IRISH BEACH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMITTEE

PO Box 245 Manchester, CA 95459

MINUTES for February 19^th, 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 11:15AM.

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

Others in attendance: Mark Anderson, Peter Anderson, Roger Bean, Hannah Brown, Gene Cady, Bob Cane, Alex & Cathy Corey, Donna Dell, R.J. Dial, Nancy Epanchin, Frank Fanto, Annette Fromwiller, Don & Pam Harley, Susan Hemmenway, David & Roseann Jones, Keith Laderoute, William Moores, Rick Morton, Tim Murray, Dave & David Paoli, David & Jamileh Potts, Steve and Su Whitaker, Bettye Winters.

APPROVE OF JANUARY 15, 2005 MINUTES:

Nik Epanchin submitted the following correction to the January minutes under Communications item “Corey 3/10”. The last phrase, “it will be smaller than the one proposed” is deleted.

Jean Selk submitted the following item to be added under communications. “MOREALI 2/12 (44801 Arena Circle): Receipt of final construction drawings. The drawings were reviewed and approved by the Committee and permit number 0904-0212 was issued with an expiration date of September 18, 2005.

Nik moved to approve the minutes as amended. Jim seconded and the motion passed 4-0.d

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Eave to eave measurement and building separation: The Committee clarified that building separation is measured eave to eave on a horizontal plane, regardless of height differences in the structures. The Committee also clarified that ADC has a legal duty to protect all property owners, including bare lot owners and therefore the burden of building separation should be shared equally between neighbors. An owner building next to a bare lot must maintain a 14ft or 16ft setback (depending on the unit), or one half of the separation requirement. Variances should be agreed to by neighbors and recorded against the deed of the bare lot owner. Steve Whitaker asked if future Committees will follow these procedures. Chuck replied it will be voted on and recorded in the minutes. Chuck moved that building separation is measured eave to eave on a horizontal plane and that in fulfillment of ADC’s legal obligation to protect all property owners, homes must be placed at least 14ft or 16ft from the property line unless a variance is approved. Nik seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. This motion does not apply to any prior agreements between property owners.

Professional Architectural Designer (PAD): At the January meeting, ADC attempted to define the term and concluded that a legal opinion was needed. The Committee spoke with attorney Tom Brigham, who has previous experience with the Irish Beach CC&Rs, regarding the legal authority of ADC to define the term “professional architectural designer” and set standards for designers in Irish Beach. Mr. Brigham explained that by state law, anyone can design a single family, two story or less, wood framed dwelling but that the Irish Beach CC&Rs clearly gives ADC the authority to set a higher standard. Chuck Conner proposed to define a PAD as a person who has experience designing homes, who has developed a portfolio and has derived income from the design and completion of at least five homes. This proposal does not affect architects, who can design in Irish Beach without restriction. R.J. Dial stated that he has sat on similar boards and dealt with the same question and in his opinion, ADC is opening itself up to legal challenges by restricting someone who may be competent to build a home, but does not meet ADC’s specific requirements. Susan Rush asked why it would be restricted at all since ADC has the ultimate say over a project. Chuck explained that, while some ADC members are experienced at reading architectural drawings, none are architects or designers. It is more likely that homes designed by a professional will be free of serious flaws which may be missed by Committee members. Chuck emphasized that the reason ADC is taking on this issue to protect all property owners. Dave Paoli, a civil engineer who wishes to design homes in IB, stated his objection to an idea discussed in the January meeting to define a PAD as someone who derives at least 50% of income from design. He argued that an income threshold is problematic, exclusionary and not an indicator of competence. Chuck replied that the intent is not to exclude, but to abide by the CC&Rs and ensure that individuals designing homes in Irish Beach have experience in the profession. Chuck moved to define a professional architectural designer as an individual who has developed a portfolio and has derived income from the design and completion of at least five homes. The portfolio must be supported by photographs of the home and the property. Nik seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Policy regarding non-payment of extension fees. This discussion is tabled pending review of all outstanding permits.

