|
CRESTED BUTTE SOUTH
PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION
MARCH 8, 2006
REGULAR BOARD MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES
At 6:08 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: Leigh identified three small changes to be made to the February 8, 2006, meeting minutes. Bill made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2006, Regular Board Meeting as amended. Al seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.
Treasurers Report: Financial reports presented included the Monthly Budget Summary, Cash on Hand as of February 28, 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 February 1, 2006, through March 8, 2006, along with check registers showing expenses paid for that period. Many of the bills for February were not paid by the time of the meeting because of changing our mailing address to our physical address instead of the P.O. Box. This caused a delay in receiving mail and bills. Leigh made a motion to approve the treasurer's report as presented. Bill seconded the motion. All board members voted in favor of the motion.
Unscheduled Property Owners Comments: This time slot was used to give details about the post boxes we have ordered for the bus stop area. There will be 87 useable mailboxes and 4 parcel lockers. Residents who wish to receive their mail at Crested Butte South may get a key for a small fee from the P.O.A. We will issue keys on a first-come, first-serve basis. If there are more requests than mailboxes, we will be able to purchase more boxes.
Final Architectural Project Review:
Tutnauer/Greenberg Single-Family Residence - Lot 5, Block 22, Filing 3 - 78 Janet Place
The Board considered the issue of whether to give final approval of the project without requiring trim. Since the Board has been obliging other owners to put trim around the windows, does it want to go forward with that model and follow that rule? The Design Review Committee said the project would be acceptable with the corners wrapped, and the windows recessed and rolled in. The design guidelines are not specific on this issue. The look of the house might be better with trim, but we may not be able to require it because there is no specific language in the guidelines. Having a specific requirement for trim might be something to consider in the future as we continue to refine the design guidelines. It was felt that trim would more closely reflect "Mountain Architecture", however some stucco houses in CB South do not have trim so we may not be able to hold up the requirement for trim on that basis. After discussion, the consensus of Board was that the house would be acceptable with rolled-in stucco and no trim. The Board suggested that wainscoting be considered to mask the large expanse of stucco. The owner, however, is planning to plant bushes, and they would just cover up the wainscoting. Dave made a motion to grant final approval to the project without requiring additional changes to the plans. Pete seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion. The owner must provide structural plans before getting the final approval letter. Payment of the performance deposit based on the gross square footage of the house must also be paid when the letter is picked up.
Cement Creek Management Multi-Family 4-Plex - Lot 2, Block 3, Filing 1 - 96 Elcho Place
Photo simulation of the building was presented. The structure has raised trim; lentils have been deleted. Pop-out trim will be different colors. There is a 3-foot rock wainscoting with a wood capboard. Units 1 and 2 are a "suede" color. Units 3 and 4 are a "buckskin" color. Pop-out colors are the same on both. The roof is burgundy. The Board requested that the rock wainscoting be brought around the corners toward the garage doors for a better appearance and expressed satisfaction with the changes that had been made to the plans. The project is consistent with existing properties and can be approved at this time. In the future, guidelines could change and similar structures may not be met with approval. Parking, as proposed, may not meet the guidelines which specify you have to be able to park without "shuffling" vehicles. There are options to correct the parking. Shoving the building forward, for instance, gives more parking room; or angled parking could be employed. Bill suggested researching turning radiuses and then having the owner work out the parking plan with Chris in the office. The owners have requested a letter from us to take to the County to vacate the common lot line between Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, thus making Lot 2 part of Lots 3, 4, and 5. Cement Creek Management owns all of these lots. Clay Jutte, owner of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, expressed concern about increased traffic on Elcho Avenue, which runs past the proposed new project and also accesses his property. (The road is private because it was vacated years ago.) The owners have agreed to remove the one-way sign to allow two-way traffic, and there will be no parking allowed on the road. Even though it is private, the road should meet County standards because other property owners are living there. The plan is showing a 20' roadway. As a condition of approval, a 24' road requirement will be imposed. The Association said that prior to future development the road would have to be 24' wide and that the performance deposit doesn't get refunded unless the road is widened to 24-feet. Leigh made a motion to approve the project contingent on an administrative review of the parking, widening of the road in front of Lot 3 to 24', the installation of 'No Parking' signs along Elcho Avenue, and the agreement of Cement Creek Management to work on a Master Plan for all of their property in 2006. Bill seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.
