IRISH BEACH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMITTEE

PO Box 245 Manchester, CA 95459

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

MINUTES for January 21, 2006

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 11:10am.

IBADC members present: Chairman Chuck Conner, Nik Epanchin Gordon Moores and Walt Rush

.

Others in attendance: Jim Albert, Annette and Irmela Barlow, Roger Bean, Gene Cady, Glenn Coleman, Milli and Doug Conover, RJ Dial, Vera-Lee Kaiser, Norm and Scotty Kucala, William Moores, Rick Morton, Judy Murray, Carl Poehlmann, Ernest A. Rodriguez Sr., Al and Loretta Thompson, Ken Trout, Su and Steve Whitaker, Bettye Winters, Dean Wolfe.

APPROVE MINUTES:

Approve minutes of November 19, 2005: Nik moved to approve the November 19, 2005 minutes. Gordon seconded and the motion passed 4-0.

NEW BUSINESS:

TREASURER’S REPORT: October 1, 2005-December 31, 2005 Jean Selk presented the report. The beginning balance in the Committee’s checking account was $3792.55 with $1000 in revenue and $3489.05 in expenses. The ending balance is $1303.50. Nik moved to approve the report as submitted. Walt seconded and the motion passed 4-0.

IBADC: Open Committee seat. Chuck recognized and thanked Jim Albert for the time and work he has contributed to the community as a Committee member for the past year. Those interested in serving are encouraged to submit a very brief résumé.

IBADC: Proposed revision of ADC Construction Guidelines, Policies and Fees. Chuck stated that the Committee has been working on needed revisions. The goal is to make the revisions effective beginning March 1, 2006. The revisions will not be applied retroactively. The proposed revisions will be finalized and posted on the IBIC web site for community review and a 30 day comment period. He recognized and thanked Nik Epanchin, who has done most of the work. Nik presented an outline of the revisions.

Fee Structure: Most fees will be doubled. A refundable Performance Deposit, equal to one half of the applicable permit fee, will be required for New Home Construction and Major Exterior Modification permits to assure that the permit holder complies with providing written verification by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer of the foundation location and building height. All permit fees shall be tripled for permit applications related to work performed without an IBADC permit. The cost threshold for the two tiers of Minor Exterior Improvement permits has been changed to $4000 from the current $2000.

Permit Duration and Extensions: New Home Construction permits will be valid for one year and renewable for 2 additional years. Once begun, exterior construction must be complete within 12 months (currently 9 months). Two extensions may be obtained, each for 3 months. The construction period for Major Exterior Modification permits is extended to 12 months with a 3 month extension possible. Should any project under construction not finish within the specified time frame, the owner must apply for a new permit suited for the remaining work. Fees will be triple the published amount. The ADC may also grant, for no fee, extensions for construction delays caused by factors beyond the control of the permit holder. Nik clarified that if construction of a new home is begun on day 365 of the 12 month permit, the applicant still has 12 months to complete construction, plus any extensions.

Changes to Major Exterior Modification application: Projects for which no prior building envelope exists or which lacks a topographic site plan that meets current ADC requirements, must go through a two phase hearing process. The primary purpose of the first phase is to establish the building envelope and verify view corridors. Projects for sites with a previously established building envelope and current topo meeting current ADC requirements will be heard in one phase.

Variances: Currently, variance requests for New Home Construction and Major Exterior Modifications applications are addressed in Phase II of the process although the building envelope is established in Phase I. Applicants must now include any variance requests in the Phase I application, to be considered in conjunction with the building envelope. Variances introduced after Phase I approval will require an additional review final approval of the building envelope.

Statement of Architect or Professional Architectural Designer(PAD): Applicants for a New Home Construction permit will be required to submit a signed statement from the architect or PAD responsible for the project confirming they have visited the site and are aware of views from all lots within a 300ft radius.

BARLOW 1/033 (14830 Navarro Way): Minor Exterior Improvement application for the construction of a split rail fence. Comments have been received from Taylor (1/066), Heinzer (1/067), and William Moores (1/070). Annette Barlow stated that they’ve received 2 positive comments and one from William Moores that is concerned with landscaping and not the application itself. She stated that in the past landscaping issues have been dealt with successfully between neighbors and thinks it can remain that way. Gordon stated that the Committee made a site visit and determined that the fence will have no view impact. Nik moved to approve the application as presented. Walt seconded and the motion passed 4-0. The Barlows will be issued Minor Exterior Improvement permit number 0106-1033, valid for 3 months, with an expiration date of April 21, 2006. Once begun, construction must be completed within 2 months.

