April 2006 Minutes

CRESTED BUTTE SOUTH
PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
APRIL 10, 2006

REGULAR BOARD 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, Peter Carey

Staff Member Present: Chris Behan

Approval of Minutes: Copies of the March 8, 2006, Regular Board Meeting Minutes were presented to the Board Members prior to the meeting. Leigh made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Al seconded the motion to approve. All Board Members present voted to approve the March 8, 2006 Minutes.

Treasurers Report: Financial reports presented to the Board included the Monthly Budget Summary, Cash on Hand as of March 31, 2006, additional reports of cash in the bank for the Money Market, Operating, Hockey Rink, and Performance Deposit Accounts for the period of March 1, 2006, through April 10, 2006, along with check registers showing expenses paid for that period. Large expenses for the period were the Julie Ann’s consulting fees ($2741.40), Dalby Wendland and Co.’s fee for the 2004 audit ($3990.00) and the post boxes ($2394.00). The Board requested to see an overall view of budget expenses and income at the next meeting to see if we are on target with our objectives. The monthly mortgage payment is $889.23. It was noted that the DRC was paid for reviewing plans in 2005, per the agreement that was made with them at that time (before the hire of Chris). Per our By-Laws, we cannot pay the DRC in 2006 unless we change the covenants. Shannon was contracted to hard-line plans for the office remodel and was paid $304 for 7 hours work; this was not for DRC work. Newspaper costs for publishing meeting agendas and projects, including pictures and text amounts to approximately $100 per application. The CarQuest expense item was for Zamboni parts. Billing was delayed by the mail problems that occurred when we switched from a P.O. Box to our street address, but this is improving. Leigh made a motion to approve the treasurer’s report. Pete seconded the motion. All Board Members present voted in favor to approve the report as presented.

Unscheduled Property Owners Comments: A letter was received from Deborah Tutnauer, who wished to comment on architectural issues, including trim on houses, as well as keeping CB South affordable. Leigh summarized the letter for everyone when it came in. Deborah’s comments were very similar to those previously made by Kevin Donovan. The Board acknowledged the need to pay attention to how its actions affect people in the community. Deborah’s letter is on file at the P.O.A office for review. 

Final Architectural Project Review:

Montgomery Single-Family Residence with an Accessory Unit

Lot 25, Block 22, Filing #4 – 400 Cisneros Lane

Neither staff nor the DRC had any issues with these plans. Adjustments were made to some procedural items. Driveway drawing needed some details. Our minimum driveway width requirement is 16-feet. Height comes in a little bit under regulation; it would come out to 29.6’. We will need to get an ILC if there is a dispute in actual height when the performance deposit refund is requested. Our regulation or our measurement might need to be changed a little; people could start building flat-topped roofs on the hillside. Changing our regulation would require a covenant change. The covenants not only prescribes a height at 30-feet, but it prescribes how to measure it, stating it has to be measured off of average grade. Setbacks were changed by bumping the house 2-feet down the hill. The driveway was changed, and that moved the house down and from the lot line, it needs to be 10-feet. Plans need to be red-lined showing proper setbacks. Propane tank needs to be 2’ away from electrical line and 10’ off the property line and 10’ from the house per the county building code. Leigh made a motion to approve the plans. Pete seconded the motion. All Board Members present voted in favor of the motion. Plans can be red-lined, stamped and signed in the office tomorrow.

St. James Duplex

Lot 25, Block 21, Filing #3 - 1042 Cascadilla Street

Neither staff nor the DRC had any issues with these plans. Leigh will abstain from the vote as she did the design work on these plans. All issues were ironed out at the final DRC meeting. Walkway at main entry was changed. Mirror image is not an issue as units are turned on an angle. Pete made a motion to approve the plan. Al seconded the motion. The two eligible Board Members voted in favor of the motion. The Performance Deposit can be calculated and paid at the office tomorrow.

