July 2006 Minutes

CRESTED BUTTE SOUTH
PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION
JULY 12, 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, Bill Crittendon, Dave DiBerardino

Staff Member Present: Chris Behan, Louise Johnson

Homeowners Present: Dan Robinson, Janna Frayer, Gilbert Frayer, Kim Frayer, Chris Dellaporta, Erin Dellaporta, Don Montgomery, Joanne Reynolds, Barbara Bartush, Heidi Duryea, Melissa Belkin, Jeremy McNellis, Lisa Gibson, Rebecca Elkins, Dana Spear, Doug Duryea, Jack Dietrich, Jeff Hanggi, Paula Stepanek, Christine Matyk

Approval of Minutes: Copies of the June 14, 2006, Regular Board Meeting Minutes were presented to the Board Members prior to the meeting. The minutes were amended to state that Leigh had stepped down from the Board for the Spector/Norgard project. Pete made a motion to approve the Minutes as amended. Leigh seconded the motion. All Board Members voted to approve the June Minutes.

Treasurers Report: Financial reports presented to the Board included the Monthly Budget Summary, Cash on Hand as of June 30, 2006, additional reports of cash in the bank for the Money Market, Operating, Hockey Rink, and Performance Deposit Accounts for the period of June 1, 2006, through July 11, 2006, and check registers showing expenses paid for that period. Additionally, a summary of CD accounts was presented in the financial package, and interest earned information was added. Leigh made a motion to approve the treasurer's report as presented. Pete seconded the motion. All Board Members present voted to approve the treasurer's report.

Unscheduled Property Owners Comments:
Camp 4 Coffee Roasting at 161 Gillaspey Ave. - Pat Beck at 81 Gillaspey wrote a letter to the Association expressing her concerns about Al Smith's efforts to curtail the odor/fumes from coffee roasting. (Her letter will be attached to the minutes.) Al explained that he has documentation of his order of equipment (an oxidizer) that should make the look and smell that comes out of the roaster chimney undetectable by the end of September.

Final Architectural Project Review:
Frayer Duplex, Lot 29, Block 26, Filing 4, 99 Gloria Place Plans were presented for final approval. They were in compliance with the check list presented at the final DRC meeting as well as all POA requirements, and the DRC approved the plans. Dave made a motion to grant final approval. Pete seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.

Eymere Addition, Lot 24, Block 1, Filing 2, 334 Teocalli Road
Plans were presented for Final Approval. The addition is approximately 500 sq. ft. The staircase needs to be reconfigured because it doesn't work with the windows as shown. Nothing on the exterior is affected by this. Pete made a motion to approve the plan as presented, allowing for the owner to work out where he wants to put the interior staircase. Al seconded the motion. All Board Members were in favor of the motion.

Maxwell Garage, Lot 17, Block 8, Filing 3, 580 Haverly Street
Plans were presented for final approval. The only comment from the DRC was to add a window to the back of the structure. The window was added to the plans. Leigh made a motion to approve the garage plans. Bill seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion to approve the plans.

Performance Deposit Refunds:
Robertson Residence - Lot 12, Block 24, Filing 3 - 396 Zeligman Street
The POA Manager recommended approval of the refund of $2,443. Bill made a motion to approve without further review. Leigh seconded to motion. All Board Members voted in favor.

Little Red Schoolhouse Addition - Lot 38, Block 4, Filing 2 - 49 Gillaspey
The POA Manager recommended approval of the refund of $250. Bill made a motion to approve without further review. Leigh seconded to motion. All Board Members were in favor of it.

Weisman Residence - Lot 38, Block 4, Filing 2 - 199 Haverly Street
The POA Manager's recommendation was to refund the deposit of $2,000. Bill made a motion to approve without further review. Leigh seconded to motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.

Winter Residence (E. Shull) - Lot 15, Block 12, Filing 2 - 386 Shavano St.
The POA Manager recommended refunding the $975 after the concrete washout is cleaned up and two more Aspen trees are planted; one to conform to the landscaping plan and the second to replace an existing dead tree. Bill made a motion to approve the refund after the recommended steps are completed. Pete seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.