Stepanek Single Family Residence - Lot 28, Block 23, Filing 3 - 807 Zeligman Street
An examination of the driveway found it to be too steep. While overall, the grade was 8%, one section was a 20% grade. Per the County regulations, the driveway grade in any section may not exceed 12%. Raising the house a little would be an option, or raising the garage and having a step-down to the house is a feasible solution. The owner will need to provide a plan to achieve the 12% grade and get administrative approval from Chris. Per the DRC recommendation, the owner is adding a window on the west elevation and matching the gable on both sides of the house. Leigh made a motion to approve the project contingent on a revised site plan that meets the 12% grade, addition of windows, and matching elevations on to front and back of the house. Bill seconded the motion. Dave opposed approval based on the driveway grade. All other Board Members voted in favor of the motion. The owner was instructed to bring three sets of stamped drawings to the P.O.A. office when the specified changes have been made.
Haskell Single-Family Residence - Lot 22, Block 17, Filing 3 - 32 Brackenbury Street
The project was approved by the DRC. No changes were required by the Board. Leigh made a motion to approve the project as presented. Pete seconded the motion. Dave stepped down from the Board for the vote due to personal interest in the project. All other Board Members voted in favor of approval.
Laemmel Residence with Accessory Apartment - Lot 4, Block 13, Filing 2 - 15 Kubler Street
The main house structure has a barrel vault roof. The issue of window trim on the stucco portion of the structure was brought up. Comments were made that there is lot occurring on the rest of the building and that trim may not actually be required on the windows because of the contemporary style of the building. The standard for trim is not yet completely defined. While it may not be traditional, it is appropriate without trim in this application. The design is basically three-sided. Other projects have been held to a four-sided standard, so the Board would like to be consistent and require that windows be added to the north side of the garage. Al made a motion to approve the project contingent on the addition of windows on the north side of the garage. Pete seconded the motion. All Board Members voted to approve the project. For the record, Dave expressed the opinion that the structure does not meet the standard of "traditional mountain architecture".
Eaton Single-Family Residence - Lot 28, Block 26, Filing 4 - 65 Gloria Place
The project was presented as approved by the DRC with no issues. Pete made a motion to approve the plans. Leigh seconded the motion. All Board Members voted to grant final approval to the project.
New Business:
Duplex Permit Extension Request - Lot 4, Block 10, Filing 2 - 497 Teocalli Road
This project was given final approval June 8, 2005, but construction has not yet begun. The owner is not yet ready to start construction and would like to extend his approval. If the Board says no, he would still be allowed to begin construction under his current permit by June 8, 2006. Due to the fact that the Board is discussing a series of changes in the design guidelines, they are not comfortable with approving this extension. Extensions are granted at the sole discretion of the Board. The extension was denied.
CB South Odor Regulations
The P.O.A. is going to abide by State Regulation on odor emissions. We propose to adopt the state regulatory language into our guidelines when we have received it. At issue is Al's coffee roasting. The State Regulation will determine if the coffee roasting is an infringement, and Al will do whatever the State requires him to do. To show consideration for his neighbors, Al has already changed the times during the day that he roasts coffee. He is also working on a dispersal process to alleviate some of the odor. If these measures do not work, the coffee roasting will probably be moved to an industrial area in Gunnison.
New Driveway Design Standards - Architectural Review Application Modification
The P.O.A. proposes to adopt the Gunnison County Road and Bridge Standards and Specifications into our Design Guidelines. This would include the condition, that among other items, all driveways shall require a flat area, not to exceed a 4% grade, for the first 20 feet from the intersection with the edge of any road. And that all parking areas and driveways shall be a minimum of ten feet from all property lines. Leigh made a motion to adopt the new driveway standards into the design guidelines. Bill seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.
New CB South Driveway Regulations are as follows:
All driveways shall have a minimum width of 18 feet where at the edge of the driveway, where it ties into the Public R.O.W. All driveways shall be constructed with a minimum of 6 inches of class 6 aggregate base course. The maximum grade for driveways shall be 11%. The grade of the entrance and exit shall slope downwards and away from the road surface at the same rate as the normal cross slope and for a distance equal to the width of the shoulder, but in no case less than 10 feet from the R.O.W.
All driveway and approaches shall be constructed so that they shall not interfere with the drainage system of the roadway. The applicant will be required to pay for and install, at their own expense, drainage structures at entrances and exits which will become an integral part of the existing drainage system. The minimum size of the culvert installed parallel to the road will be 12" diameter.
The horizontal axis of an approach to the roadway shall normally be at a right angle to the centerline of the roadway and extend a minimum of 40 feet beyond the travel way. An angle of 90 to 60 degrees shall be permitted if it can be shown that physical constraints exist that require a new approach angle of less than 90 degrees. Angles less than 60 degrees are not permitted.