Engle Residence Garage/Accessory Apartment Addition

Lot 16, Block 1, Filing #1 – 279 Cascadilla Street

Plans were available at the meeting. The DRC members were comfortable with the garage accessory unit’s connection to the primary residence even though the Design Guidelines state that when a living unit is part of the garage, it must be attached to the residential structure. Design Guidelines also state that accessory buildings attached to the main building must be attached by a permanently installed deck, no less than 3’ wide and a fully covered walkway. Where it sits on the property will be reviewed by the Association Manager. The new structure is connected to the house via a second story deck. DRC said it doesn’t really meet the Design Guidelines, but feels that this design is acceptable. Is it a permanently installed deck with a fully covered walkway? Since the deck is a permanent structure it could be considered as a cover to the walkway. Architecturally it works, and visually it looks good, even though it is a deviation from the guidelines. Leigh made a motion to approve the garage/addition. Al seconded the motion. All Board Members present voted in favor of the motion.

Camp 4 Building Addition (Minor Addition/Existing Porch Enclosure)

Lot 31, Block 5, Filing #2 – 161 Gillaspey Avenue

Al stepped down for this discussion, as he is the Applicant. These plans were brought to the Board for a courtesy review. In the future, additions of this scope will probably not need to come to the Board for approval. Could this be approved administratively? It is a proposal for a shed roof and side walls over the patio to eliminate a water leaking problem. It could be included in the larger proposed apartment (above the barn) project, but it is very important to get this problem fixed as soon as possible to avoid further damage. The barn project has to go through a land use change with the county. The downstairs is commercial and the upstairs is residential. The DRC can grant approvals on structures up to a certain size. Larger additions would need to have Board approval. This project should be split into two different projects so that early approval could be given for the covered shed roof to enclose the porch. Leigh made a motion to approve the deck enclosure to the residential portion of the structure. Pete seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion. In the future, the DRC can grant approval on projects of this size. It was appropriate to break out the residential from the commercial aspect of the addition. The County requires a land use changes for variations in commercial structures. The DRC could determine whether projects need to go to the Board.

New Business:

Duplex Permit Extension Request - Lot 4, Block 10, Filing 2 – 497 Teocalli Road

The owner, Zig Sheaffer, was given a letter following the March 8, 2006, Board Meeting, which explained why his request to extend the approval period of his project was being denied. The project had been approved June 8, 2005, and the approval period is one year. In light of certain covenant language and the current updating process that the CB South Residential Design Guidelines are going through, the Board decided at the meeting in March that one year was an appropriate and adequate amount of time for Mr. Sheaffer to obtain a building permit. Zig, however, wanted an opportunity to discuss the issue further. He is not on his own with this project, but with a group of people, and he is proposing the extension to take care of his business proposal with his partners. He did not necessarily expect to come to the Board again, but felt that an administrative agreement would be sufficient. He stated that the structure he is proposing fits nicely on the lot. When he bought the three lots on Teocalli, the Board at that time suggested that he put his projects there. Other mirror-image duplexes are in the near vicinity of the property. The Board that approved the project in 2005 had no issues with it. He suggested that the Board Members make a site visit and look at what is there now and consider granting an extension of his permit. The P.O.A. did not feel a site visit was necessary because everyone was familiar with Teocalli Road and the projects that had been built there in the past. No one on the Board was comfortable allowing the excessive similarity to continue. Zig felt that the history of P.O.A. Boards shows that any project can be denied on an individual basis. How can we be sure that the next Board to be elected in August will be in agreement with the present Board? When Casey was here and the project was approved, there were no issues with it. Zig said he just needs a little more time to get it going one way or another. The Board reminded him that he can begin this project by June 8, 2006, under the old permit, but if that period expires and the project comes before the Board again there would have to be changes. The present P.O.A. Management and Board are adopting the regulation to not allow any more mirror images. Zig argued that he has seen Boards in the past change their opinions many times. He feels the opinions do not always reflect what is in the guidelines, and that there should be more clarity when regulations are passed. Zig also feels that new regulations should be voted on. He said that after someone gets approval they go away and end up doing whatever they please, and the result is that the place is looking like a pig pen. The Board feels that it cannot address issues of the past but can make changes going forward when problems arise that need to be solved. Other issues were brought up, but it was noted that time allotted for this discussion had expired. Pete made a motion not to grant an extension. Al seconded the motion. Leigh also said that she would not be able to grant an extension.

