|
CRESTED BUTTE SOUTH
PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION
SEPTEMBER 13, 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, Dave DiBerardino, Erin Dellaporta, Don Montgomery
Staff Member Present: Chris Behan, Louise Johnson
Homeowners Present (per sign-in sheet): Sara Wynes, Deuce Wynes, Clair Haverland, Midge Castillo, Joel Rem, Tim White, Joanne Reynolds, Barbara Bartush, Jeff Buchler
Approval of Minutes: Copies of the minutes of the August 5, 2006, Annual Meeting of the Crested Butte South Property Owners Association were given to the Board Members before the meeting. After examining the minutes, Dave made a motion to approve them as presented. Don seconded the motion. All Board Members present voted in favor of the motion.
Copies of the August 9, 2006, Regular Board Meeting Minutes were presented to the Board Members prior to the meeting. After reviewing the minutes, Don made a motion to approve them as presented. Dave seconded the motion. All Board Members voted to approve the August Regular Board Meeting Minutes.
Financial Report: Financial reports presented to the Board included the Monthly Budget Summary, Cash on Hand as of August 31, 2006, additional detailed reports of cash in the bank for the Money Market, Operating, Hockey Rink, and Performance Deposit Accounts for the month, and check registers showing expenses paid for that period. Additionally, a summary of CD accounts was presented in the financial package, showing interest earned. Chris explained the calculations on the Monthly Budget Summary. Dave made a motion to approve the financial report as presented. Erin seconded the motion. All Board Members present voted to approve the financial report.
Unscheduled Property Owners Comments:
Deuce Wynes of 110 Floyd Ave., Lot 6, Block 18, made a presentation to ask for a variance to add an attached garage on the east side of the property. The structure is a duplex. The existing porch would be moved to the front of the house. A variance would be necessary because the proposed one-car garage would encroach approximately 7' into the side setback. He is asking the Board if they would grant the variance before he goes to the DRC. This would give direction to the DRC. The duplex next to this property is centered on three clustered lots. The variance could perhaps be granted under the 'unique circumstances' provision. The Board said that if the garage can be built in the front of the house instead, it should be because they do not like to grant variances into the setbacks. Another option might be to get the neighbor to increase the setbacks on his side of the property line to compensate for the encroachment. This would require legal documentation. If the proposed one-car garage were placed as far forward (to the north) on the property as possible, it would still encroach 4'7" into the setback. Additionally, moving it forward eclipses the mountain view of the owner and his neighbors. The Board again expressed that it is too risky to allow someone to go that far into the setback. There may be design alternatives; Deuce should explore other options first, work on the design and take it to the DRC. It would be better aesthetically to get the neighbor to agree to a set back change than to put a structure in front of the house because it would put an encumbrance on the title of the neighbor's property. However, the Board agreed to consider granting a variance if the neighbor agreed in writing not to build anything closer than 30' to the edge of the proposed garage.
A letter from Tim White was also considered during the unscheduled comment opportunity time (See Appendix A). A copy of the letter will be attached to these Minutes. Tim questioned the fee structure for residential units of mixed-use buildings in the commercial area. He said he was not asking for answers but was looking for the thinking on these fees. He said that similar fees in the town of Crested Butte are only $350. The Board said they could reconsider the fee structure. Right now application fees are only about 10% of the P.O.A.'s annual revenue, and the Board stated that it would like to see development pay its own way in terms of Staff time needed for each applications review. There will be more impacts for Staff to review and consider in the commercial area. Tim thinks the better way to go is to increase the property owner dues. It was agreed that the Board and P.O.A. Staff probably need to look at it again, perhaps using fees based on square footage. It will be put back on a future agenda for consideration.
Final Architectural Project Review:
Geisler Single-Family Residence - Lot 26, Block 22, Filing 4 - 412 Cisneros Lane
Plans were presented for final approval. Requirements have been met on paper. Driveway grading had to be changed; some is 4%, and some is 11%. Rick Ems of the Fire District will have to review it. Chris recommends that the Board approves these plans, as soon as he gets approval from the fire department, so that the Applicant can proceed to the County. Al made a motion to approve the project, with condition that fire department approval of the driveway is obtained and all of the P.O.A.'s requirements are met before we give him the letter of approval. Dave seconded the motion. All Board Members present voted in favor of the motion.
