|
CRESTED BUTTE SOUTH
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
FEBRUARY 8, 2006
MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES
At 6:00 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
Approval of Minutes: Bill made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 11, 2006, Regular Board Meeting as written. Leigh seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.
Approval of 2005 Annual Meeting Minutes: Pete made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 6, 2005, Annual Meeting of Crested Butte South Property Owners Association. Leigh seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion. The POA staff will investigate to see if there is anything written in the bylaws or elsewhere that would disallow approval of these minutes prior to the next annual meeting. If there is we would have to annul this vote. (There is not - CB, 3-6-06.)
Treasurers Report: Financial reports presented included the Cash on Hand as of January 31, 2006, in all P.O.A. bank accounts and Reports of the Operating Account, the Hockey Rink Account, the Money Market Account, and the Performance Deposit Account for the period of January 1, 2006, through February 8, 2006, along with check registers showing expenses paid for that period. The Monthly Budget Summary was also presented. This is the period of time when most of the income for the year is received through annual dues. There were also some high expenses for the period, such as the yearly payment of our liability insurance premium and the consulting fees for Julie Ann Woods. Bill made a motion to approve the treasurer's report as presented. Pete seconded the motion. All board members voted in favor of the motion.
Unscheduled Property Owners Comments: This new agenda item will be added as a regular occurrence so that people can come in to compliment or complain about things happening in the subdivision. There were no public comments at this meeting, but the POA Board and Staff made the following remarks during this agenda time:
-The Metro District is planning for a 1200-unit capacity. Currently there are 490 units in CB South. They are designing systems to accommodate 1.35 units per lot. We don't have to worry about the density at built out as it relates to our infrastructure.
-Sidewalks - When the snow melts we will do a survey of all of Teocalli Road R.O.W. for the sidewalk planning and design in that area.
-DRC Alternates - If there is a conflict of interest such as a project Pete is building or that Shannon designed a project, alternates will have to sit on the committee for that project. Leigh, Dave, and Bill are willing to serve as alternates. Leigh will attend the DRC meeting on February 22nd when one such occurrence will happen.
Continued Business:
Ann and Brian Krill - Lot 6, Block 11, Filing 2 - 430 Teocalli Road. Addition to an Existing House
This addition was scheduled for final approval in October but stamped plans were not done then. Plans were presented at this meeting. Changes from the original plans include: Space between the windows, change of roof line, an added deck, a door instead of a window, eliminated a roof hip, adding a cricket over the door. The question was raised as to whether the changes were significant enough to send the project back to the DRC. Most of the changes became necessary when the plans were drawn to scale by the architect. The changes are for the better. The Board could approve on condition that Chris check the new plan for compliance, or in order to comply with the DRC's request for better communication, we could ask the committee members to stop by the office and look at the plan. Bill made a motion to approve the revised plan contingent on Chris reviewing the plan and having a conference with a DRC member (Shannon). Leigh seconded the motion. All board members were in favor of the motion. The application fee, performance deposit, and Review of Architectural Conditions still need to be paid and completed.
Arliss Merrell - Lot 10, Block 21, Filing 3 - 18 Fox Place. Change of Use Proposal, Duplex to a Triplex.
The DRC stopped reviewing the plan to connect the garage to the main dwelling and make the structure a triplex because they wanted the Board to first approve the concept of the triplex. The question is regarding the appropriateness of a triplex on this lot. Arliss has gathered letters of approval from the neighbors and has also heard verbal approval and compliments on his project and plans. He presented four form letters, signed by neighbors, to the Board. The plan shows that parking requirements have been met. The project was published for public comment at this meeting.
One concern of the Board is that a precedent could be set by allowing a duplex with an attached accessory dwelling. It has to be considered whether a triplex is in harmony with the existing neighborhood. One of the things people have been trying to do on upper lots is limit density. A moratorium on multi-family dwellings in upper lots has even been considered. However, Arliss feels it should be considered on a case by case basis.
Bill stepped down from the Board during the consideration of this petition. As public comment, he (Bill) stated that he doesn't like the idea of that much traffic and that many cars on the lot. It would be difficult for him, as a neighbor, to live with that situation, even though the project is nice-looking. He has concerns about where all the plowed snow is going to end up. Bill is not in favor of more living spaces on the hillside lot. It was pointed out that the plan shows 66.1% of open space, i.e. untouched space.