CB South Noise Regulations – Draft Document Review

Ellyn Houghton of the Gunnison Hearing Center prepared noise guidelines for current and future residential and commercial development. She was available for an hour to discuss the draft. The following draft was provided to the Board Members:

These Guidelines provide:

q A brief overview of noise

q How sound propagates

q Noise Standards (dogs, outdoor music, construction noise and commercial activity)

q Enforcement

Overview of Noise

Noise is defined as any sound you don’t want to hear. Although this is a subjective definition, it is possible to measure noise levels objectively and compare them to reference sound levels. Most noise guidelines refer to a maximum allowable decibel (dB) level, using an A-weighted sound scale (dBA). The decibel scale is a logarithmic expression of sound power; hand-held sound level meters read out in decibels or dB.

Sound Propagation

Many factors affect sound propagation outdoors, including: ground surfaces, air temperature, altitude and relative altitude, humidity, wind speed and direction, and distance of sound source. Here are a few general rules about sound propagation:

Sound travels easier through thin air at high altitude than through thicker lower altitude air.

Sound travels faster through dry air than humid air.

Sound moves faster when the air temperature is warmer than when it is colder.

(ANSI S10.18-1994)

Sometimes sounds are masked near a source, but clearly audible in quieter areas farther away. Sound outdoors reaches a receiver by both direct and reflected paths. The magnitude of reflected sound depends on the ground surface and the angle. Hard ground has low porosity and tends to be highly reflective, absorbing very little acoustic energy upon reflection. At angles off the ground greater than 20 degrees, which occur in cases of elevated sources, even soft ground becomes a good reflector of sound

For distances over 100 meters, termed long-range propagation, wind and its direction play an important role. Wind pushes sound through the air faster and if a source is upwind and a receiver is downwind sound waves bend downward resulting in a condition advantageous to sound propagation. This can explain why sound levels downwind of a noise source are more easily detected or heard as compared to the listening conditions upwind. The frequency content of sound also changes with distance—low frequency sounds such as bass travel further than high frequency sounds and are usually the cause of noise complaints.

Relative altitude can affect the rate of propagation, along with wind and altitude. If a noise source is higher than a receiver, sound is less impeded due to thinner air, lower humidity and angle of reflection.

The intensity of noise diminishes with distance. Outdoors, and in absence of any close reflecting surface, the effective decibel level diminishes at a rate of 6 dB for each factor of two increases in distance. For example, a sound measuring 100dB at 10 meters would be 94dB at 20 meters, 88 dB at 40 meters, and so on.

Noise Guideline Standards: (EPA, 1974)

Enforcement 

If an offensive noise exceeds the levels set in the guidelines or occurs outside the set time restrictions penalty notices can be given per the EPA’s Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Individual fines may be up to $200.00 or business up to $400.00. The maximum penalty is $5000.00.

Dealing with Community Noise Complaints:

First try to talk to people. Try to solve the problem amicably by talking to whoever is causing the noise. Often people do not realize they are being noisy and are happy to work with you to solve the problem.

Contact your local council. They can serve various notices/warnings requiring the noise to be controlled and advising what noise levels are acceptable.

A noise abatement direction may be issued if the noise continues after warning/notices. It can be enforced up to 28 days from the time it was issued. Any person who fails to comply with it can be fined up to a maximum of $5000.00 or issued with a $200.00 on- the-spot fine ($400.00 for a business)

Next Steps:

I am available to work with the POA to develop a practical procedure for dealing with noise complaints. Including:

1. Use of a Sound Level Meter

2. Noise mitigation techniques for new development, residential activities and construction.

3. Noise control compliance

Construction

“Noise Generating Activities include,” but are not limited to, the following:

Operation of Heavy Equipment Operation of Light Equipment

Tractors Jackhammers

Backhoes Vibratory Compactors

Graders Generators 

Pile Drivers Augers

Cranes Etc.

