May 9, 2007 – REGULAR P.O.A. BOARD MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES
At 6:10 pm, Al Smith, President of the Board, called the meeting to order.
Board Members Present: Al Smith, Don Montgomery, Erin Dellaporta, Dave DiBerardino; Peter Carey arrived at 7:40 pm
Staff Member Present: Chris Behan,
Others Present: Shannon Renick, Carlos Gonzalez
Approval of P.O.A. Board Meeting Minutes from previous Regular P.O.A. Board Meeting: Copies of the April 11, 2007, Regular Board Meeting Minutes were presented to the Board Members for review prior to the meeting. Don made a motion to approve the April 11, 2007, meeting minutes as presented. Erin seconded the motion. Dave abstained from voting due to absence from the April meeting. Motion was approved by Al Smith, Don Montgomery & Erin Dellaporta.
Financial Report: Financial reports presented to the Board included the Monthly Budget Summary; Cash on Hand as of April 30, 2007; and additional detailed reports of cash in the bank for the Money Market, Operating, Hockey Rink, and Performance Deposit Accounts for the month of April. A summary of CD accounts was included in the financial package, as well as Bank Reconciliation statements for the month of April. After reviewing the presented materials, Dave moved to approve the financial report as presented. Don seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously approved.
Unscheduled Property Owners Comments:
Shannon Renick presented concerns regarding the old timber slide and play structure at Red Mountain Park. Concerns include current code requirements of playground equipment, safety, and potential liability issues for the P.O.A. The park and play structure are used extensively by the young families in CB South and old timber slide and play structure is old and deteriorated, and there has not been a lot of money spent on the playground, except for the new climbing rock, in the past few years. A new play structure would cost approximately $13,000-$15,000. A discussion ensued on how to pay for playground improvements. Options include: using forfeited performance deposits, or a matching fund drive with the P.O.A. matching funds raised by parents/owners. Chris will present options the Red Mountain Park Master Plan at the June 13th Board meeting. A master Plan might need to be completed this summer for the parks/playground before we remove or replace anything else in the playground area. This discussion will be continued at the June 13, 2007, P.O.A. Board Meeting.
Final Architectural Project Review:
Gonzalez-Brito Windmill Application, Lot 22, Block 22, Filing #4-354 Cisneros Lane
The Owner presented plans to the Board for installing a windmill on his property for future approval. The windmill would be 30 feet tall, the actual propeller will be 10 feet in diameter, the vertical component will be a blue metal tower with 3 guide wires, it will move with the wind and generate 2KW of power. Significant discussion ensued regarding size, height, noise, placement on the property, color, warranty/maintenance and aesthetics for this project and the policy of the P.O.A. generally on the question of appropriateness of windmills in residential areas. The Board requested that Carlos provide them with the following additional information at the June meeting at which time they would revisit the proposal:
- Please find out what the color options are for the propeller and pole
- Try to find out what kind of noise and/or vibration this thing will create
- Try to find the configuration/layout for the guide wires
- What are the options for propeller size
- Please tell us what kind of maintenance and warranty this comes with
- Please provide a site plan that shows the location of the pole and guide wires
- Please show the Board alternative poles that do not require guide wires
- Please find out what winds are needed to generate 2 KwH – and what is typical for CB South
- What is the safety rating for high wind events
Solar Collectors-Proposed Modifications to Design Guidelines
Chris presented proposed modifications to the P.O.A. Design Guidelines in order to provide greater clarity on the acceptability of various solar collectors and to head off future disputes. Currently solar collectors are addressed in paragraph 4.4 Roof Appurtenances of the Residential Design Guidelines for CB South
The Board discussed a wide range of issues associated with solar panels, including acceptability of stand alone panels and panels that are held on the roof with struts at an angle different than the roof pitch, and the aesthetics of various types of panels balanced against the need for supporting the use of sustainable resources.