The Board needs to decide whether or not a triplex use should be permitted on this site. Based on the covenants and design guidelines, the Board has the authority to do such things as will tend toward the welfare and benefit of Crested Butte South and the landowners therein. They also may review plans with regard to harmony of exterior design with existing or planned structures adjacent thereto. The covenants allow for the Board's use of subjectivity.
If the project is not allowed as a triplex, the garage addition has to be tied to one of the other units of the duplex. If it is allowed as a triplex, it could be turned into condominiums and sold to three separate owners. Arliss said he did not intend to sell the attached unit, but would like to be able to put a kitchen in it and have it as an independent dwelling unit to be able to afford to stay, work and live in Crested Butte South. He is willing to write a letter saying the garage dwelling would never be sold, and that there would only be two owners on the property.
The Board expressed understanding that Arliss was trying to make the project more economical for himself. However, the Board opinion was that the intensity of use of a multifamily unit is not appropriate on this particular lot, in that particular area of the subdivision. Board-member views are part of public comment. The Board has concerns about the future of the subdivision. Last August the Board made a decision to change the trend of what was happening in CB South. We think the new trend might be to limit multifamily dwellings to the commercial area.
Leigh made a motion to disallow this project as a triplex. Dave seconded the motion. The Board voted in favor of the motion. Bill abstained from the vote.
Arliss expressed disappointment that the ruling was applied to a project already under construction. He felt it would be better to wait until the guidelines were changed and then start to apply them. He also felt that the Board did not acknowledge the public support he had behind him and his project. We need guidelines and covenants that stand the test of time so that all the inconsistencies don't come back when the Board changes.
New Business:
Architectural Review Application and Performance Deposit Fee Increases Proposed fees are as follows:
- Single-family residence - application fee $500, performance deposit $2000 or $1.25/sq. ft., whichever is greater
- Accessory apt./Addition - application fee $500, performance deposit $1000
- Single-family residence with Accessory apt. - application fee $1000, performance deposit $2,000 or $1.25/sq. ft., whichever is greater
- Duplex residence - application fee $2000, performance deposit $2500 per unit or $1.25/sq. ft., whichever is greater
- Multi-family residence - application fee $2000 per unit, performance deposit $2500 per unit or $1.25/sq. ft., whichever is greater
- Change of use - application fee $300 or $.50/sq. ft., whichever is greater, performance deposit $500 minimum when project includes landscaping or exterior changes.
- Commercial, business, and lodging uses - application fee $1000 per unit or $.50/sq. ft., whichever is greater
- New business/new business owner - application fee $50, performance deposit varies
- Mixed-use project - application fee $1000 per commercial unit or $.50/sq. ft., whichever is greater and $2000 per residential unit, performance deposit $2500 per commercial unit and $1.25/sq. ft. for residential space
- Mixed-use project with local housing restrictions - application fee $1000 per commercial unit or $.50/sq. ft., whichever is greater, $.40/sq. ft. per deed restricted residential unit, $2000 per non-deed restricted residential unit; performance deposit $2500 per commercial unit or $1.25/sq. ft., whichever is greater, $.75/sq. ft. for residential space with deed restriction; $1.25/sq. ft. for non-deed restricted residential space.
- Addition/garage/remodel - application fee $150 to $500, performance deposit $300
- Deck/fence/repair - application fee $50 to $100, performance deposit $1000 or $1.25/sq. ft., whichever is greater
- Sign application - application fee $25, performance deposit $50 per sign
Bill made a motion to accept the new fees as stated. Pete seconded the motion. All board members were in favor of the motion.
Title Company Fee Assessment Fee Increase for all Property Closings:
Al made a motion to increase our administrative fee to title companies for providing a certificate of assessment closing document, from $30 to $100. Leigh seconded the motion. All board members voted in favor of the motion.
Little Red School House - Lot 38, Block 5, Filing 2 - 49 Gillaspey Ave. Interior Finish with Exterior Deck Addition
The plan was submitted and reviewed. Comments were made as to whether there was adequate ventilation in the upstairs of the building. Al moved to approve the change with the suggestion that the air-flow issue be taken into consideration. Pete seconded the motion. All board members were in favor of the motion.
Don and Cassia Montgomery - Lot C39, Block 5, Filing 2 - 33 Gillaspey Ave. Change of Use Proposal, Residential to Commercial (mixed-use)
This is an application to utilize a portion of the house currently under construction as a design services office. The board felt they need more information, such as hours of operation and a plan to have more parking spaces for the business. Additionally, they would like to know more about the business, like what kind of 'design' business is it. We want them to come back to the board one more time with the additional information before final approval is given.