HEMMENWAY-LADEROUTE 4/03 (15301 Forest View Dr.): Phase II Application for New Home Construction with variance requests. The variance application was received on 2/2/05. Architect Peter Anderson presented the application and architects Mark Anderson and Hannah Brown were also present. Using a 3 dimensional model, Mr. Anderson explained that the lot slopes steeply down from east to west which allows only a narrow building area without doing major excavation into the hillside. The roof of the back or east portion of the home will be 8ft from ground level and supported by concrete piers. The 1600sq.ft. home will have redwood board and baton siding with a gray, weathered look stain which will blend into the hillside and existing trees. The roof will be dark gray 40 year Presidential shingles. The leach lines will be in front of the house. The driveway will be on the north side of the house and a deck on the south side. In response to a question from Gordon, Mr. Anderson explained that the difficult turn in the driveway was unavoidable due to a drainage ditch. There will be room for two cars to park under the north side of the house, which will be screened with vegetation. The parking area may be enclosed in the future. Many of the existing trees will be kept to provide screening in front and to help blend the house into the landscape. Nik noted that the story poles were positioned incorrectly. The Committee visited the site and it was determined that the height pole should be further back from the street and lower, which describes a less imposing structure. Gordon asked why the building was not stepped to mitigate its impact as required in CC&R Section 5.4. Mr. Anderson explained that the narrowness of the building (26ft) would require a 12ft step and that excavation into the slope is prohibitively expensive. Three variances are being requested. 1) A height variance of 3ft 10inches due to the steepness of slope. There is no lot behind the proposed structure and no view is impacted. 2) A roof pitches of 2:12 instead of 4:12 to lessen the impact of the structure. 3) A setback variance from the south property line. Mr. Anderson argued that the dwelling is 26ft from the south property line and only the deck extends to within 10ft of the line and therefore a variance is not required. He further argued that the deck had been approved as located in the Phase I application. Chuck stated that due to the height of the deck and the steel trellis which frames it at roof level, it appears to be part of the dwelling, creating a more imposing appearance than a ground level deck and could easily be covered at a later time to create an extension of the house. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the height variance of 3ft 10 inches should be added to the building separation and be born entirely by the applicant, not the neighbor to the south. Various options were discussed to avoid a set back variance including lowering a portion of the deck, narrowing the deck, moving the house further north, creating a roof deck, moving it to the north side of the house and wrapping the deck around the front, or west side of the house. All options explored are highly problematic or impossible. It was agreed that the steel trellis will be removed to lessen the bulk of the deck. Chuck stated that the owners had done due diligence in exploring all options for the height and roof pitch variance requests and the same must be done for the setback, which includes attempting to reach an agreement with the affected neighbor. The affected property owner in unit 4 lot 4 is MCP. Both Bill and Gordon Moores were present and agreed that MCP may be open to agreeing to the setback variance if the deck is reduced from 16ft to 14ft wide which will bring the structure 12ft from the south property line. It was agreed that due to hardship created by topography, the height variance will not be added to the required setback. Gordon moved to accept the Phase II application on the basis of the financial hardship and lot topography. Stepping the foundations will not be required; given the shape of house the 2:12 roof pitch is acceptable, the height variance of 3ft 10 inches is approved due to the steepness of the property and will not be added to the required building separation, the trellis will be removed from the deck and the deck narrowed from 16ft to 14ft. Nik seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Nik stated that the Phase II drawings must be red line corrected and submitted. The variance process requires ADC to send a letter to all neighbors within a 300ft radius explaining the variances. There is a 30 day period during which any objections must be submitted in writing and presented in person at an additional hearing. If no objections are received, the variances will be approved and a provisional permit issued without an additional hearing.

WM MOORES 2/41 (43925 Mallo Pass Court): Phase I Application for New Home Construction Permit. Bill Moores presented the application. He stated that no variance is being requested and a 32ft separation will be maintained from Ms. Dell’s garage. One letter was received from neighbor Donna Dell (2/40) regarding the retention of 3 trees on her property for privacy and requesting assurance that her property will not be trespassed upon during construction. Nik noted an error on SD1 showing a 26ft separation from Ms. Dell’s garage while it should be 28ft. Bill stated that it will actually be 32ft and will be corrected on the Phase II application. Gordon noted that Harper’s view (2/42) will be most affected and the Committee agreed a site visit was required. Views from 2/42(Harper), 2/64(Murray), 2/65(Rose), and 2/66(Potts) were considered. Upon return a discussion ensued regarding placement of the building envelope and its affect on the view corridor. Gordon stated his opinion that the location of the building envelope took too much of the view corridor and would like to see it moved south and east. Bill argued that any dwelling on the lot will affect views from other lots but the proposed envelope does not take more that 40% of anyone’s view, does not involve a variance and that no concerns about the view impact have been expressed by neighbors. Chuck stated that the envelope should be placed in the best possible location, analyzed for its impact and then all other options explored to lessen that impact but still get the desired house. Approving a Phase I application solely on the grounds that it meets the minimum requirements often leads to problems in the Phase II application which then results in delay and expense for the owner. There was some discussion about how to calculate 40% of a view to which Nik suggested taking photos from the affected living areas and hatching out the portion that would be blocked. Jamileh Potts stated that she is concerned that the best part of the view from her house would be blocked and that she objects to the proposed building envelope without hearing why it can’t be moved. Bill stated that he will work with the Potts and send plans for their review before making the Phase II submittal and that he will demonstrate all steps taken to ameliorate the view corridor impact After further discussion an agreement was reached by which the building envelope will be expanded by 10ft to the east, while the north envelope boundary will be moved 10ft south. Nik moved to approve the Phase I application with the numerical corrections showing the building envelope a minimum of 28ft from Ms. Dell’s garage (2/40) and 14ft from Harper’s lot (2/42) and that the north line of the building envelope is brought 10ft south and the east line be brought eastward by 10ft and the diagonal line between them be maintained. This increases the envelope, allowing more options for home placement. Jim seconded the motion and it was passed unopposed.