Peter moved and Don seconded a motion to replace the existing paragraph addressing Solar Collectors in paragraph 4.4 of the Guidelines with the following language:
- Solar Collectors, if used, are preferred to be integrated into the existing or proposed building(s). In situations where integration is not feasible, stand-alone collectors shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, but in no instance shall they be permitted outside of the setbacks.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Fences-Proposed Modifications to Guidelines
Chris presented proposed modifications to language under paragraph 4.8 Fences of the P.O.A. Residential Design Guidelines. The proposed modifications would more accurately reflect the procedure for the approval process for fences. The modifications would replace notice requirements to the DRC and to adjacent neighbors with notice and approval through the POA. The modifications would also further clarify preferred materials and height.
Erin moved and Peter seconded a motion to replace the existing paragraph 4.8 Fences of the Guidelines with the following language:
- 4.8 Fences
-
- No fence shall be erected or maintained within fifteen feet of any street or road; nor shall any fence exceeding three feet in height be erected or maintained without the approval of the DRC.6 No fence shall be placed or erected within a utility easement without prior written permission from the easement holder, and then only after locates have been conducted.
-
- 4.8(a) P.O.A. approval shall be required for all fences.
-
- 4.8(b) The street side of the residence is defined as an area which on one side abuts any street or road and runs toward a point on each outside corner of the residence structure which is facing such street or road. A straight line from each outside corner of the residence structure shall be drawn to the side lot line which is closet to such corner. All area between such lines and the street or road shall be the street side of the residence.
-
- 4.8(c) Fencing over 6 feet height is prohibited. In applications where solid fences are desired, the “good side” must be facing away from the property. Utilizing plant life is encouraged for screening purposes.
-
- 4.8(d) All fencing must be within the boundary of the Lot. Nothing shall prohibit adjacent property owners from agreeing to construct a fence on their common property line.
-
- 4.8(e) The fence materials, color, scale, and texture must appear integrated into the overall design of the residence. Log and/or wood-framed fencing materials are strongly encouraged. All log and/or wood fencing material must be treated with a protective clear coating at a minimum. T-posts, chain link and barbed wire are not permitted. Wire mesh may be used in conjunction with log or wood fencing in order to enclose pets, but must be placed on the interior of the fence.
-
- 4.8(f) Fences on the street side of the residence shall not be erected or maintained within fifteen feet of any street or road.7 A street side fence which is solid in material cannot exceed three feet in height.
-
- A street side fence which is not solid in material shall not exceed four feet in height.
-
- 4.8(g) In order to consider an application to construct a fence, the owner must submit written plans and specifications (“Fence Plan”) showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials, color, and location. The plans shall include the measurements from all structures and lot lines and include a photo of the materials to be used.
-
- The P.O.A. will not consider the applicant’s application until the applicant has satisfied all of the requirements set forth herein.
-
- 4.8(h) The applicant shall provide the P.O.A. with a letter from any adjacent property owners for which the proposed fence will be placed directly over a shared property line.
6 Covenant Section 22.01 This is a covenant that all property owners must comply with and the DRC has no authority to change.
7 Covenant 22.01: This is a covenant that all property owners must comply with and the DRC has no authority to change.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Association Manager’s Report
P.O.A. Work Truck Purchase Update
Chris informed the Board that the P.O.A. had purchased with cash a new (2007) white Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck with a 5 year, 50,000 mile warranty. The truck is a very basic work truck with a regular cab, V-8 engine, 4-wheel drive, towing capability, and a full-sized bed which has now received a spray-in bed liner. The vehicle was paid for with excess operating money from 2006. In 2006, this P.O.A. made more income then we had predicted, and the P.O.A. spent less money than we had predicted via the 2006 Approved P.O.A. Budget. It is already seeing plenty of use, assisting in the maintenance and upkeep of the many P.O.A. common areas and amenities. All P.O.A. Employees can drive this vehicle once our insurance company runs a background check on their driving record and gives Chris an “ok”.
CB South Clean Up Day Summary
The Clean Up Day was a success, considering the cold, rainy weather that day. Three dumpsters were filled. The residents provided a lot of positive response.
Special Area Regulations – Next meeting with Gunnison County, tentatively May 4th, 2007
The meeting was postponed until June 15, 2007.
Summer P.O.A. Staffing Report. The P.O.A. has hired three part time employees: Solomon Bond and Gary Broughton for landscaping, and Robert Schultz for code enforcement at.
With no further matters of discussion, Al Smith adjourned the Regular Board Meeting at 8:43 pm.
|
