IRISH BEACH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMITTEE

PO Box 245 Manchester, CA 95459

(707) 882-3183   ibadc@ibiclub.com    ibiclub.com

MINUTES for November 19, 2005

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Chuck Conner called the meeting to order at 11:10am.

 

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

 

Others in attendance:  Robert Butera, Ruth and Gene Cady, Glenn Coleman, Milli and Doug Conover, Kelley Dolan, Shannon Dolan, Annette Fromwiller, Marsha and Dan Moore, William Moores, George and Betsy Munson, Judy Murray, Tom Reidenbach, Phil Roberts, Al and Loretta Thompson, Bettye Winters, Dean and Patty Wolfe.

 

APPROVE MINUTES:

 

Approve minutes of October 1, 2005:  Nik stated there is a correction under “New Business-Wm. Moores 7/15”.  The sentence, “Bill confirmed that he intends to tight line water run off from the structure to the existing County drainage system”, should read, “Bill confirmed he intends to disperse the water on site.”  Nik moved to approve the October 1, 2005 minutes as corrected.  Jim seconded and the motion passed 3-0 with Chuck abstaining.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

MURRAY 2/64 (15061 Mallo Pass Dr.):  Application for a Major Exterior Modification permit to construct an addition.  One comment was received from William Moores requesting that the propane tank enclosure be moved closer to the existing septic tank.  Judy Murray presented the application.  She explained that the proposed addition to her house provides a one car garage with additional living space above.  The proposed addition will extend 14ft west of the existing structure and the floor height of the additional living space will be the same as the existing.  The addition will be 17ft 11inches from mean natural grade, or 1ft 11 inches over the 16ft height limit for unit 2.  However, the addition would be lower than the roof ridge of the existing structure which is 18ft 8inches.  An earlier proposal called for altering the seasonal stream on the south side of the property.  This idea has been abandon and instead, the existing culvert may be moved or a foot bridge installed.  Ms. Murray agreed that the property had not been staked 2 weeks before the meeting, showing building perimeter and height.  Chuck stated that the Committee has visited the site and found there is a possible impact from lots in unit 5 that have a view corridor between the subject lot and Darling (2/63) to the north and the story poles are needed to allow neighbors and Committee members to assess the impact.  Chuck explained that the Committee has learned that the current County map shows a 40ft utility easement along the east side of the lot which may be in error.  Normally, that easement would be shared equally by the 2 affected lots with a 20ft easement on each side of the property line.  If the County map is indeed inaccurate, the property owner may be able to have it corrected by the County and potentially gain an additional 20ft of building area on the east side of house.  This is a matter between the property owner and the County.  Additionally, the Ms. Murray may want to contact the County and determine if the additional living area will have any affect on the County septic requirements and permit.  This is intended as informational only.  The ADC has no issue with the existing septic system and understands that the additional living area does not include a bedroom or bathroom.  Nik stated that Bill Moores had submitted a comment requesting that the fuel tank be moved closer to the house so as not to affect views from the northeast and Ms. Murray agreed.  Nik further explained that the proposed height variance requires an additional 30 day comment period if approved, that the 1’-11” height variance must be added to the north and south 16 ft building envelope setbacks, and that Ms Murray must express in writing the hardships she encounters which lead to the variance requests.  Nik also said that Gordon Moores (owner of 5/01) has orally voiced an objection regarding the reduction of his ocean view corridor and that he will do so formally in writing.  Chuck explained that if she decides to change the location of the addition to the east side of the house, the new drawings would have to be submitted 5 weeks prior to a scheduled meeting and a new mailing sent to neighbors.  If there is no change in location and the story poles are placed to clearly show the perimeter and height, the application can be put on the January agenda for further review. 


 

REIDENBACH 4/27 (15671 Forest View Dr.):  Application for a Minor Exterior Improvement to install a hot tub.  No comments have been received.  Nik moved to approve the application as submitted.  Jim seconded and the motion passed 4-0.

 

RODRIGUEZ  2/52 (14951 Mallo Pass Dr.):  Phase I application for a New Home Construction permit.  A comment was received from Cady (2/53) expressing concern about drainage onto his lot.  One comment from Kucala (2/47) was received expressing concern about drainage and the 32ft building separation.  Architect Glenn Coleman presented the application.  He explained that the septic system is on the east side of the lot.  The minimum setback of 14ft from the vacant lot to the north (2/51) is maintained as is the 28ft building separation with the existing house to the south (Cady 2/53).  The minimum building separation is 28ft in units 1 and 2  and 32ft in all other units.  (CC&R 5.3(b))  The northwest corner of the potential building envelope is reduced to preserve the ocean view from lot 51.  It was clarified that the building separation is measured from eave to eave.  (See minutes of January 15 and February 19, 2005).  Water from the gutter system will be directed to the County ditch.  Chuck stated his preference that the water be dispersed on the lot and Mr. Coleman replied he is considering installing an 18inch gravel bed trench around the house that would contain a perforated pipe for dispersal on site.  Gene Cady (2/53) stated that the lot naturally slopes north to south and they are concerned about grading and water flowing back on to their lot.  Ruth Cady stated that she liked the idea of a gravel bed.  Chuck concurred.  Nik explained that the final drainage plan can be written up in Phase II.  The Committee found that Kucala’s concern about drainage onto the west side of Mallo Pass Road is an unlikely problem because the road is higher than the lot.  Nik moved to approve the application.  Jim seconded and the motion passed 4-0. 