Tutnauer/Greenberg Residence - Lot 5, Block 22, Filing 3 - 78 Janet Place. Performance Deposit Question
This is a request for a reduced performance fee based on interior dimensions instead of exterior dimensions because the proposed walls are 12-inches thick as opposed to 6-inch thick conventional walls. Leigh made a motion not to approve the request for a lower performance deposit based on consistency. Pete seconded the motion. All board members voted in favor of the motion.
Commercial Area Pedestrian Easement Discussion
Due to a consideration of time, this agenda item will be discussed at a later meeting.
Sunset Hall User Fee Adjustment
POA staff is suggesting an increase in the fee for property owners to rent Sunset Hall in order to cover cleaning staff costs and cleaning supplies. Bill made a motion that we increase the Sunset Hall rental fee from $10/hour to a minimum of $30 per rental, or $12/hour, whichever is greater. Pete seconded the motion. All board members were in favor of the increase.
Accessory Apartment Discussion:
Currently our covenants and guidelines do not mention 'accessory apartments'. The CB South Metro District limits accessory apartments to 1000 sq. ft. and requires that the apartment not be sold separately from the main residence. The CB South Metro District gives discounted tap fees for accessory apartments.
The following was recommended to be put into our POA guidelines:
Accessory Apartment: A residential unit located on the same parcel of land as a single-family unit, which is secondary in size and use to the single-family unit and meets the following criteria:
A. The total dwelling area of the unit is no greater in size than one-third (1/3) of the total dwelling area of the single-family unit.
B. The total dwelling area of the unit is no greater in size than 800 square feet.
C. Legal title to the accessory apartment and the single-family unit is held in the same name in perpetuity.
Units that meet all of the criteria will be classified as a portion of the single-family unit, while those that do not meet all of the criteria shall be classified as a duplex unit. Additional architectural review fee may apply.
Parking requirements for accessory apartments shall be a minimum of one additional parking space above that required for the single-family unit, or an additional parking space for each bedroom in the accessory apartment, whichever is greater.
Architecture for the accessory apartment shall be similar in color and material to the single-family unit. Accessory apartments shall provide a minimum 50 sq. ft. attached storage space on the first floor with an exterior entrance.
Al made a motion to adopt the accessory apartment definition into the guidelines as discussed. Board member roll-call vote results: Al, yes; Pete, yes; Dave, yes; Bill, yes; Leigh, yes.
Open Space Calculation Amendment Proposal
The following definitions were recommended to be incorporated into our design guidelines:
Open Space for all residential areas: It is required that all residential developments, or the residential portions of multiuse developments, retain at lease sixty percent (60%) of their land area in natural or improved open space, exclusive of roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, decks, or small landscaping strips. Where possible, open space shall be placed adjacent to rights-of-way and other public areas.
OPEN SPACE: An exterior space located within the physical boundaries of a project or property which: a) is usable for recreation purposes, b) provides for natural or manmade landscaping areas, or c) provides for the protection of natural resources such as stream channels, drainage ditches, and steep slopes, etc.
Areas that qualify as open space are:
-Landscaping areas, strips, planters, etc., with a minimum dimension in all directions of five feet (5'), and with a minimum overall size of fifty (50) square feet.
-Natural areas, excluding existing stream channels and drainage ditches.
Areas that do not qualify as open space include, but are not limited to:
- Parking and circulation areas.
- Sidewalks and other pedestrian circulation areas.
- Any areas covered with a structure
- Stairways
- Any areas that do not meet the minimum dimensions listed above.
- Any hard surface area.
Al made a motion to adopt the open space definition into the guidelines as discussed. Board member roll-call vote results: Al, yes; Pete, yes; Dave, yes; Bill, yes; Leigh, yes.
Administrative/Special Meeting Schedule
It was agreed to hold a meeting on February 23rd at 6:00 pm to further discuss administrative issues.
Special Area Designation Document Review Meeting Schedule
We need to schedule extra meetings as we near the end of the draft review of the Special Area Designation document. This item will be put on the agenda to discuss at the March 8, 2006 regular board meeting.
Non agenda item: At the end of the meeting the Board approved the purchase of 80+ mailboxes to install in our bus stop/mail structure. This will enable those residents of CB South who desire it to receive mail addressed to their CB South street address.
With no further business to attend to, at 10:10 pm, Al made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Pete 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
|