KUCALA 2/47 (14950 Mallo Pass Dr.): Minor Exterior Improvement application for a deck modification. One comment has been received from William Moores. Norm Kucala stated that he believes his application complies with the agreement reached at the September, 2004 ADC meeting. Chuck said that a review of the minutes of the meeting show that the agreement calls for the removal of a 14ft x 14ft section of the deck, matching the deck siding with the house and screening the lower portion of the deck. This is reflected in the submitted application. Chuck explained that the original permit for minor improvements (issued in October 2003) had expired and an additional fee of $150 is required. Chuck moved to approve the application as submitted. Walt seconded and the motion passed 4-0. Permit 0106-0247 will be issued when the fee is received. The permit is valid for 6 months from the date of this meeting and, once begun, construction must be finished within 2 months.

RODRIGUEZ 2/52 (14951 Mallo Pass Dr.): Phase II application for New Home Construction permit. A comment has been received from Rush (3/51) regarding the project’s affect on their view. Glen Coleman, architect, presented the application. The septic system is on the most easterly portion of the lot with the proposed house on the westerly portion, within the approved building envelope. The highest roof ridge will be 15ft 10in. above mean natural grade. The proposed design includes a 4 car garage on the east side of the house with a driveway and garage entry on the north side. Roofing material will be 40 year shingles in charcoal color. The structures will have lap siding in gray/brown color and Milguard windows in almond. The living area has whitewater and lighthouse views to the southwest. Nik requested that the propane tank enclosure be rotated 90° so it won’t be seen from unit 5. Mr. Coleman said he will take it into consideration but that rotating it will look bad with the current design. Rick Morton suggested that the problem can be solved by burying the tank. A discussion ensued over County requirements for propane tank distance from a structure and the pro and cons of putting them underground. Chuck stated that the view impact of the tank is the extent of ADC jurisdiction. However, he suggested that it is in the best interest of both gentlemen to be familiar with the County regulations for the obvious safety and liability reasons. Mr. Coleman addressed the comment received from Susan Rush (3/51) regarding the view impact of the proposed home. He stated that the location of the house is driven by the septic system, which was already designed when Mr. Rodriguez bought the lot, and the view. Reversing the location of the house and septic field will result in the loss of the ocean view because of the existing house on lot 53 (Cady). Susan Rush submitted pictures taken from her deck showing the effect of the proposed house, which blocks 100% of the whitewater and lighthouse view. Gordon asked if any view can be preserved from 3/51 when lots 2/51 and 2/57 are developed. Ms. Rush stated that she would like to keep her whitewater view if possible and is only asking for the same consideration given to others who have come to this point. It was agreed that a site visit would be made. Chuck stated that the Committee is concerned about the lack of screened parking and the effect of the driveway location on the view corridor from the east and north. Gordon stated that the ideal location for the driveway is on the south side of the house because cars parked in the driveway will have the least overall effect on other lots. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the owner’s cars will always be in the garage. The site visit was made. Committee members, using a pole flagged at 16ft, located the likely east and west ends of likely future structures on lots 2/51 and 2/57 while Chuck Conner, Susan Rush and audience members made observations from the Rush deck. Back at the firehouse, it was agreed by Susan Rush and the Committee that it is not possible to preserve the whitewater view from 3/51 when the vacant lots are developed. Alternatives to the current driveway and garage configuration were discussed and a solution was reached whereby the primary and secondary leach fields will be reversed, allowing room for screened parking on the east side of the garage. The area will be screened with landscaping, as will the north side of the driveway. Mr. Coleman redlined the Phase II drawings to reflect the changes. Gordon moved to approve the application as redlined. Nik seconded and the motion passed 4-0.