Forklifts

Dump Trucks

Water Trucks

Etc.

Use of Hand Tools Other Activities

Hammers Loud Radios

Power Saws Yelling

Drills Whistling

Nail/Staple Guns Etc.

Etc.

Additional discussion:

Ellyn commented that she followed Chris’s suggestions/guidance but added an overview of noise propagation and how sound moves through the outdoors. The noise guideline standards are for a rural area, according to the EPA. You can decide the perimeters, lower or raise the standards.

Could we do a field test to measure noise on a construction job site? Ellyn has a sound level meter, but she did not do a level for construction noises because they are so varied. There is an attached list, which includes heavy equipment, light equipment, hand tools, etc. Having no construction on Sunday was proposed. How does this impact someone who is building his own house on weekends? We could set time restriction for a Sunday, starting later, finishing earlier and not allowing use of any heavy equipment. There are similar limitations in our construction guidelines. There could be some exception for a one time work with consent from the neighbors. On the construction equipment list jackhammers, generators, and augers should be moved to the heavy equipment list for Sundays. The P.O.A. also needs to fix our construction regulation regarding what is allowed on Sundays. The existing regulation should be looked up, and it should be handed out with building applications and/or approval letters. 

Outdoor music allowable time might be made stricter, changing it from midnight to 10:00 pm and/or lowering the dBA. A concert in CB South would be an exception; they would also have to get a special event permit. The regulation applies to both residential and commercial. Note location that measurements are taken, such as property line. 85 dBA is pretty loud.

Could we make some regulation for noisy vehicles? Some cities do include vehicles in their noise regulations. The Forest Service does not regulate noise in the forests here. The majority of complaints are regarding dirt bikes. A standard diesel should be acceptable.

Dog barking is addressed under the section on Animals. This is not a measurable thing. Disturbance of the peace is something you can act on. How to deal with the complaints is outlined in Ellyn’s draft. The POA can serve various notices/warnings. We can set the fines. The $200 fine was determined by the EPA. We need to add language about how the fines will be collected. Unpaid fines will be collected by putting a lien on the property. We do not have to set a maximum fine. A sign could be posted saying that a noise ordinance is in effect.

Ellyn also included regulation of vibration. That could have an impact on deciding what businesses will be allowed in CB South.

We could add a section that roughly gives people an idea the relation between a handful of common noises and their decibel level. Examples are: the backup beep, a car going 50 mph, a baby crying, a diesel truck, a dirt bike, a car traveling 55 mph, a hammer drill, etc.

Perhaps more detail can be added to the noise abatement section. Items 1, 2, and 3 under “Next Steps” should be a, b, and c under the above Item 2. “Contact you local council.”

Ellyn will make the suggested changes and the regulation will be put on the next meeting agenda for final decision.

New Landscaping Minimum Requirements – Residential Design Guideline Modification

Our current guidelines allow for the following:

As a minimum requirement for all new construction of a residence, the applicant must provide landscaping or remaining natural growth after construction equaling a minimum of 1000 points for a single-family residence or 500 points per unit for a multi-family structure. A minimum of 50% of the total required points must be allocated for trees under Section 3.7(a) and the other 50% must come from at least three other categories under Sections 3.7(b) to 3.7(f).

Proposed change:

As a minimum requirement for all new construction of a residence, the applicant must provide landscaping or remaining natural growth after construction equaling a minimum of 1,000 points for a single-family residence or 1,000 points per unit for a multi-family structure. A minimum of 50% of the total required points must be allocated for trees under Section 3.7(a) and the other 50% must come from at least three other categories under Sections 3.7(b) to 3.7(f). Additionally, the placement of new planting must be done so to improve the general appearance of the community and enhance its aesthetic appeal; preserve the economic base; improve the quality of life; delineate and separate use areas; increase the safety, efficiency, and aesthetics of use areas and open space; screen and enhance privacy; mitigate the adverse effects of climate, aspect, and elevations; conserve energy; abate erosion and stabilize slopes; deaden sounds; and preserve air and water quality. New trees and landscaping should be concentrated where they will have the greatest effect on softening disturbed areas and buffering off site views of the property.