No more than one residential approach shall be allowed on a parcel of property where there is less then one hundred (100) feet of property frontage.
In the case of flared driveways, the flared portion adjacent to the traveled way shall not encroach within five (5) feet of the adjoining property.
Access gates are not permitted in Crested Butte South.
Intersecting public and private roads/driveways shall be located opposite each other where possible or be offset by a minimum of one hundred twenty five (125) feet.
Driveways shall have an all weather driving surface.
Driveways shall have a minimum surface width of 18 feet at the edge of the pavement or road surface (maximum of 24 feet) and taper to 16 feet at a distance of 6 feet from the edge of the road and maintain this surface width the remaining portion of the driveway.
Driveways at the End of the Road - Driveways 150 feet or longer in length that end at a private residence , a business or structure larger than 600 square feet, shall have a cul-de-sac loop design or a "Y" or "T" turn around adequate to accommodate emergency service vehicles. "T" turn arounds shall be a minimum of two (2) feet from any flammable structure. All turn around areas shall be kept free and clear, and shall have sufficient area for snow storage outside of the road prism, and shall be plowed by the owner in the winter.
Residential driveway designs that allow back out onto a public road shall not be allowed.
All parking areas and driveways shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet from all property lines.
Driveways shall be constructed to meet all Gunnison County Standards and Specifications from the edge of the County Road, or public road, or private road under the county jurisdiction, to the building footprint.
All driveways shall require a flat area, not to exceed a 4% grade, for the first 20 feet from the intersection with the edge of the road.
No parking along roads with CB South is permitted.
No cut and fill slope for a proposed driveway access shall exceed a 2:1 slope, without the use of a retaining wall. Retaining walls in excess of four (4) feet in height must be designed by a registered engineer from the State of Colorado. All proposed retaining walls in excess of 4 feet shall be stepped with a minimum of 1 foot for every 2 vertical feet of retaining wall proposed. No retaining walls over 6 feet in height shall be permitted for any site improvement.
Variance Criteria - Architectural Review Application Modification
The following criteria were proposed and adopted in order to evaluate all future variance requests:
VARIANCE: A finding by the P.O.A Board of Directors that, although a proposed development is not in strict compliance with covenants of guidelines, to deny the development would result in "undue hardship" as defined by law. No relief from compliance all applicable CB South Development policy shall be granted except upon findings that:
1. The failure to implement the policy is of insignificant proportions; and
2. The failure to implement the policy will not result in substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the intent and purposes of the absolute policy; and
3. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the specific development which do not apply generally to other properties in the neighborhood.
In order to prevent or to reduce such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives the rules and regulation of Crested Butte South, variances from the regulations may be granted. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance.
Application: The application for a variance shall be made on a form provided by the Association Manager, and shall accompany the application for the project, and shall contain the following information and materials:
1. A fee as set forth in the fee schedule.
2. A statement concerning the applicant's reasons for requesting the variance and how these relate to the criteria established in the subsection to this section.
3. All maps, drawings and materials required by the Manager to make a decision (3 sets).
Criteria for Approval: Before the P.O.A. Board of Directors can grant a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship, and P.O.A. Board must find all of the following:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation or other matters on the subject lot which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the development in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular use of which the applicant desires a variance and do not apply generally to all uses.
2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant.
3. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of the CB South Rules and Regulations, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.
4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of the CB South Rules and regulations any more than is required.
Pete made a motion to approve the variance criteria. Leigh seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.
Exterior Materials (Trim) - Architectural Review Application Modification
The following language was proposed to be added to the Design Guidelines to clarify the use of trim boards:
In an attempt to enhance and promote a Traditional Mountain Architecture design theme within the subdivision, to improve excessive "sold-to-void" ratios, to help to provide visual relief on exterior elevations and facades, and to break up the "mass" of each elevation, all windows and doors shall be treated with wood or natural wood-looking trim boards, at a minimum dimension of 1" x 4" throughout the project. Additionally, wood or natural wood-looking corner boards are strongly encouraged, at a minimum dimension of 1" x 4" on all residential projects. In architectural applications proposing stucco as the primary exterior siding material, the trim requirement shall be the same as mentioned above or the stucco shall be recessed/rolled into windows and door openings, with a minimum 2 ½" radius, and/or a wood lintel and sill boards. Pete made a motion to adopt the change into the design guidelines. Bill seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.