CONOVER 3/40 (43580 Sea Cypress Dr.): Phase II application for New Home Construction permit with a 2ft. height variance. Chuck explained that the Conovers received Phase II approval with no variance at the November 19, 2005 meeting. They are now applying for a height variance. The request has been mailed to property owners within a 300ft radius and no comments have been received. Chuck also explained that the variance process requires that the applicant demonstrate the need for the variance due to a topographic or economic hardship, as described in CC&R Section 4.6. Architect Glen Coleman and Doug Conover presented the application. Mr. Conover stated that the requested variance will allow him to avoid the excavation and removal of approximately 150 yards of material. It will also save the expense of additional concrete and a foundation drain. He stated that the south setback has been increased to 18ft as required and the mandated building separation between his northern neighbor (Wolfe 9/39) is maintained. Nik stated that the 2ft height variance requires that the north set back be increased by an equal distance to 8ft from the property line. The current plan impinges slightly on that required separation, therefore the north setback should be included in the variance request. Chuck stated that the lot does not appear to have a topographic hardship and the Committee does not consider the amount of excavation and concrete to be great enough to be an economic hardship. Mr. Conover argued that he understands there are 3 main factors that must be considered; impact, hardship and mitigation. Although he cannot meet the threshold for a hardship, he believes the complete package should be considered and that the impact should take primacy in consideration. In his case, the variance causes no negative view impact and the possible affect on lot 3/41 is mitigated by the set back increase. Other possible mitigations were discussed including stepping the foundation and changing the roof pitch, neither of which offered a solution. The Committee explained that while they liked the design and are sympathetic to Mr. Conover’s argument, they do not believe the CC&Rs allow them to make exceptions to the hardship requirement. Chuck stated that if they do not rigidly follow the procedures, someone in the future will use this as a precedent. Nik moved to not grant the variance due to a lack of demonstrable hardship. Gordon seconded and the motion passed 4-0. After William Moores hearing for 7/15, Mr. Conover requested reconsideration. Dean Wolfe, speaking on behalf of Mr. Conover, argued that the Committee can grant the variance in accordance with CC&R 4.6 due to practical difficulties and unnecessary expense that a precedent is being set by also imposing the hardship condition as a requirement. The excavation is only needed to avoid the variance and will necessitate the construction a 40ft long, 5ft. high retaining wall which requires engineering (CC&R 5.5). This is in addition to the already discussed expenses. He also argued that the building separation from the Wolfe house is more than 34ft and therefore satisfies CC&R Section 5.3(b). Upon review of the original Phase II submittal, the Committee verified that a line in the northeast corner of the house could indeed be a retaining wall which had remained unidentified by both the Coleman and Conover until this time. Nik noted that the submitted variance request does not sufficiently lay out all the factors. Walt moved to strike the previous vote to deny the variance. Gordon seconded and the motion passed 4-0. Walt then moved to grant provisional approval based on receipt within 15 working days of a comprehensive variance letter which describes all unnecessary expenses avoided and mitigation taken. Chuck moved to amend the motion to state that the north set back, as shown, is in compliance with 5.3b of the CC&Rs. Nik seconded the motion to amend which passed 4-0. Nik seconded the amended motion which passed 4-0.

WM. MOORES 7/15 (44290 O’Rorey’s’ Roost): 1/5/06 Request for change of set back conditions for Phase I approval. Gordon Moores recused himself and joined the audience. Bill Moores asked the Committee to approve the Phase I application with the 6ft building envelope set back from the north property line. (See minutes of 11/20/04) He explained that at the time of the conditional approval, it was believed that the ownership of the lot to the north, lot 7/16, would transfer from MCP to him, at which time he would formally agree to the proposed set back on lot 7/15. It now appears the transfer may not take place and MCP will not agree to the set back. He argued that the Committee set a precedent when they approved the Trathen project (7/26) even though their neighbor (Dyson 7/25) did not agree to the 10ft set back. He further agued that the Committee has already received a notarized letter from Smardo, the owner of lot 7/17, agreeing to a 6ft north set back on lot 7/16, which effectively replaces the reduced building area on the south portion of the lot 7/16. Furthermore, the north part of lot 7/16 has the best views and is the most desirable building area. Gordon Moores, speaking for MCP, said he has not reviewed this Phase I approval condition change and is not convinced that this ‘swap’ of building envelopes is reasonable. Chuck stated that the decision on the Trathen’s building envelope was based on the Committee’s independent research with the County and the conclusion that part of lot 7/25 is unbuildable due to the stream. In addition, the Trathens agreed in writing to a reduced building separation should the area become buildable. Chuck suggested that Bill apply for a variance to the 16ft set back in which case the Committee will drop the condition of approval. Bill agreed to submit a variance request for a hearing at the March meeting. Chuck clarified that the Committee is not granting a variance at this time, only moving the application into the variance process.

MURRAY 2/64 (15061 Mallo Pass Dr.): Continuation of Major Exterior Modification application. Continued from the November 19, 2005 meeting. The story poles are up and a site visit was made earlier to assess the effect on the ocean view from 5/01(Gordon Moores). Gordon Moores recused himself and remained in the audience. Judy Murray presented the application. She explained that this is an application for a garage addition with a living space above which will add about 400ft² to her 1000ft² house. The existing house is 18ft 8in. above mean natural grade and the proposed structure is 17ft 11in. above grade, or 1ft 11in. above the height limit for unit 2. Ms. Murray stated that the effect on the view from 5/01 is small and doesn’t think it will affect the sale of the lot. She is willing to hip the roof to mitigate the effect and redlined this change. Gordon Moores stated that if the addition were moved to the back, or east of the house, there would be no obstruction. He also stated that he does not like the way the garage blends with the house. Ms. Murray stated that moving the garage to the back would mean involving the seasonal creek on her lot which would be costly, and going through the County to possibly redraw the utility easement, which she would rather not do. Bill Moores commented that he has a lot behind her and doesn’t have a problem with her proposal. Both sets of submitted plans were redlined to reflect a hipped roof with a 4:12 pitch. Nik moved to approve the Phase II application as submitted and redlined. Walt seconded and the motion passed 3-0. Chuck explained that the application now moves into the variance review process. Ms. Murray shall submit a comprehensive variance request letter describing the hardships involved and mitigating actions. Property owners within a 300ft radius will be noticed and given 30 days to respond in writing. Gordon rejoined the Committee.