Glacier Springs Condos (E. Shull) - Lot 5, Block 1, Filing 1 - 81 Cascadilla St.
The POA Manager recommended approving the refund of $4,432. Pete made a motion to approve the refund. Bill seconded the motion. All Board Members were in favor of the motion.

Olson Residence & Accessory Apartment - Lot 22, Block 1, Filing 1 - 407 Cascadilla St.
The POA Manager recommended approval of the $2,411 refund. Pete made a motion to approve the refund. Bill seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Williams Residence - Lot 7, Block 12, Filing 2 - 236 Shavano St.
The POA Manager recommended approval of the $1,000 refund if verification of adequate on-site snow storage is provided. Also, the proximity of new parking spaces to the property line needs to be verified with the Metro District, as it appears to be within 10 ft. of the front lot line. We must see if there is enough room to push snow down the hill. Snow blowing would be fine. The house is required to have three parking spaces, and if three cars fit and there is still room to have snow storage on the driveway, then the Board supports the refund request. Bill made a motion to approve the refund upon verification that the driveway is in regulation, not greater than 24 ft. wide at the entrance. Leigh seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.

Veit/Hammond Duplex - Lot 27, Block 4, Filing 2 - 172 Blackstock Ave.
The POA Manager recommended approval of $4,320 refund. Bill made a motion to approve without further review. Leigh seconded to motion. All Board Members voted in favor.

Hughes Residence - Lots 7-9, Block 4, Filing 2 - 333 Cisneros Lane
The POA Manager's recommendation is to wait on the refund of $2,964. The landscaping doesn't match the plan, and there are a few dirt areas that still need a little work as they have not sprouted grass. The landscaping points are there, but re-vegetation is not there. It can be approved when the grass is established. Chris is authorized to grant the approval when it is ready.

Feltus Residence - Lots 24-25, Block 28, Filing $ - 10 Neville Way
The POA Manager recommended approval of the $2,000 refund. Bill made a motion to approve without further review. Leigh seconded to motion. All Board Members voted in favor.

Note: The performance deposit refund process in the future could be facilitated by authorizing the Association Manager to approve or disapprove refund requests, while allowing property owners to come to the Board if they wanted to appeal the decision. Bill made a motion to allow Chris (POA Manager) to approve performance deposit refunds and to allow property owners to appeal the decision if needed. Al seconded the motion. All Board Members were in favor of it.

New Business:
Selection of a CB South Climbing Rock / New Playground Piece
Ian Glas presented climbing rock options (besides the "hand holding the rock") and also a product sample of the materials to be used. Options for the climbing rock included: A 9 ½' tall rock with an arch; a flat-topped rock with horizontal ridges; a model of dinosaur bones, 26' x 5' high. The money for the climbing rock has already been allocated. The Board's choice was the rock with the arch, made in the light color of similar rocks found in our area. The price is $16,800. Al made a motion to accept the contract for the rock selected. Bill seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion.

Robinson Residence Setback Variance Request, Lot 34, Block 4, Filing 2 - 332 Blackstock
The owner plans to build on this lot but is requesting a front yard setback variance due to the topography of the lot. A variance was granted four years ago to the previous owner, but we cannot go with the old variance letter, as it has expired. The new owner must go back through the complete review process with the DRC. Jack (Metro District) is in support of granting a variance due to the very difficult topography of this lot. The Board is willing to consider a variance because it meets the criteria recently set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines. Board Members asked to go with the owner and see the lot. The owner agreed, and would like to take his architect with him. Leigh made a motion to grant a front yard setback variance for a single-family home where all other design requirements are met. Dave seconded the motion. All Board Members were in favor of the motion as stated. Mortensen Residence Change of Use Request - to add an Accessory Apt., Lot 10, Block 16, Filing 3 - 594 Bryant Ave. The Mortensen's wish to add an accessory apartment to the basement area of their house. A change of use application is required to do this. Nothing will change on the exterior of the house, but new parking requirements must be met. Last year a variance on height was given. The Board felt that had they known at that time that the variance granted was to facilitate making an accessory dwelling, they would not have granted the variance. The intensity of use of the lot would increase if the change-of-use is granted. The applicant stated that last year they had no intention of putting in a duplex, but their circumstances have changed. They now have a child, and do not have a second income. They need to have rent from the accessory dwelling to be able to stay and live in CB South. One Board Member had issues with the use of this site as a duplex because of the intersection where it is located. Another had concerns about parking more cars on the lot, especially in winter conditions like we had last year. The Board also felt that the function of the requested use of the site as a duplex does not fit this site. Pete made a motion to deny the accessory dwelling. Leigh seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion to deny the accessory dwelling.

