|
CRESTED BUTTE SOUTH
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
JANUARY 11, 2006
MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES
At 6:05 pm, Al Smith, President of the Board, called the meeting to order.
Board Members Present: Al Smith, Leigh Dillenback, Bill Crittendon, Peter Carey, and Dave DiBerardino.
Staff Members Present: Chris Behan, Louise Johnson
Design Review Committee Members Present: Joan Ham, Shannon Renick
Joint Design Review Committee Member/POA Board Member Discussion
This discussion was scheduled to determine whether the POA would continue the DRC process as established one year ago.
Al Smith began the discussion by explaining the structure recommended by Julie Ann Woods to present to Gunnison County for the Special Area Designation that we are pursuing. The boundaries of CB South are that special area. The contemplated framework would consist of a five-member design review committee, which would include two members/owners from the commercial area, two members at large, and one POA Board Member. This Design Review Board (DRB) would be the sole design authority. If an applicant was denied, they could then appeal the DRB's decision to the POA Board. The public would also have a 14-day period to appeal the DRB's decision to the POA Board. Details of the procedure will have to be ironed out. This will only affect (or be different then the current process) the commercial and multi-family units. The County would like to know that we have a fair process. We are at the whim of the Country to grant CB South the Special Area Designation.
The Special Area Designation process is still down-the-road, but can hopefully be accomplished this year (in 2006). The discussion is about what we should do in the meantime. It makes sense to have one authoritative board and another board to go to with appeals.
The framework for the DRC set up last year was that applicants would go to two DRC meetings and then go to the Board for final approval. The DRC was set up because of the workload of the Board. We still think the two board system is a good process. The question is whether we want to speed up the process for the applicants.
Board members feel the guidelines still need to be worked on. The DRC thinks we need to separate the guidelines for single family, multi-family and commercial development proposals into 3 documents. That way the documents would be shorter and easier to follow for each specific need. Some board members feel we could have one document that encompasses all. The DRC feels we should make the design guidelines more rigid to discourage so many multifamily units. Higher fees could also help discourage duplex and multi-family proposals. There is a concern about growth in the CB South impacting water, sewer, and traffic. Some feel we should encourage above-garage dwellings rather than duplexes. It would look better and still bring in additional income for owners, as well as to help provide affordable housing possibilities. However, the County regulation says above-garage living units have to be attached to the main building on the property. The County also now allows townhouses, which basically subdivide the lot. It was also noted that there are some duplexes in CB South that look better than some single family dwellings.
Concerning changing our current DRC process, if we handed final approval to the DRC, what would be the function of the Board? The Board would be free to handle more of the community projects and administrative issues. Could some board members rotate to the DRC? There could be an issue in that board members are elected by the property owners, but the design review committee is appointed by the board.
If there are two boards, there needs to be better communication. Over the past year the DRC felt at times frustrated. There were instances when the POA Board approved things that the DRC did not approve, and visa-versa. The DRC needs to have more authority. Projects should have to have DRC approval before they go to the Board. If they can't get approval from the DRC they could appeal to the Board, but the Board couldn't approve it. A member of the DRC would have to come to the appeal meeting. The POA Board reserves the right to grant variances, because it is in the covenants that way. Final project approval would still be done by the POA Board.
After the discussion, the Board felt it is best to continue with the DRC process we are now using for at least the next six months. Communication between the Board and the DRC needs to improve. Chris will attend both meetings. He will do a pre-application review to make sure the applicants present all necessary items at their first DRC review. He will also prepare packets for the DRC prior to their meeting. There are currently only 2 people left on the Design Review Committee. We need at least three. Peter said he would be willing to become part of the DRC. Dave is not able to become part of the DRC at this time, but he would like to see the plans before they come to the Board for final approval. He can come into the POA office and review the plans at any time prior to meetings. Al made a motion to appoint Pete to the DRC and to continue the same process we are currently using, but with improvements and better communication.
Chris said there was money budgeted to pay the DRC and also the Board. The DRC was paid $25 per project, and they are in agreement with that amount. Bill made a motion to continue to pay the DRC $25 each per project reviewed. Leigh seconded the motion. All Board members voted in favor of the motion.
Approval of Minutes:
Bill made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 14, 2005 Regular Board Meeting. Dave seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.
Treasurers Report:
Financial reports presented included the Cash on Hand as of December 31, 2005, of all accounts, and Reports of the Operating Account, the Hockey Rink Account, and the Performance Deposit Account for the period of December 1, 2005, through January 11, 2006. A new monthly budget summary was also presented. It was noted that a sum of $70,000 was taken from the Operating Account and put into a money market account so that it might gain interest on a monthly basis. Money may be transferred between the two accounts when necessary to pay bills and expenses. Al made a motion to approve the treasurer's report. Bill seconded the motion. All board members voted in favor.
Continued Business:
Arliss Merrell - Lot 10; Block 212; Filing 3 - 167 Bryant Ave.
Revision: Covered Walkway Design Question
At the October 12, 2005, POA Board Meeting, the following was established regarding this project: "Proposed revisions
were raising the plat height of the garage and adding a window.
If the garage has living space above, it will have to be attached. According to the covenants it must be
attached by a permanently installed deck and fully covered walkway. Chris will look into the County
regulations on what defines a covered walkway; whether a trellis is acceptable. Bill made a motion
to approve the architectural changes to the drawings as presented, but not to approve the connection from house to garage.
The space above the garage is not to be used as an apartment until the attachment plans are approved.
Leigh seconded the motion. All Board Members were in favor of the motion."
Some Board Members did not realize that the main structure on the
property is a duplex and that attaching the garage would make it a three-plex.
The project was presented at this meeting to consider the connecter piece to the garage,
but the Board has to address that it is a request for three dwelling units. The owner will have to meet all
requirements for the three-plex, submit a plan and go to the DRC. He will have to have our approval before
taking it to the County for their approval. Our covenants say a living unit in a garage must be attached, needs to be covered and has to include a permanently installed walkway/deck. It would have to be considered whether burying a flat surface in a trellis would be a sufficient cover. To allow pavers instead of a deck we would have to do a variance. However, a decision can't be made until the three-plex issue is resolved. We can give some guidance to take to the DRC; the owner will have to pursue the three-plex application and then take it to the County. The intensity of use on the property may be inappropriate. The Board will want to see full elevations to publish for public comment. An additional unit on the property will require a garage or a shed. The shed could be a pop-out on the back of the garage. Additional landscaping will also be required. Chris will email Arliss the new application and summary of what is required. He will also research the density on that lot.
New Business:
POA Board Member Compensation Discussion:
It was suggested that the POA compensate each Board Member $35 per meeting. That would amount to $420 per year, paid once a year at the end of the term. We need to examine what the covenants say about paying the Board. It may require a vote of the homeowners. Leigh expressed the opinion that she did not feel that Board Members should be paid; working on the Board is a voluntary service that members choose to do if they so desire.
Design Review Fee Increase Discussion for Commercial Projects:
An increased application fee was proposed for commercial projects. The new charge suggested is $1000 per unit or $1 per square foot, whichever is greater. Bill made a motion to adopt the new fee structure for commercial property. Dave seconded the motion. All members present voted in favor of the motion.
2006 POA Budget Discussion
Manager's Report:
January 18th Administrative/Special Meeting Reminder
With no further business to attend to, at 11:30 pm, Al made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bill seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
Crested Butte South Property Owners Association, Inc.
Louise Johnson
Staff Assistant
Al Smith
President |