STYSKAL: Receipt of list of 10 homes designed by Paul Styskal in Irish Beach. Chuck explained that Paul Styskal has requested approval to design homes in Irish Beach as a Professional Architectural Designer (PAD). Based on the large number of homes in his portfolio, Nik moved to approve Paul Styskal as a PAD in Irish Beach. Walt seconded and the motion passed 4-0.

HOFFMAN 1/052 (14780 S. Hwy 1): 11/21/05 Receipt of Phase I application for New Home Construction permit. This will be placed on the March agenda.

COMMUNICATIONS:

ASHTON 1/007 (15250 Irish Beach Dr.): 1/18/06 Notification of intent to re-stain their home in the same medium gray color.

ROSE 1/098 (15101 Irish Beach Dr.): 11/18/05 Receipt of letter from Garrison (1/082) questioning the location of the propane tank and garbage enclosure, which can be seen from their house.

DROLET 1/107 (15225 Irish Beach Dr.): 1/5/06 Oral statement from Schmidt Construction stating that exterior construction was completed on 12/27/05.

TROUT 2/19 (44661 Pomo Lake Dr.): 12/17/05 Receipt of Phase I application for New Home Construction permit. Chuck explained that the dimensions of submitted site plan do not match the dimensions and geometry shown on the County map, although the address and APN number is correct. This is the second such submittal. Jean Selk stated that Mr. Trout submitted a revised package just prior to the meeting.

WHITAKER 4/12 (15461 Forest View Dr.) 1/18/06 Notification of intent to remove a tree from their property.

POEHLMANN 4/26 (15661 Forest View Dr.) 12/9/05 Request for approval of house and trim colors of dark brown and green. The Committee has requested that the green be replaced with a shade of brown. Anyone who wishes to repaint or stain their home in contrasting, or non tone on tone colors, shall submit color samples and receive specific Committee approval. Chuck moved to approve Mr. Poehlmann’s color scheme of brown and green for the house and trim respectively. Nik seconded and the motion passed 4-0.

MOULTHROP 4/60 (15470 Forest View Dr.): 12/9/05 ADC letter regarding the Minor Exterior Improvement application received on 10/24/05. The Moulthrops were advised of additional requirements to complete the application.

MOULTHROP 4/60 (15470 Forest View Dr.): 1/13/06 Receipt of notification of intent to continue Minor Exterior

Improvements. A driveway has been constructed without a permit. The ADC will issue a letter to the Moulthrops advising them to delay further improvements until they complete the public hearing process and a permit is issued.

PACKER 4/67 (15640 Forest View Rd): 1/20/06 ADC letter requesting construction extension fee.

MCP 7/10 (44510 O’Rorey’s Place): 12/10/05 Receipt of letter regarding contested drain. MCP has contacted the County and is not requesting ADC action at this time.

WM. MOORES 7/15 (44290 O’Rorey’s’ Roost): 12/16/05 Receipt of Phase II application and request for a hearing. This application will only be considered after the Phase I application is approved. (See “New Business”)

GMEINER 7/23 (44370 O’Rorey’s Roost): 1/20/06 ADC letter requesting construction extension fee and estimated completion date.

TRATHEN 7/26 (44400 O’Rorey’s Roost): 11/21/05 Receipt of letter from Berton Garey (7/20) approving of garage project.

TRATHEN 7/26 (44400 O’Rorey’s Roost): 12/8/05 ADC letter requesting documentation confirming that the location of the garage foundation agrees with the approved application and information regarding the apparent construction of a fence or retaining wall on the east property line. Nik and Gordon are recused from this project. No response has been received.

WM MOORES: 1/5/06 Request for documentation related to the adoption of the IBADC Mediation Form.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

TRATHEN 7/26 & 27 (44400 & 44410 O’Rorey’s Roost): Issue of non-permitted fence.

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

MORTON 4/42 (15851 Forest View Rd): Unanswered request for re-verification that building height conforms to the approved Phase II plans.

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.

GMEINER 7/33 (44421 O’Rorey’s Roost): Issue of trees. Bill Moores again argued that Mr. Gmeiner’s trees block the ocean view from undeveloped lots to the north and east are in violation of the CC&Rs Section 7.6(a). He requested that the Committee make a site visit. The Committee agreed to do so in the future.