New/Continued Business:
Possibilities for a Noxious Weed Mitigation Program for all CB South R.O.W.'s
Clair Haverland has supplied us with some very useful information on weed mitigation. The P.O.A. will consider this subject when budget discussions begin for next year. Our focus will be on the right-of-ways. When we have those areas somewhat under control, we will begin to work with the property owners as well. Our covenants state that all lots are to be kept free of weeds. We will be working with the Metro District, and we could also ask the County for funds to help with weed control.
Discussion and Adoption of P.O.A.'s Seven Governance Policies - Per Colorado State Senate Bill 100
According to the new Senate Bill 100, we will be required to codify governance policies for 2007 and beyond. Our attorney, Laura Magner, provided templates and recommended that we adopt all of these. They are: 1) Collection Policy, 2) Director Conflict of Interest Policy, 3) Policy Regarding Conduct of Meetings, 4) Notice and Hearing and Enforcement Policy and Procedures, 5) Policy Regarding Inspection and Copying of Associate Records, 6) Reserve Fund Investment Policy, 7) Policy Regarding the Adoption and Amendment of Policies, and 8) Policy and Procedure Regarding Emergency Vehicles. The Board requested time to thoroughly read the policies and put off their adoption until next month's meeting.
Proposed Covenant Change Language for Ballot Consideration:
- Dues Increases of More than 10%
As soon as there is a consensus on what the numbers (in dollars) should be, we will get the proposed increase out to a vote. Language will have to be written explaining why we need the increase. The goal is to keep it short, one page only, with additional details to be available on the website. We want to concentrate on what the property owners are going to get out of it. Al made a motion to increase vacant land dues to $200, residential dues to $325, and commercial dues to $475. Don seconded the motion. All Board Members voted in favor.
- CB South Capital Projects Real Estate Transfer Fee
The Board agreed to postpone a decision on this item to a later date given the recent request from the Crested Butte Land Trust, and until the P.O.A. has tried (separately) to increase annual dues, change the residential height measurement requirement, change the commercial height measurement requirement, and allow board and committee members to be compensated.
Consideration of Home Occupation Regulations for CB South
The P.O.A. Manager proposed some possible language to help regulate home occupations. (A copy of this wording will be attached to these minutes - See Appendix B.) Property owner comments included concerns about: Home businesses generating traffic, ensuring that the P.O.A. put an enforcement mechanism into the application process, and considering the impact on water/sewer use, as well as traffic noise and the environment. Notes were taken of the property owner concerns, commenting that the proposed language is just the start of the process to define home occupations. The discussion is now open, and we will include it on the next available agenda for continued discussion. No language was adopted at this meeting.
Consideration of a Proposed Commercial Area Master Plan Modification The first meeting with the Gunnison County Planning Commission took place on August 8, 2006. There are some legal issues that need to be addressed, and we will be working with the County attorney on those. Additionally, the Board is considering redoing the schematic of the northern part of the commercial core and looking at a different development layout. We would need to vote on whether we want to spend money on redoing the picture. That discussion was tabled to a later date.
Consideration of the P.O.A.'s Participation in the Niccoli Ranch Purchase
The P.O.A. Manager, Chris, introduced the discussion stating that the Board needed to decide whether Crested Butte South Property Owners Association would be able to pursue some kind of funding mechanism, such as a special assessment, to support the Land Trust's purchase of the Niccoli Parcel. Any such decision would have to be put to a vote of the property owners and pass by at least 51% of all members of the Association. Chris presented the goals and objectives of CB South P.O.A. for 2005-2007. Print-outs of these goals were handed out for any interested parties. (A copy will be attached to these minutes - See Appendix C.) In view of these already existing goals, the question is whether or not we can contribute to the Land Trust's acquisition of this property. On the financial side of the issue, one million dollars is approximately 700% of the Association's annual budget. Also, the delinquency rate in annual dues collection is approximately 12%. If the Association were holding a bank loan for one million dollars and experiencing the same rate of delinquency in collecting the assessment money, the P.O.A. could actually go bankrupt. The Board would like to pursue the established goals of the P.O.A. first and then perhaps go after the special assessment in six months.