Karen Wall's In-Home Child Care Business Application, Lot 28, Block 28, Filing 4 - Neville Way
Karen has a home child care operation for 6 children. Some of the owners in the 4th filing are in opposition of the daycare for various reasons, and some other property owners support the operation. We need to decide what we are going to allow for home occupation businesses. Some letters of opposition and support will be attached to these minutes. Karen previously lived at North Star Condos and had a letter of approval from the Board two years ago to operate her daycare at that location. She cares for only 6 children; one of them is her own. The children are up to six years of age. She needs approval from the P.O.A. to get her license from the State, and they will do an inspection after the P.O.A. Board gives their approval. The State then follows up with yearly inspections. In the Special Area Regulations being contemplated, there are not a lot of rules on home occupations (Home Occupation regulations for Cb South will be cross referenced). The Association attorney says it can be looked at in two ways: 1) Black and white, no commercial activity in residential areas, or 2) Evaluate the home occupation use to determine if it changes the residential character of the lot; ask whether the primary use is residential and the business secondary. Karen's next door neighbor feels that the issue has more to do with what the covenants say than anything else and that the Board doesn't have the authority to grant approval because the covenants say no commercial activity is allowed in the residential area. The neighbor also feels that daycare should be considered a business rather than a home occupation. A comment was made that if you interpret the covenants black and white you could not have any businesses in the residential areas. There are other daycare operations going on. To shut down only one would be inequitable, and would you then shut down the other daycares? Additional comments supported Karen, saying that she is a responsible person, there is not a lot of traffic caused by the daycare, and that there is a great need for daycare in CB South. A resident of North Star Condos said that she wasn't even aware that there was a daycare going on; it is very private. Another neighbor felt that it does change the character of the neighbor and that the covenants should take precedence. The P.O.A. attorney (Laura Magner) doesn't feel that this daycare is a truly commercial operation. The Board agreed that they have to work on the definition of what commercial is. They discussed granting approval for a limited time and also setting a time limit on clarifying and defining businesses. Dave made a motion to approve Karen's daycare for the period of one year, during which time the Board must come up with a solution. Leigh seconded the motion, emphasizing that the approval is for one year. All Board Members voted in favor of the motion. Additionally the Board Members agreed to discuss the language and definition at the August 9th meeting (Actually on September 13, 2006).