Minimum Roof Pitch - Architectural Review Application Modification
Concerning roof pitch in CB South, the P.O.A Board reviewed and adopted the proposed language changes, as indicated by the different font/italic types, to our current Design Guidelines sections that address roofs below:
4.2. Roof Shape and Slope
The exposed nature of the Crested Butte South Subdivision and the extensive elevation changes, which exist between lots, creates a situation where roof structures will be a highly visible and dominant element of the architecture. Roof form is a significant element in creating the image and visual continuity within the neighborhood. Buildings that are too tall can block views, light, air, and solar radiation to other properties; they can also disrupt off site vistas and occasionally penetrate tree canopies that provide screening to maintain a mountain character. The P.O.A. strongly encourages reducing height impacts with broken, interesting roof forms that step down at edges while maintaining steeply pitched roofs characteristic of traditional mountain architecture. No single elevation shall be permitted to exceed 34 feet in a vertical dimension, as measured from existing grade to the nearest ridge line, along said exterior wall. To accomplish this, gable, gambrel, shed, barrel vault and hip roofs are to be used on all buildings in the Crested Butte South Subdivision. Additionally, the majority (at least 51%) of the proposed roof's area, on all residential structures, shall have a minimum pitch of 7:12. No unbroken roof plane shall be longer than 30 feet, including roof overhangs. A minimum of one foot overhang is required; however, a more pronounced eve is strongly encouraged.
4.3 Roof Material
Roof materials are to be fire resistant wood shingles or inorganic shingles, i.e., slate, concrete or formed composite that are similar in size, texture and thickness with wood shake shingles, or manufactured metal roofs. Rolled membrane roofing shall not be permitted.
Roof materials must be nonreflective (a.k.a. not shiny) and blend into the site's backdrop as much as possible. Inappropriate exterior building materials include, but are not limited to, untextured exposed concrete, untextured or unfinished unit masonry, highly reflective glass, reflective metal roofing, and unpainted aluminum window frames.
4.4. Roof Appurtenances
Accessory roofs are encouraged, such as dormers and covered entryways and are not be less than a 2:12 pitch. Accessory roofs shall not exceed 50% of the roof area
Height Measurement Language Change - Architectural Review Application Modification
The P.O.A Board reviewed and adopted the proposed language changes, as indicated by the different font/italic types, to our current Design Guidelines sections that address height below. Until we can get a covenant change voted upon to change the way we measure height, the following language was adopted into the Design Guideline, in two places - as noted above, and below:
2.5 Height Restrictions
All residential structures shall meet the following height limits:
2.5(a) Flat Roofs. Structures with flat roof shall not exceed 20 feet in height.
2.5(b) Pitched Roofs. All structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 30 feet in height from average grade. Average height is determined from average existing grade prior to construction. Any lot with a grade change difference of 3 feet shall be required to provide a certified contour map to the DRC. Lots with less than a 3 foot grade change shall be required to provide a survey that includes, at a minimum, a benchmark elevation for the property as well as the existing elevation where the proposed driveway will tie into the existing road surface.
Building heights are encouraged to be architecturally compatible with the existing buildings in the neighborhood. Therefore, no single elevation shall be permitted to exceed 34 feet in a vertical dimension, as measured from existing grade to the nearest ridge line, along said exterior wall. In no instance shall finished grade exceed a 2:1 slope.
Modular Construction Staging Plan Requirements - Architectural Review Application Modification
The P.O.A Board reviewed and adopted the following language be added to the Design Guidelines, which will add a requirement for all factory, modular, or panel-type construction projects to provide a staging/delivery plan:
Because of safety and welfare concerns for the residents of Crested Butte South, it is required of all projects proposing to utilize a modular, factory-built, pre-fabricated, or panel-type construction structures to provide a staging/delivery plan with their submittal package. In no instance shall the delivery, staging, craning, or storage of these building components be allowed in any Crested Butte South Public R.O.W. This plan shall at a minimum include the following items:
1. Areas where the "modules" or 'panels" will be delivered to the site.
2. Location of the crane or any other equipment and/or machinery required to place these building components.
3. All disturbed areas associated with the staging of these building components must be restored/re-vegetated prior to the consideration of the performance deposit refund.
4. Any other items as deemed necessary by the P.O.A.
Note: Violations will result in the complete forfeiture of the entirety of the Performance Deposit.
Association Manager's Report:
Special Area Designation Document Review Meeting Schedule - We are having a second, larger (open to all property owners) CBS Special Area Document review meeting on May 3, 2006, 6 pm - Sunset Hall.
Miscellaneous Issues:
Accessory Apartments - are now allowed a maximum of 1,000 SF in order to mesh with CB South Metro District existing regulations. Metro will record and keep the required covenant.
With no further business to attend to, at 10:30 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
|