Members of the Land Trust at the meeting stated that they were present to ask the Board to reconsider putting the special assessment to a vote of the property owners and that they had reduced their original request of $4,000,000 to $1,000,000. The Land Trust asked if the Board had considered financing the loan over several years. They also suggested that we could perhaps forego some of our goals such as sidewalks or park improvements. One property owner, supportive to the Land Trust, felt that the Board needed to take a stand for open space and the quality of living and we should put the issue to a vote of all the property owners in October. Another supporter felt that the Land Trust's acquisition of the parcel would increase property values in CB South. Additional comments from the Land Trust included that if they didn't get the land, the property would go on the market for a subdivision, which could have 150 homes. They also stated that if CB South doesn't help, they couldn't go to others and ask for help. The Land Trust feels that CB South should lead the way here, and give the property owners the opportunity to decide. The two issues of economics and quality of life having been identified, the supporters of CB South's financial involvement argued that the P.O.A. Board might be surprised to see the number of people who support the quality of life improvement this purchase could provide. They would like the Board to make this the highest priority, above all the other P.O.A. goals.
Members of the P.O.A. Board said they would like to support the Land Trust but don't know if they can. First of all, they have to have a favorable vote from at least 51% of all the property owners, and secondly there is the concern that there could be disastrous financial possibilities for the Property Owners Association. The priority for the Board Members is the dues increase for the basic needs of the P.O.A., and the P.O.A. Board wants this to be on the first ballot that goes out to all the property owners. Additionally, it was felt that property owners should only be allowed to vote on the special assessment to support the Land Trust purchase if they had first voted yes to the P.O.A. dues increase. In conclusion of the matter, the following motion was read by Al Smith, "As soon as reasonably possible we submit to a vote of the Association Members the question of adopting a dues increase for the purpose of funding the additional administrative needs of the Association, specifically identified by the Board, and a special assessment of 1.1 million dollars, either by lump sum or payments, toward the purchase of the Niccoli Parcel in conjunction with the Land Trust, which special assessment will be imposed only if the question of adopting the dues increase passes." Don seconded the motion. All Board Members who were present voted in favor of the motion.
Association Manager's Report:
Special Area Regulations Update
Covenant Change Ballot Mailings Update
The final items on the agenda were not discussed due to the lateness of the hour.
The meeting was officially adjourned at 11:50 pm.
Crested Butte South Property Owners Association, Inc.
Appendix A - Letter from Tim White to POA Board:
8/6/06
Crested Butte South POA Board Members
61 Teocalli Rd.
Crested Butte, CO 81224
Dear Board Members,
I am writing to address a few items regarding the 2006 project fee schedule.
I am the owner of a commercial lot in the Pioneer Plaza subdivision. As you know, Pioneer Plaza is a commercial subdivision located within the CB South commercial area. Pioneer Plaza's declarations and covenants have already been accepted by Gunnison County and the allowed uses and architectural guidelines were borrowed from heavily when drafting the CB South commercial area guidelines. We have our own board of directors which acts as a design review committee, along with our own project application fees and performance deposits. When you receive a project to review in Pioneer Plaza it will have already been reviewed and approved by our board using standards that are the same as or more restrictive than CB South standards. I believe this was overlooked when you were drafting the 2006 project fees, and, as such, I would ask you to reconsider those fees and give a substantial discount to projects already approved by Pioneer Plaza.
Next, I would like to ask a few questions about the fee schedule. Once you get beyond a basic single family residence, the fees become some of the most expensive in the valley. Is this because you are trying to discourage certain types of projects? Is it because this is one of the few ways CB South can raise money for infrastructure projects? Is it to mitigate the impact of development?