Additionally, all plantings shall be maintained in a healthy and attractive condition. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, watering, fertilizing, weeding, cleaning, pruning, trimming, spraying, and cultivating. Whenever plants are removed or die, they shall be replaced by planting materials as soon as possible that meet the original intent of the approved landscaping design.

All surface areas designed on the approved landscaping plan that will not be a hard surface shall be planted with adequate ground cover as approved by the P.O.A. and shall be top-dressed with a minimum of two inches (2") of top soil prior to planting. In addition, irrigation systems shall be provided in those instances where required to guarantee the proper growth of the landscaping being provided.

It is encouraged that the landscaping materials utilized are those species that are appropriate for the high alpine altitude climate found in the Crested Butte Area.

Installation, use and maintenance of irrigation systems to insure survival of landscaping in the long-term is strongly encouraged.

Re-vegetation measures, including but not limited to, seeding, netting, mulching, and irrigation for disturbed areas and cut/fill slopes are strongly encouraged. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 gradient.

It is encouraged that the landscaping materials utilized are those species that need little additional water to survive, or that the applicants provide for an irrigation system that is based on the recycling of water.

It is encouraged that wheel (tire) retention devices be utilized for parking areas adjacent to landscaping in those instances where the devices will not interfere with propose snow plowing operations.

It is encouraged that all planting materials proposed for areas also designated as snow stacking areas be of a size or type that will not be adversely affected by the proposed snow storage.

Additional comments:

A better word should be found to explain the term, “wheel (tire) retention devices in the above paragraph. Also, we want to continue to encourage people to conserve water. The point requirement could be increased to 1500 points per unit, 750 points for trees. 50% of points must come from trees, and 20% of the trees must be evergreens. Points will only be awarded for deciduous trees of a minimum 2-inch caliper. 

The Board voted unanimously to adopt the landscape regulations with the specified modifications.

Prohibition of all Outdoor Burning in CB South

Currently, it is permissible, simply after a call to the Fire Department, to burn any and all construction debris in CB South. While some may be diligent of our air quality, and only burn mostly wood materials, there are many others that burn anything and everything in an attempt to save a few bucks on a trip to the landfill – at the expense of our air quality. With this in mind, a prohibition of the burning of construction debris will help us ensure that no burning of construction debris shall cause directly or indirectly, either by itself or incrementally, a violation of the ambient air quality standards for the region as established from time to time by the Colorado Department of Health. 

I (Chris) have spoken with Rick Ems regarding this issue and he supports the initiative to prohibit the burning of construction debris in CB South.

Additional comments:

We could charge a large fine for anyone burning anything other than wood. We can say no construction burning or make a list of things that cannot be burned. We could make the new regulation apply to new projects coming in. It should be part of the construction regulation. Let everyone know upfront to make it part of their construction budget. The issue is air quality. If you have children, do you want them to be breathing these fumes? Ninety percent of other subdivisions in the County do not allow burning. We do not want to say there can be no outdoor fireplaces or recreational bonfires. This issue should be brought before the two absent board members (Bill and Dave). We will put this item on the May 10th meeting for further discussion. The Town requires contractors to keep a free pile of wood, so that people who burn wood can go around and collect it. So in conclusion we could say no construction burning and the possibility of a free wood box. Note: Dumpsters and port-a-pots are required. It used to be enforced. This regulation should be put into a builder’s packet. A designated trailer would also be acceptable.

New Grading Requirements – Residential Design Guideline Modification

The proposed language in the landscaping section will cover grading requirements. It is:

“Re-vegetation measures, including but not limited to, seeding, netting, mulching, and irrigation for disturbed areas and cut/fill slopes are strongly encouraged. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 gradient.”

The Board voted unanimously to adopt the new grading requirements.

