September 12, 2007 – REGULAR P.O.A. BOARD MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES

At 6:00 Board members Al Smith, Dave DiBerardino, and Peter Carey, and Association Manager, Chris Behan made a site visit to 78 Janet Place, Greenberg/Tutnauer Single-Family Residence

At 6:25 pm, Al Smith, President of the Board, called the meeting to order.

Board Members Present: Al Smith, Dave DiBerardino and Peter Carey.

Staff Member Present:  Chris Behan, Linda Roberts

Others Present:  Paul Greenberg, Deborah Tutnauer, Mark Collins, Jeff Bay, Sarah Hartman, Don Turk, Gene Mason, Patrick and Sue Wallace, Mike Weil, Don Smith, Kathy Norgard, Ilene Spector, Joanne Reynolds, Rob and Stacee Vanaernem, Carlos Gonzalez-Brito, Drew and Dawn Gillis

Approval of P.O.A. Board Meeting Minutes from previous Regular P.O.A. Board Meeting:  The August 8, 2007, Regular Board Meeting Minutes were presented to the Board Members for review prior to the meeting. Peter made a motion to approve the August 8, 2007 Meeting Minutes. Dave seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously approved.

Approval of P.O.A. 2007 Annual Meeting Minutes.  A quorum of the Board members present at the 2007 Annual Meeting was not present currently, the approval of the 2007 Annual Meeting Minutes was deferred to next month.

Financial Report:  August 31, 2007, financial reports were presented to the Board including: the Monthly Budget Summary; Cash on Hand as of August 31, 2007;  Bank Reconciliation statements for the Money Market, Operating, Hockey Rink, and Performance Deposit Accounts for the month of August and a summary of CD accounts. After reviewing the presented materials, Dave moved to approve the financial report as presented for August 2007.  Pete seconded the motion.  Motion was unanimously approved.  The Board discussed FDIC insurance and directed Chris to review our bank accounts to determine that all of our accounts have FDIC insurance.
 
Unscheduled Property Owners Comments:  None

Covenant Violation Hearings:
Bay/Hartman – RV; Lot 15, Block 11, Filing #2 – 98 Kubler Street

Jeff Bay received a letter via certified mail on August 2, 2007 of alleged violation regarding the storage of his large RV on his property.   On August 10th, the P.O.A. office received a letter from Jeff Bay and Sarah Hartman requesting a hearing regarding the alleged violation. A copy of Jeff and Sarah’s letter was provided to the Board members.  Jeff Bay presented a request for a 30 day extension for compliance.  He stated that he and Sara Hartman wish to be good members of the community and felt that the Board should pursue consistent enforcement of the Covenants.  If the Board’s reason for his notice of violation was to clean up the neighborhoods, they should be pursuing all of the trailers, junk cars etc. and not selectively picking on RVs.  Jeff was informed that to keep an RV on his property his option was to build a garage for storage, which would need to comply with the P.O.A. Rules and Regulations.  A temporary carport might not pass Gunnison County regulations nor would it be consistent with the P.O.A. Architectural Design Guidelines.  Storage parking on vacant future commercial land is not permitted. A future option is to change the Covenants.  The Board is enforcing the Covenants to clean up C.B. South in order of priority which has been lot appearance and RVs.  Future enforcement will continue down the list which includes storage of other recreational equipment.  Motion by Dave to deny the extension request, the RV must be moved from the Lot within 30 days or a fine will be imposed.  Al seconded the motion.  The motion was unanimously approved.

Turk – RV; Lot 2, Block 16, Filing #3 – 722 Cascadilla

Don was sent a letter of alleged violation regarding the storage of his large RV on his property, as received via certified mail on July 13, 2007.  Don was present to contest his notice of violation.  Don agreed with the arguments presented by Jeff Bay.  Motion by Dave to require that the RV must be moved from the Lot within 30 days or a fine will be imposed.  Al seconded the motion.  The motion was unanimously approved.

Cavanaugh – Lot Appearance; Lots 5 & 6, Block 4, Filing #2 – 204 Elcho Avenue and 229 Cement Creek Road

Morgan Cavanaugh received via certified mail on June 26, 2007, a letter of alleged violation regarding the storage of an old car and a car seat or couch on his property. Morgan has called the P.O.A. twice promising that he would be back no later than Labor Day to remove the car and junk, however, he has not complied. Morgan Cavanaugh was not present. The Board directed Chris to give him a courtesy call to request that he take the actions as required or a fine will be issued.

CB South General Store – Lot Appearance; Lot 7, Block 4, Filing #2 – 228 Elcho Avenue

Oliver and his father received a letter via certified mail on June 23, 2007, of alleged violation regarding the propane tank on the General Store’s property. The propane tank will be buried.  Violation is being rectified.

Performance Deposit Refund Request
Greenberg/Tutnauer Single-Family Residence; Lot 5, Block 22, Filing #3 – 78 Janet Place

Paul Greenberg and Deborah Tutnauer were present along with their architect Mark Collins to provide information as to how their project ended up out of compliance with our Guidelines.  Their original approved plans were presented at the meeting along with photos of their existing conditions.  Deborah provided handouts of a letter signed by Todd Parker, a map, a calculation for determining the finished grading percentages and information from Onsight Roofing.  This discussion was considered an “informal appeal” of the following items which are not in compliance with the Guidelines and therefore would preclude refund of the Performance Deposit until compliance is achieved:
            1.   Roofing material has not been “dulled” as required; and
2. Changes to the approved plans must be approved by the P.O.A. before modifications are made not as they are on going, and changes must comply with the Architectural Design Guidelines or a variance must be approved.