 

CONOVER 3/40 (43580 Sea Cypress Dr.):  Phase II application for a New Home Construction permit.  Architect Glenn Coleman presented the application.  Mr. Coleman explained that the property is bordered by a hill to the east, a lower elevation meadow to the east, the Wolfe residence to the north and a vacant lot to the south.  The proposed house is oriented to the southwest for the best views.  The height is 19ft 10inches above mean natural grade.  The siding will be gray/brown redwood or cedar with either no trim or the same as the siding.  The windows will not be white.  The roof is black asphalt 40 year shingles.  Wood and garbage storage will be in the garage.  The Conovers understand that any future enclosure(s) will require an additional permit.  Mr. Coleman explained that water from the house will be directed to a perforated pipe and then to the County ditch.  Nik explained that the drainage plan should be shown on the final drawings.  It was clarified that all parts of the building, including the eaves, will be within the approved building envelope.  Nik stated that all exterior lighting must be downcast and shielded.  A provisional permit is not a final construction permit.  A final permit is issued when final construction drawings relating to the foundation location, building height and exterior appearance, signed and dated by the property owner(s), are received, reviewed and approved by the Committee.  Nik further explained that the applicants are responsible for providing the Committee with the name, address and phone number of a contact person for the project.  Before pouring concrete, the Committee must receive written verification that the foundation location conforms to the approved Phase II application.  Before the top plates are placed, the Committee must receive written verification that the building height conforms to the approved Phase II application.  The verifications must be made by an appropriately credentialed professional.  Doug Conover then explained that the amount of excavation required with the current plan has led him to reconsider applying for a height variance.  He asked if the Committee would consider granting a 2ft height variance without adjusting the south side yard set back by the same distance, from the current 16ft to 18ft.  He explained that instead of excavating, the existing plan would be raised 2ft.  Nik explained that a variance requires that a hardship be shown for the height and the south side yard set back.  The Conovers could also seek an agreement from their south neighbor to the 2ft set back variance, in writing and notarized.  Gordon stated that there is no view issue with the additional height but that the south set back issue has not been considered.  The Conovers asked if it is possible to receive approval for this application as presented, and revert to it without an additional hearing if a variance is denied.  After discussion, Nik moved to vote on the application today.  Gordon seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.  Nik then moved to approve the Phase II application as presented.  Gordon seconded the motion and it passed 3-1.   Nik explained that any substantial changes to the approved plans require the submittal of a new Phase II worksheet and drawings at least 5 weeks prior to a scheduled meeting in order to be mailed to neighbors and placed on the agenda.  The previously discussed drainage plan must also be submitted.


 

COMMUNICATIONS:

 

EPANCHIN 4/35 (15721 Forest View Dr.): 10/12/05  Receipt of letter regarding ADC position on Professional Architectural Designers.  Chuck Conner requested Nik Epanchin to state the intent of his letter to the ADC.  Nik stated that “As an ADC member, I am completely against the current ADC policy regarding professional architectural designers (PADs).  I believe that professional civil engineers should enjoy the same status as professional architects and be allowed to design projects at Irish Beach without any further ADC scrutiny.  The ADC should stick to following Article IV, Section 4.1 of CC&Rs ‘The purpose of the Committee shall be to regulate and control the exterior architecture and design within the community in such a way as to maintain the value and desirability of the Properties for the benefit of all Owners.’  I further think that what I have stated for professional civil engineers should apply to all designers.”

 

BUTERA 2/07 (44881 Arena Circle):  11/2/05-11/8/05 Receipt of 1 letter and 2 emails from Ramirez and Dolan (2/08) objecting to the approved height variance.  (See minutes July 23, 2005)  Shannon and Kelley Dolan, brother and sister and owners of 2/08, were present and stated their concern about the effect of the height variance on the ocean view from their home and about the effect of construction and related drainage on their property.  Kelley Dolan acknowledged that she had received the application and variance request and had not responded within the 30 day comment period.  Shannon Dolan, who lives at a different address, did not receive an application or variance request notification.  It was agreed that a site visit would be made after the remaining agenda items were addressed. 