Architectural Review Approval Period – Architectural Review Application Modification (timelines and transferability)

Chris suggests that we codify, both on the application and in the Design Guidelines, the length of time a CB South approval is valid. The proposal is that a building permit must be obtained within one calendar year of the POA Board’s approval. (It may be longer for commercial and mixed-use applications.) Additionally, after the set length of time, a permit shall be deemed null and void, and an applicant must begin the review and approval process all over again.

Additional discussion:

In the County, a permit to begin construction is good for two years. Our approval letter can state that it is valid from X-date to X-date and expires on X-date. They could have a year to get to the County for their building permit. Beyond that date, the applicant would have to come back to the Board for an extension. Extensions would be considered on a case-by-case basis, and must be filed prior to the permit expiration date. It was discussed whether the specified period should be six months, nine months or one year. Additionally, it was discussed as to whether a regulation to fine people who move into their residence before the get a Certificate of Occupancy from the County could be established. (This will be considered later.) The Board settled on a period of 9 months to get the building permit. Al made a motion to approve the regulation of the architectural review approval period based on the 9-month period. Leigh seconded the motion. All Board Members present voted in favor of the motion. The time period allowed to satisfy the architectural review conditions and obtain a performance deposit refund will be a future discussion.

Association Manager’s Report:

Property Acquisition Discussion

This should be put on a future agenda for discussion. We need to decide whether we want to seriously pursue the acquisition of property. A perimeter lot in the commercial area would be very useful. The downtown square with a fountain is also an appealing idea. The question is should Chris go out and seriously get some options on property acquisition; what is the gauge of seriousness. There are possibilities with Roemer and Hirsch. There are possibly some perimeter-lot options. The Board agreed that it should be a serious consideration.

Miscellaneous Issues

April 22nd is the PooFest. Signs should be posted. Registration is a Camp 4. May 3rd is the Special Area Public Meeting at Sunset Hall. Mail boxes are here. Board Members should give their physical addresses to Chris. It would be useful to get a FedEx or UPS drop box into the area with the post boxes. We would like to keep the May 10th meeting as short as possible and have an appreciation dinner following the meeting. It was felt that it would be better to do it following the June meeting. It will be further discussed at the meeting in May.

CB South Improvements Fund Discussion (to fund larger project, i.e. a covered ice rink with a lock room, a swimming pool, a private shuttle service, sidewalks, streetscaping program, etc.

This is an idea to set up an improvements project fund by way of establishing a type of transfer fee. Our attorney, Laura Magner, will help us with this. If we can legally do this we will send it to a vote of the property owners. In the long run it will boost property values. A municipality can not do a transfer fee, but we can do this as a club.

New Architectural Design Requirements – Residential Design Guideline Modification (module size restrictions, exterior wall plane restrictions, massing breakup requirements, no mirror image duplex or multi-family units, 360 degree architectural design requirement) 

This item was moved to the last item on the agenda. The following proposal was presented to the Board for discussion. In an effort to reduce the simpler, rectangular architecture we have seen in the past within CB South, it was proposed to incorporate the following language into our Design Guidelines:

The CB South P.O.A. hereby finds that excessive similarity, dissimilarity, or poor quality design of any building adversely affects the desirability of the immediate area and the community as a whole, and by so doing impairs the benefits of existing property owners, the stability and value of real property, produces degeneration of property with attendant deterioration of conditions affecting health, safety, and general welfare of the community, and destroys a proper relationship between the taxable value of real property and the cost of services provided therefore. Features of design include, but are not limited to: size, shape, scale, proportions, solid to void ratios, texture, pattern and color of materials, and architectural elements and details.

All proposed new developments, alterations, or additions are strongly encouraged to be architecturally compatible with the general design criteria specified in these design guidelines. It is strongly encouraged that cut and fill slopes be kept to a minimum, and that the site, when viewed from adjacent properties, be integrated into its natural surroundings as much as possible. In addition, excessive similarity or dissimilarity to other structures existing, or for which a permit has been issued, or to any other structure included in the same permit application, facing upon the same or intersecting streets within the same or adjacent area is discouraged.