WM MOORES 5/05 (43551 Sea Cypress Dr.); Phase II Application for New Home Construction Permit. Bill Moores presented the application. Nik confirmed that the Phase I building envelope conforms with the Phase II application. Several items need to be corrected or added on the final construction drawings: 1) Lots 42 and 43 to the north are in unit three, not unit two. 2) Need to indicate boundary lines between 3/42 and 43. 3) mean natural grade is 325.6ft not 225.6ft. as indicated. 4) The name of a licensed surveyor must be on the plans. The plans call for a 12ft setback from the north property line, which abuts the backyards of 3/42 & 43. The County requirement of a 20ft backyard setback means that the 32ft building separation will be maintained between lot 5/05 and 3/43 and a variance is not required. Bill requested approval of three types of siding, of which he will use one; redwood, Hardie board and cedar, all of which have been approved in the past. The color has not yet been chosen. No comments have been received about the application and no objections were voiced from the floor. Nik moved to accept the application as presented with the corrections discussed. Jim seconded and the motion passed unopposed with Gordon Moores abstaining. Nik explained that Bill now has a provisional permit. Construction cannot begin until a final set of construction drawings is received, reviewed and signed by the Committee. The construction drawings must show the natural grade of the lot and foundation cross sections so the Committee can verify that the building location and height comply with the approved plans.

ROSE 1/098 (15101 Irish Beach Dr.) 2/12/05: Receipt of documents describing a modification of the construction plans. Mr. Rose is requesting approval to add stairs and a hot tub to the deck on the west side of his house. The addition does not change the footprint of the house. Gordon moved to approve the addition of the stairs and hot tub subject to receipt of signed construction drawings and permit. Nik seconded and the motion passed unopposed.

COMMUNICATIONS:

WM. MOORES 1/095 (44001 Noyo Way): 1/14/05 Notice of intent to alter door, canopy of walkway of office. Bill and Gordon Moores, co-owners of the office, will attempt to negotiate a mutually agreeable plan for the walkway extension. The door and canopy alterations are not in contention.

TRUJILLO 3/01 (14470 Cypress Point Rd.): 1/25/05 Notification of start of construction on 1/25/05. The Committee observed that the footings have been poured without written verification that the foundation location conforms with the approved Phase II plans. Mr. Trujillo has been contacted and stated he will get the written verification to ADC. Nik explained that when foundation forms have been made but before concrete is poured, a professional qualified to do so must make written verification of the proper placement of the foundation according to the approved plans. A contractor could make the verification. A licensed surveyor is ideal but more costly.

WM. MOORES 7/15 (44290 O’Rorey’s’ Roost): 1/29/05 Receipt of documents related to the Phase I Application. (See minutes of 11/20/04) At the Phase I hearing in November, the Committee imposed four conditions for approval of the application.

1. Receipt of Mendocino County approval to reduce the 20ft backyard setback to 6ft. Bill has provided a letter from the County stating a variance may be possible.

2. Receipt of a notarized statement of non-objection to the north side yard set back of 6ft from MCP, owner of lot 16, or a copy of the recording of such in the appropriate deeds. Bill stated that this was forthcoming.

3. A determination by Mr. Paoli and the concurrence of the Moglias that the drain on the east side of lot 13 will be able to accommodate run off from lot 15. Mr. Paoli has written ADC stating that he did not design the drain and cannot comment on its capacity. Mr. Moglia does not concur that the drain in question will accommodate additional runoff.

4. Receipt of a resurvey of the building envelope with 1ft contour lines.

Bill explained that the lot slopes west and water naturally drains onto Moglia’s lot (7/13). He now intends to catch rainwater from the house and direct it into a perforated pipe to disperse on the lot. Nik noted that Moglia wants the captured rainwater tight lined into the County ditch. Bill stated that because the lot slopes west he would either have to pump it back up to the street or run a pipe along someone else’s lot, for which he does not have an easement. He stated that he is willing to put a solid pipe across 7/13 but doesn’t think Moglia will agree. Steve Whitaker asked how the captured rainwater could be dispersed adequately. He explained that the problem is the rate of runoff, not the volume and that it will become an increasing problem as more homes are built. Chuck asked and received confirmation from Bill that no grading will be done which would increase runoff to the west. Chuck stated his opinion that disbursement of the captured rainwater as Bill described satisfies the drainage issue. Nik suggested that he place a tight line along the common boundary of 7/15 and 7/13 that would take the water south into the ditch. This would require an agreement from Moglia. No vote was taken.

