be sent to Ms. Chirco
suggesting she contact the County to address the ditch and drainage problem in
that area and explaining that the berm was constructed only to stop sheet flow
onto her lot.
BRIDGER 3/63 (43701 Sea Cypress Drive): 3/19/05 Receipt of permit
extension fee. Permit number 0404-0363
now expires on April 16, 2006.
PASQUALETTI 4/17 (15575 Forest View Rd.) 7/1 Notification of
intent to landscape.
BEAN 4/20 (15621 Forest
View Dr.): 6/4/05 Receipt of fee for an after the fact
Minor Exterior Improvement permit for the installation of the septic
system. (Minutes-10/16/04). Receipt of signed site plan.
(Minutes-5/21/05) Receipt of final
construction drawings. (7/22/05) Mr. Bean will be issued New
Home Construction permit number 0505-0420 with an issue date of May 21, 2005
and expiration date of May 20, 2006.
This will be done if and when Mr. Bean will correct the remainng
technical errors in his submittal. Nik
volunteered to accomplish this with Mr. Bean tomorrow.
EPANCHIN 4/35 (15721
Forest View Dr.): 6/27/05
Notification of change to wood shed plans. Mr. Epanchin will add a wood shed to his garage instead of
converting the propane tank enclosure.
MORTON 4/42 (15851
Forest View Rd.): 6/20/05 & 7/7/05 Notification of a delay in driveway paving
due to rain and a second delay because of planned trenching by SBC. All other exterior construction is complete.
LAGERGREN 4/53 (15300
Forest View Rd): 6/1/05
ADC letter requesting verification of building height and location and
return of signed construction permit. (See “Unfinished Business”). A second letter will be
sent requesting a response within 15 working days.
HARLEY 4/63 (15550
Forest View Drive): 5/28/05 Receipt of County septic permit.
HARLEY 4/63 (15550
Forest View Drive): 6/18/05 Receipt of Phase II application for
New Home Construction permit. The
application will be heard at the September 17, 2005 meeting.
FRAME 7/06 (44550 Pomo Lake Drive): 5/28/05 Notification of intent to landscape.
O’GRADY 7/09 (44520 O’Rorey’s Place): 7/7/05 Notification of
intent to paint and/or stain.
SACKMAN 7/14 (44280 O’Rorey’s Roost): 7/16/05 Receipt of fee for a Minor Exterior Permit for the
installation of a septic system. The
Committee explained to Mr. Sackman that the septic layout and permit should be
part of a Phase I application because the location of the septic system affects
the location of the building envelope.
Mr. Sackman agreed to withdraw the Minor Improvement application and
instead submit a Phase I application for New Home Construction.
TRATHEN 7/26 & 27
(44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost): 6/22/05 Request for appeal process procedures and
copy of tape of the 5/21/05 meeting. A
second request was received on 7/2/05. See “Policy Statement” above.
WM. MOORES:
6/6/05 Receipt of letter arguing
that a Major Exterior Modification permit requires a two stage hearing per
CC&R Section 4.3(a). See “Policy Statement” above.
PAOLI:
6/13/05 Receipt of letter from Mr. Paoli’s attorney demanding that the
Committee reverse its decision regarding Paoli’s ability to design homes in
Irish Beach. The attorney originally consulted by the
IBADC has indicated he cannot take additional work at this time and other legal
counsel will be sought.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
LANDSBERG 2/25 (44860
Arena Circle): Minor Exterior Improvement application for a
propane tank enclosure. A letter will be sent approving
the location of the enclosure behind the existing brush.
TRATHEN 7/26 & 27
(44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost): Issue of
non-permitted fence. A second
letter will be sent requesting the application and $50 fee for the fence within
15 working days.
MCP:
Receipt of letter advising the Committee of installation of a French
drain in unit 7 lot 10 without a permit.
MCP requests that the owner, Wm. Moores, dismantled the drain.
LAGERGREN 4/53 (15300
Forest View Rd): Issue of absence of letter verifying the
position and height of the house. A
second letter will be sent requesting a response within 15 working days.
MORTON 4/42 (15851
Forest View Rd): Issue of absence of letter verifying the
height of the structure. A
second letter will be sent requesting a response within 15 working days.
PACKER 4/67 (15640 Forest View Rd): Issue of
absence of letter requesting extension due to National Guard Duty and no letter
verifying height of structure.
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 7:20PM.
Gordon seconded and the motion passed with no opposition.
Minutes submitted by Jean
Selk