At the Dolan/Ramirez residence (44861 Arena Circle):  With the property owners present, the Committee and audience members observed that, from the northern most corner of the dining room, a portion of the view looking west and down to the beach and rock will be impacted.  Views to the south and west in the remaining living area are not affected.  Shannon Dolan explained that erosion may eventually force the relocation of the existing south deck to the west side of the house, which would then be adversely effected by the Butera proposal.  Chuck explained that the Committee cannot make a decision based on what a property owner might do in the future.  Nik explained that the Buteras have lowered the roof pitch to mitigate the height and the house will be 15inches lower than the story poles indicate.  Robert Butera and Phil Roberts, his architect, explained the drainage plan in detail as presented and approved at the July 23, 2005 meeting.  Mr. Butera indicated he is now prepared to revert to the original drainage plan which does not involve improvements on lot 8.  Any such change to the approved plan will be reflected on the final construction drawings.  After further discussion the Committee concluded that the Butera house, as approved, will not have a substantial effect on the ocean view from the Dolan/Ramirez house.  Chuck explained that, lacking any indication of negligence by the Committee or misrepresentation by the Buteras, he can find no grounds on which to rehear the application.  The Committee explained that its jurisdiction over drainage issues is limited and any further concerns should be addressed to the County and/or Caltrans.  At this point the Buteras do not have a provisional permit because the County will not issue the septic permit until the entire project has been approved.  Nik asked why, although this is an unusual situation, the ADC cannot approve a provisional permit for Butera at this time.  After a short discussion Nik moved to issue a provisional permit which becomes final when a Coastal Development Permit is approved, including the septic permit and drainage plan.  Gordon seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. 

 

KUCALA 2/47 (14950 Mallo Pass Dr.):  11/8/05  Receipt of letter from William Moores requesting the Committee seek remedy regarding the non-permitted deck in small claims court.  (See minutes of Sept. 18, 2004).  The Committee has sent a second written request to Mr. Kucala requesting his plans to bring his deck into compliance.  A return receipt was received.

 

COREY 3/10:  (14640 Cypress Point Road):  11/5/05  Receipt of written verification from Virgil Knoche Construction that the building height conforms to the approved Phase II plans. 

 

TIM MURRAY 4/10 (15441 Forest View Rd.);  10/27/05  Notification of a minor change to the construction plans and receipt of revised drawings.

 

TIM MURRAY 4/10 (15441 Forest View Rd.)  11/7/05   Receipt of written verification from Forrest Francis, surveyor, that the foundation location has been established.   ADC policy requires verification that the location foundation forms comply with the approved application. 

 

EPANCHIN 4/35 (15721 Forest View Dr.):  10/8/05 Notification of completion of construction on permit 0704-0435 on October 3, 2005.

 

MOULTHROP 4/60 (15470 Forest View Dr.):  10/24/05  Receipt of notification of intent to replace the roof with Elk Prestique 40 year composite shingle in Sablewood color, repaint the house in medium gray with light gray trim and a dark gray door and accent areas, and move the location of the front door and south facing windows.  The Committee approves the proposed changes with the exception of the very dark gray door and “accent” areas, which is considered to contrast too greatly with the other colors.

 

PACKER 4/67 (15640  Forest View Rd):  10/6/05 Receipt of written verification from Ron Packer that the building height conforms to the approved Phase II plans.

 

WM. MOORES 7/15 (44290 O’Rorey’s’ Roost):   11/8/05  Receipt of email from Moglia (7/13) objecting to conflicting statements in the minutes of 7/23/05 and 10/1/05 regarding the proposed drainage system on lot 15.   This item was addressed with the correction to the minutes of October 1, 2005. (See above)

 

GMEINER 7/23 (44370 O’Rorey’s Roost:  10/3/05 and 11/8/05  Receipt of letters from Bill Moores regarding the ongoing construction related to permit 0702-0723.  The issue of permit status for several projects will be taken up at a non-public ADC meeting on December 10. 

 

TRATHEN 7/26 (44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost):  10/2/05  Receipt of description of changes to the garage project.  The changes were made per the July 23, 2005 ADC meeting and have been red lined on the file copy of the drawings.

 

TRATHEN 7/26 (44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost):   10/8/05  Receipt of letter from Hollinger stating they do not object to the Trathen garage project.

 

TRATHEN 7/26 (44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost):  10/2/05 and 11/10/05  Receipt of letter from Bill Moores requesting documents related to MEM permit 0705-0726 for construction of  garage.