JANSSEN 2/49 (14900 Mallo Pass Dr.): 1/29/05 Ms. Linda Janssen has given written notice that she is the owner of record and has requested contact information for Mr. Chico Burmania in order to resolve the tree issue. See minutes of 1/15/05 Mr. Burmania and Ms. Janssen are now in contact with each other.

BURMANIA 3/53 (43781 Cypress Parkway): 2/10/05 Letter from Mr. Burmania regarding a lack of response from Ruth Benz to his November letter regarding the trees on unit 2 lot 49. He has been given new contact information for the property owner. See above entry.

MOREALI 2/12 (44801 Arena Circle): 2/3/05 Notice of intent to begin construction within 10 days and of contact person for the project. Mr. Frank Fanto, the Moreali’s contractor, stated that the approved 6ft setback from lot 2/13 (Traversa) was measured from the structure, not the eave which is 1.5ft. The Committee noted its error and agreed that once the plans are signed they must be accepted. Gordon noted that it will not be an issue because Traversa would be unlikely to build on that portion of his lot and that he had signed a notarized statement of agreement with the house location. Mr. Fanto informed the Committee that the approved roofing material is no longer manufactured and asked for approval of Celotex 40 year Presidential shake in a weathered wood color. The Moreali’s also request a change from redwood siding to Hardie board in a sand color. Samples were provided and approved. The Committee requested a color sample of the trim and explained that sharp contrasts in color are undesirable and white is not accepted. ADC will write a letter to the Moreali’s requesting a color sample.

DELL 2/40 (43951 Mallo Pass Ct.): 2/10/05 Comments regarding Wm Moores application for 2/41 (see above). Ms. Dell’s comments concern the retention of three trees on the west side of her lot and a request from Mr. Moores that he agrees that neither he nor his agents will trespass on Ms. Dell’s property during construction. See “New Business” above.

COREY 3/10: (14640 Cypress Point Road): 2/12/05 Receipt of a second Phase II application for a New Home Construction permit with a variance application. The application will be heard at the March meeting.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

TIM MURRAY 4/10 (15441 Forest View Rd.) 1/14/04 Mr. Murray is working with an architect and his Phase I application for a New Home Construction permit will be heard at the March meeting. Mr. Murray’s application will be heard at the March meeting.

DROLET 1/107 (15225 Irish Beach Dr.): 1/26/05 Mr. Drolet’s architect, Howard Curtis, verified that the house height will not exceed 16ft above mean natural grade and that the County documentation referring to a 19ft height is in error. See minutes of Jan. 15, 2005. The issue has been clarified to ADC’s satisfaction.

MOREALI 2/12 (44801 Arena Circle): 1/14/05 Request to have option to use Hardie Board siding with no color change. ADC requests that the Moreali’s submit a sample. See “Moreali” above.

HARLEY 4/63 (15550 Forest View Drive): The Harley’s have submitted a Phase I application for a New Home Construction permit but are not yet working with an architect or professional architectural designer. See minutes of Jan. 15, 2005. The Harley’s are working with David Paoli, a civil engineer. Per the Committee’s decision regarding accepted professional designers for Irish Beach projects (see “Committee Discussion” above), Mr. Paoli will submit a portfolio of homes he has designed and built for review. The Harley’s application will be mailed out to neighbors and heard at the March meeting subject to the Committee’s receipt of Mr. Paoli’s portfolio and approval to submit new home applications.

BRIDGER 3/63 (43701 Sea Cypress Drive): 2/2/05 Receipt of two sets of signed final construction drawings and request for permit. The drawings were of the Phase II application, not the required construction drawings. The Bridger’s architect, Glenn Coleman, will be asked to provide the signed construction drawings with foundations cross-section and/or elevations demonstrating that the design adheres to the approved height and the Bridgers will be sent a letter of explanation.

BUCKE 4/18 (15601 Forest View Drive): Issue of whether or not an after the fact permit extension is required. The Committee needs to review all open permits.

FROMWILLER 4/68 (15700 Forest View Road): 12/20/04 Notification from Ms. Fromwiller that the installation of her propane tank, wood shed and fencing was completed on 10/9/04 and request for closure of her permit. The Committee needs to review all open permits.

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

Nik moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:20PM. Jim seconded and the motion passed unopposed.

The next meeting will be held on March 19, 2005 beginning at 11:00AM at the Irish Beach Firehouse located at 15401 Forest View Drive in Irish Beach

Post meeting note: ADC informed the Irish Beach Improvement Club of its decision to recommend Walt Rush for the open position on the Committee. The IBIC Board of Directors voted on February 20, 2005 to accept the recommendation.

Minutes submitted by Jean Selk