Speeding / Signage / Traffic Safety Discussion
Several residents want to discuss traffic problems/concerns and possible solutions. Heidi Duryea brought an outline of suggested solutions, which include placing stop signs at intersections of concern, requesting a road study of speed limits, purchasing a mobile speed trailer, and increasing the police presence and enforcement. Details of the outline will be attached to these minutes. Heidi wants the speed limits to be 15 and 20 mph. It was brought out, however, that a study will not likely support the lowering of the speed limit. Sheriff John Gallowich explained that the 25 mph speed that we have now is the result of a study that was done in 2000. The 85% percentile of all traffic counted put the speed at over 30 mph, and the County Commissioners had to vote to reduce it to 25 mph. CB South roads are designated as public, allowing for enforcement under the model traffic code. John also stated that a mobile speed radar unit is under discussion, but there is no money for it in the current County budget. The cost is over $8,000. The purchase will be under consideration; the County Sheriff is onboard with this. John needs guidance from the Board on whether they want the radar machine. The Board said that we should keep pursuing the County to give us one. It will be put in the budget request for next year. We can install stop signs but they have to be according to the code (Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices). As a first step, we could get Alan Moore, who an engineer for Gunnison County, to make suggestions on the placement of stop signs, and we could take a look at doing some 'slow signs' and other advisory signs. A committee could be formed later on to continue to on the various traffic issues. If a resident sees someone speeding and can get a license number and description of vehicle and driver, the Sheriff can contact them and give a warning that they are going too fast. Speed bumps are a liability issue because they can damage cars. In the past speed bumps were removed because of law suits. Heidi's efforts in bringing these road problems to the fore were appreciated. John was thanked for the great job he is doing in the community. We will revisit this subject for an update next time action has been taken towards enforcement, additional signage and/or the acquisition of a mobile radar unit.

Sheriff's Office Lease - 3-year Renewal Term
We currently renew the lease for the Sheriff's office in our P.O.A. Building on an annual basis. All parties would benefit from a 3-year lease. Al made a motion to sign a 3-year lease for the Sheriff's office. Pete seconded the motion. All Board Members were in favor of the motion.

Covenant Enforcement
There is a current question about whether the POA Board should pursue and enforce past covenant violations such as building without a permit or not building in accordance with the approved plans on file. If the answer is yes, which violations should be enforced and what should the enforcement process be? If the answer is no, a decision should be made to just move forward and ensure that future construction and improvements follow the approved procedures. The Board all agreed that the situation should not be just ignored. If you do nothing you are not benefiting the community. It would be difficult to tackle all the violations at once, so we could perhaps go after one thing at a time. We should fix things to the extent that we know about them, and we could require people to fix existing violations before they sell their property. If there is a complaint about something, action needs to be taken. However, it is inequitable to only go after the violations complained about. If a complaint is dealt with, we should follow up to deal with all other cases committing the same violation. The Association can only work within its resources; if one complaint causes other complaints, we should deal with them. We need to catch violations in new construction, sheds, decks, and fences being build without permits, etc. Many people don't know they need to get our approval. When Chris has the time, he could patrol once a week to try to catch violators. New construction violations can be obvious.

Gas Purchase for P.O.A. Business Related Travel
A request was made to reimburse the P.O.A. Manager for gasoline used for work related travel, including trips to town, various inspections and other travel in the subdivision. Al made a motion to reimburse staff up to $50/month for association business travel, with the possibility of increasing the amount if travel costs go over that number. Pete seconded the motion. All Board Members were in favor of the motion as stated.

Proposed Covenant Change Language for Ballot Consideration:
The following items were considered for covenant change ballot items. All covenant changes must be passed by a majority vote of the property owners.

• Dues Increases (of more than 10%): Increasing dues should be justified by intended use of funds for capital improvements. After discussing several items, the Board proposed four combined projects to communicate to the property owners: 1) The design and construction of a sidewalk along Teocalli Road, along with various other sidewalks in CB South, and possibly a street-scaping improvement plan; 2) A Parks and Recreation Master Plan; 3) Shuttle or bus service between Crested Butte and CB South; and 4) Play-ground improvements. The new proposed annual dues would be: $175 for vacant land, $250 for residential units, and $400 for commercial units. The covenant change ballot could be a simple vote for or against the increase in dues for all three categories or a vote to increase each category separately. Further discussion will be conducted at the August 9, 2006 meeting.

• Residential Height Measurement Change: Language proposed for this change was, "No portion of any single or multi-family structure in CB South (except for chimney elements) shall exceed a true vertical dimension of 30 feet above the natural grade directly below. On lots where the average slope across the proposed building's footprint exceeds 15%, and additional 2 feet of height for a ridge projection will be allowed." Not all Board Members were in agreement with this statement. No conclusion was reached on the language of this proposal. The discussion will be continued in sometime next meeting.