The P.O.A. hereby finds that it is in the public interest for all sites within the community to be designed, arranged, and developed in a safe, efficient, and aesthetically pleasing manner. The arrangement of all functions, uses, and improvements should reflect the natural capabilities and limitations of the site, as well as the characteristics and limitations of the adjacent property. The various structures, use areas, functions, and elements of the site design should be integrated by design into a unified whole, except in those instances where separation is appropriate due to a particular interrelationship. Taking into consideration the basic character of the site and the nature of the proposed uses, the development should be visually harmonious as perceived from both the interior and exterior of the project.

Building designs should step buildings with the slope to minimize disturbance, grading and tree cutting for access and drainage. Site improvements should be designed to minimize cut and fill areas, particularly those areas most visible from off site. Grading large areas to create a flat "benched" building pad is strongly discouraged. It should be the goal of every project within CB South to design driveways and circulation systems that work with the existing topography. It is strongly encouraged that applicants design site configurations that result in comparatively less cut and fill needs for on site vehicular circulation and building placement.

It is encouraged that all sites be arranged so as to provide privacy for the occupants of both the site and surrounding properties. Lots should be designed to provide private spaces within the project, and buildings should be designed in such a manner to provide the greatest degree of privacy possible for the individual units or surrounding properties.

Providing terraced retaining wall systems with landscape areas are encouraged instead of cut/fill areas for slope retention. Retaining walls made of natural materials such as rock, rock-faced concrete or timber are preferred. To maintain a human scale, retaining wall of six feet (6') or less are required.

In keeping with our goal of reducing mass in CB South, we have established a maximum building height of 30 feet on all residential lots. It is our objective that this limitation on height, applied in concert with our other massing reducing directives, will engender lower profiled residential structures of a more pedestrian scale, which is highly desirable. The goal is too prevent the construction of structures which are too tall, and which thereby would be visually overpowering to its human residents and their guests, and passersby as well. Secondarily, we expect that each residence will settle into the site and neighborhood environs, without standing out among its neighbors, calling attention to itself. Our goal is a well-integrated community of homes, without architectural monument. 

Offsets or indentations in wall planes create visual interest and depth and shadow to a structure. 

The maximum unbroken vertical height of any exterior wall may not exceed 20 feet. A horizontal offset in a wall plane by a depth of 36 inches or more, effectively “breaks” that vertical expanse into two distinct wall surfaces for the purposes of height consideration.

In addition, single story walls (defined as an eave wall with a maximum nominal plate height of ten feet or less), may not exceed an unbroken length of 32 feet without a perpendicular horizontal offset of 32 inches or greater, or without a bend of 30 degrees or greater in wall plane. Two story gable walls may not exceed an unbroken length of 24 feet without a perpendicular offset of 32 inches or greater, or without a bend of 30 degrees or greater in the wall plane. ( I will bring sketches/examples to the meeting to help with this paragraph)

Building mass may be further mitigated by creative treatment of its exterior details and accessory elements. Roofed porches or decks, and indented entry elements can add scale and texture to a residence while providing usable outdoor spaces or shelter from winter’s elements. Bay windows provide attractive variations to wall planes, while dormers tend to lend added scale to unbroken expanses of roof. 

For centuries symmetry in architecture has been employed to convey formality; but Colorado high country is not a formal setting. To the contrary, this lovely place offers us a comfortable informality reflective of traditional mountain living. Residential design for CB South must be well-crafted with thoughtful attention to proportions and scale, but they should also reflect that natural informality which exists in the environment around us. 

Therefore, we discourage the use of symmetrical massing on homes designed for CB South. While symmetry might be appropriate for a distinct component of design, such as the gable end of a building element, the balance of massing around that symmetrical element should remain varied and organic in form. 