 

TRATHEN 7/26 (44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost):  10/12/05   Letter from attorney Ruprecht regarding MEM permit 0705-0726.  The committee has not answered this letter.  The ADC has hired attorney Marion Young who has sent a response letter to attorney Ruprecht addressing the issues the latter raised on behalf of David Paoli

 

TRATHEN 7/26 (44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost):  11/8/05  Receipt of letter from William Moores stating that the Trathens are building a non-permitted fence on their east property line and that the location of the foundation of their garage project does not conform to the approved plans.  Committee members Jim Albert, Chuck Conner and Gordon Moores made a site visit prior to the meeting and found a possible discrepancy between the approved plans and the actual placement of the foundation, although Mr. Trathen says it does conform.  Bill Moores also argues that the approved distance of 10ft from the property line includes the eaves, which are 1ft 10inches, according to the approved plans.  Gordon stated that if the house is not perpendicular to the property line, as Ron Trathen told the Committee earlier, then the issue of a few inches difference in location might be considered a construction hardship.  Chuck stated that the Committee members also observed what appears to be the construction of a fence on the east property line with posts about 5ft above grade and 8ft above the excavation level.  The construction of a fence requires a permit and none has been applied for.  Chuck stated that the Committee will write a letter to the Trathens stating what they have found today and requesting that they 1) verify their distances using either a surveyor or civil engineer, 2) apply for a permit for the apparent fence under construction on the east property line, 3) submit a permit application for the split rail fence already constructed on the north property lines of lots 26 and 27. (See “Unfinished Business”)  Wm Moores insisted that, having allowed the Trathens’ architect to interpolate one foot intervals from the two foot contours on the project building envelope topographic drawing, the ADC set a precedent of allowing such interpolation for any and all projects.  In response to this, both Chuck Conner and Nik Epanchin emphatically stated that interpolation is and will be allowed only for major exterior modifications that alter existing structures on developed lots and which originally were prepared and presented to the ADC using other than the currently required one foot contours.

 

GMEINER 7/33 (44421 O’Rorey’s Roost):  10/3/05 and 11/8/05  Letter from Bill Moores requesting that ADC find 2 pine trees in the Gmeiner property in violation of the CC&Rs.   Bill Moores was present and argued that the trees in question block ocean views from several lots to the east and asks that the Committee finds them in CC&R violation so they can be removed.  He stated that the northerly tree is in the County right of way and that the County has stated they will remove it if they receive a letter from the Committee finding the tree in violation of the CC&Rs.  He argued that the policy of requiring tree removal only if the view from an existing house is impacted has an adverse affect on the ability to show property and requires that a potential buyer take the risk that trees will be removed when they build.  He referred to CC&R 7.6(a) which speaks to vegetation and views.  Chuck argued that the language in the CC&Rs is not always clear and is often open to interpretation.  He also questioned the ability to establish a potential view area from a bare lot with no established building envelope. He argued that view blockage from a house is tangible, but is less clear from a bare lot.  Nik suggested that when a bare lot owner wants trees on a different lot removed they should first choose the best possible place from their lot and take pictures to prove that 40% or more of the view is blocked.  If the ADC confirms the blockage, the chosen area then becomes the future living area on that lot.  The owner must then hire an architect to establish the building envelope.  This would be notarized and go into the records as the designated living area for the lot.  A discussion ensued regarding the proper role of the ADC in matters of trees, bare lot owners and views.  Gordon stated that the CC&Rs indicate the Committee role as potential mediator between owners and a past Committee established forms for mediation.  He stated that he disagrees with Nik in that trees are not included in the 40% view blockage assessment and that no vegetation can block views, not just from the living area but from the whole house.  The immediate question is what role the community wants the Committee to play.   Chuck agreed that if neighbors cannot resolve issues, he also needs clarification about the role of the ADC.  There was no agreement among Committee members for resolving the issue of the tree in the right of way, the tree on Gmeiner’s property or the overall issue of trees, views and bare lots.  The Committee plans to hold a non-public policy and procedural meeting on December 10, 2005 and will attempt to resolve the questions at that time. 

 

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

LANDSBERG 2/25 (44860 Arena Circle):  Minor Exterior Improvement application for a propane tank enclosure.  The required drawing has been received showing the approved location of the enclosure and the Committee has observed that the stakes are in place.  Minor Exterior Improvement permit 1105-225 will be issued with an expiration date of  February 18, 2006. 

KUCALA 2/47 (14950 Mallo Pass Dr.):  Issue of non-permitted deck.  This item was discussed under “Communications”.

TRATHEN 7/26 & 27 (44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost):  Issue of non-permitted fence.  This item was discussed under “Communications”.

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.

 

At this time the meeting moved to the Dolan/Ramirez property.  (See “Communications: Butera 2/07” above).

 

ADJOURMENT

 

Nik moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:30PM.  Gordon seconded and the motion passed 4-0.

 

The next meeting is scheduled for January 21, 2006 beginning at 11:00AM at the Irish Beach Firehouse

 

Minutes submitted by Jean Selk