Why, for example, is the fee for a single family residence with an accessory apartment $1000 and the fee for a duplex $2000? It's the same number of units on a lot, yet the duplex price is double. Is there that much more impact caused by a duplex?
Why, in a mixed use building, are the residential fees double those of a duplex and quadruple those of a single family residence per unit? It has been my impression from sitting in on meetings that mixed use buildings were to be encouraged in the commercial area. These fees do the opposite, sending the message that you don't want these types of projects.
It seems to me that the fee structure should be revisited by the board. Although a price increase from previous amounts was in order, these seem, at least in part, like an attempt to raise money for projects that should be funded by POA dues which can't possibly generate enough money at current levels. I currently pay dues of $693 per year for my Pioneer Plaza lot (based on lot size) and there are no buildings yet. These dues cover snow removal from and maintenance of common areas, common area landscaping, insurance, management, etc. and are considerably higher than the dues I pay for my house. I know you are working on changing the covenants to allow you to raise dues to a realistic level, an effort which I support, but it seems flawed to make up the missing money in the short term by raising project fees. Projects which benefit the entire community should be funded by the entire community.
I have been told numerous times that these fees are only a small percentage of a project. While I agree with that I don't find it to be overly relevant. The project fees along with all of the other small percentage fees collected by various agencies add up to a significant amount of money.
In closing, I would ask the board to take another look at these fees and reconsider the reasoning behind them. I welcome any feedback you may have.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully yours,
Timothy White
349-7292
spellboundfurniture@mindspring.com
Appendix B - Home Occupation Regulation Language for CB South
It is the policy of the Crested Butte South Property Owners Association to allow home occupations in residential structures on residential lots, but only when they meet the standards established below:
General Provisions Regarding Home Occupation: A home occupation, when conducted in a residential district, shall be subject to the following standards:
(1) The home occupation shall be secondary to the main use of the dwelling as a residence.
(2) All aspects of the home occupation shall be contained and conducted within a completely enclosed building.
(3) The home occupation shall be limited to either a preexisting garage or accessory structure, or not over twenty five percent (25%) of the floor area of the main floor of a dwelling. If located within an accessory structure or a garage, the home occupation shall not utilize over five hundred (500) square feet of floor area.
(4) No structural alteration, including the provision of an additional entrance, shall be permitted to accommodate the home occupation, except when otherwise required by law. Such structural alterations shall not distract from the outward appearance of the property as a residential use.
(5) No persons other than a maximum of two (2) members of the immediate family residing within the dwelling shall be engaged in the home occupation.
(6) No window display and no sample commodities displayed outside the dwelling shall be allowed.
(7) No materials or mechanical equipment shall be used which are detrimental to the residential use of the dwelling or any nearby dwellings because of vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, interference with radio or television reception or any other factor.
(8) No parking of customer vehicles in a manner or frequency so as to cause disturbance or inconvenience to nearby residents or so as to necessitate off street parking shall be allowed. A maximum of two (2) customer vehicles shall be permitted at one time.
(9) No sign shall be permitted except for single name plate not to exceed one and one-half (11/2) square feet in area. (A sign permit shall be obtained prior to erection of any signs.)
(10) The applicant shall obtain a valid CB South Business Permit from the POA.
Appendix C- CB South Goals for 2005-2007
2005-2007 CB South P.O.A. Goals
- Obtain a Special Geographic Area Designation within Gunnison County.Design and begin to construct a sidewalk system for CB South, beginning with a separated sidewalk along Teocalli Road, and continuing to look at areas where a safer, vehicle-pedestrian interface is needed. This might incorporate a streetscape improvements planning element (i.e. a street tree planting/lightening program), and it would attempt to secure and build a pedestrian-oriented path that would ultimately connect CB South with the Town of Crested Butte.Increase P.O.A. Staff to help better fulfill our obligations to all property owners.Develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan that would identify locations for potential projects, such as playground improvements, that could be phased in and constructed as funds become available.A shuttle or bus service between the Town of Crested Butte and CB South.
- Acquire land for future parks, schools, open space, trails, transportation and potential future parking needs, as we continue to grow.
|