In addition to the implementation of an appropriate scale and proportion for each home design as a whole, the individual elements which make up the whole should maintain that sense of proper proportion as well. For instance, an overly large window in a comparatively small element of the structure may create a glaring mismatch of scale. A four-by-four post which is structurally adequate, may appear too spindly in context of the overall mass of the residence, and may thereby warrant a dimensional increase to six-by-six or even eight-by-eight for aesthetic appeal alone. The harsher climate conditions of Colorado high country can test the durability of a home as well. Therefore, structural members, railing, fascias, and trim should project a sturdy image; delicate intricately detailed designs are impractical and inappropriate for CB South. 

The roof is often times the largest visual element of a structure, and must be addressed accordingly with as much care as any other element of the design. The roofline of each home should form a comfortable interface with the street, with other common areas and with neighboring residential structures. On sloping sites, the roof shapes should convey a corresponding stepping with natural grade. Asymmetrical roof forms are preferable to those that are obviously symmetrical. The overall shape and articulation of each roof should be sufficiently irregular to avoid boxiness or a sense of overpowering massiveness. The roof must not sit like a cap on top of a box; it must be well integrated into the volume of the residence, and should be drawn down to single story edges where possible to “ground” the structure.

The roofs of all two-story structures should include single story elements, as well. For both one and two-story residences, the roof profile should be irregular and varied. Whenever possible, roof slopes should be pitched in directions which avoid shedding of snow or water onto uncovered steps, entry porches, decks or terraces, and the driveway surface immediately in front of garage doors. Building entrances should be inset or protected with roofs. Rain gutters and downspouts must be of a sturdy material such as steel or wood, and must be integrated unobtrusively into the architecture of the residence. Downspouts should discharge away from the structure into a well drained area. 

As a practical matter, we recommend that roof assemblies be designed with the prevention of ice dams in mind. Ice dams can occur when warmth from the interior spaces of a home leaks or radiates through the insulated roof assembly, melting snow on the roof from underneath. The water is produced by melting trickles down onto colder roof surfaces at the eave overhangs, or cold surfaces over unheated attic spaces. When the water reaches a colder surface, it gradually refreezes, building up a dam of ice along the line of temperature change on roof surfaces. Subsequent snowmelt then ponds behind the ice dam, and can back up under the roof material edges above, causing potential damage from leakage into the home. 

We encourage the use of stone for foundation facing, wainscots, and on selected vertical elements such as chimneys, porch columns and railing piers. Historically, mountain structures have been founded on strong stone bases which anchor them to their sites. A stone foundation (or today’s more common visual equivalent, the stone-veneered foundation), projects an image of substance – a heavier more massive base to withstand elements and the accumulation of snow. Metal wainscoting will be permitted as an alternative.

Plywood siding is prohibited.

If a residential design proposes wood or wood-looking products as the sole wall cladding material, there should be some variation in pattern and/or color and texture to provide interest and relief. For example, board widths may be varied in a creative fashion, or a traditional board siding may be used in tasteful combination with wood shingled accents, or vice versa. However, do not get too carried away with the mix-and-match of materials; compositions which are visually “too busy” will not be approved. Board siding may not be utilized in diagonal patterns. Also, the scale of a siding’s components should be proportionately appropriate for the expanse of wall which they cover; four inch wide boards may be fine for smaller building elements such as dormers, while larger wall expanses may warrant boards of greater dimension. 

All exterior wall material must be utilized in a three-dimensional context – movie set appliqués, where a material appears in two dimensions on a single elevation, are prohibited. For example, a wainscot of stone on a front elevation must wrap around onto the side elevation until it intersects an inside corner; material and color changes should not occur on an outside corner.

Large uninterrupted expanse of glass should be avoided. The single exception shall be in the primary “view wall” or a great room or a family room. The Review Board may grant some additional relief from that limitation if the glass expanses are deeply recessed into the mass of the home, or if they are set back sufficiently beneath deep overhangs so that the glass expanses recede in prominence and visibility. When larger window glass is utilized, it should be set in larger profiled frames or mullions, which suggest strength and substance. 

With no further business to attend to, at 10:24, Al made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Leigh seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion to adjourn.

Respectfully submitted,

Crested Butte South Property Owners Association, Inc.

Louise Johnson Al Smith

Staff Assistant President