It was Deborah’s position that the Board was shown a sample of the galvanized metal and approved it.  Further, she believes that the changes to the grading and landscaping were warranted and when she informed Chris of this, he approved, albeit after it was completed.  No redlined plans or actual documents were ever presented to Chris. Deborah presented her information from Todd Parker indicating that they believe that the slope is more stable than the retaining walls proposed and approved on the plans and that the slope is supported by a buried wall of rocks.

Regarding the shiny metal roof, the Board stated that they would not have approved the roof without a stipulation that the roof needed to be “dulled” immediately upon installation in order to meet the Architectural Guidelines.  A long term vinegar solution would not be acceptable. 

Regarding the slope of the landscaping, the Board stated that it is not in compliance.  Changes must be approved by the P.O.A. before they take place, not during or after.  Additionally a redlined copy of the original plans must be approved by the P.O.A. before changes are made.  Mark pointed out that topographical maps are approximate when determining grade and recalled that the owners were required to have retaining walls added to the plans because the grade needed to not exceed 2:1 slope.

Regarding the vegetation/landscaping required to meet the Architectural Guidelines, the Board stated that it is not in compliance.  The current vegetated area by the drive is insufficient to keep the driveway from eroding away.  Further, the driveway as built would benefit from a guard rail at the bottom.  Deborah informed the Board that because of the fabric on the ground to encourage seed growth can not be cut for 3 years, they are not able to plant the shrubs until 2009.  Further, because their house is in a wildfire area, they can not plant trees within 35 feet of the house.

Motion by Peter that the following conditions must be met before the Applicant’s request for refund of their performance deposit will be considered:

The motion was seconded by Al and unanimously approved.

Architectural Project Review:

Trickel Single-Family Residence; Lot 41, Block 23, Filing #3 – 2393 Bryant Avenue
Gene Mason was present on behalf of the Trickel’s.  The driveway grade has been “softened” and now complies with our Guidelines.  The house has been moved 10 feet down the hill to provide better separation from the driveway and the property line.  Other items requested by the Design Review Committee have been provided.  The north elevation solid to void ratio on the road side of the garage has been improved and the 8 foot retaining wall will be engineered.  The applicant was reminded that retaining walls over 6-feet in height are not allowed and concrete poured retaining walls must be rock faced or covered by wood.  The siding will be hardy plank and cedar siding.  The applicant shall provide to Chris for approval the calculation of metal siding material in relation to the overall siding materials.  This calculation measures the areas from finished grade to the facia on each elevation, windows and doors are included.  The windows and roof will be brown.  The eave pitch located where by the front entry is a concern in that it may interfere with the window.  It shall be moved over or made smaller.  This change shall be approved by Chris and redlined on the P.O.A. plans prior to construction. 

Motion by Dave to approve the project with the conditions:

The motion was seconded by Peter and unanimously approved.

Wallace Single-Family Residence-Lot 8, Block 15, Filing #3 – 810 Bryant Avenue
Sue and Patrick Wallace together with Mike Weil and Don Smith presented the plans to the Board.  The Applicants requested a front yard setback variance of 7.5 feet, and a parking variance – to zero lot line.  The lot is an oddly shaped smaller corner lot and the Applicant’s seek to build a slab on grade home that will maximize solar access based on calculations provided by Sue. The Applicant’s basis for seeking the setback variance is that the future home on the neighboring lot would negatively impact their passive solar access.  The Board discussed whether this variance was purely design driven or could be granted based upon hardship.  Applicants also sought a variance for the roof pitch and a variance to allow metal siding in excess of 20%.

Section 4.2 of the Design Guidelines requires that at least 51% of the proposed roof area shall have a minimum pitch of 7:12.    Section 4.1(c) provides that metal siding shall not exceed 20% of the total amount of the exterior siding without Board approval.
 
The Board determined that the small lot size and odd shape provides unique conditions not created by the Applicant. The metal siding and roof pitch variances would provide an attractive design to go with the land contours and reclaimed Douglas fir of the window trim. Motion by Peter to approve the project with the following variances:

The motion was seconded by Al and unanimously approved.

Vanaernem Single-Family Residence-Lot 22, Block 2, Filing #1 – 238 Teocalli Road

Rob and Stacey Vanaernem presented the plans to the Board.  Specifically, windows, percentage of metal, driveway, facia and PV solar panels were discussed.  Drew Gillis, 214 Teocalli Road, reviewed the driveway placement and was satisfied with the space available for snow removal.

Motion by Peter to approve the project with the following variances:

The motion was seconded by Al and unanimously approved.

Gonzalez-Brito Windmill Application-Lot 22, Block 22, Filing #4 – 354 Cisneros Lane
Carlos Gonzalez-Brito presented additional information to the Board concerning his Windmill Application which has been previously presented at the May and July 2007 Board meetings.  Carlos informed the Board that there are no factory specifications for noise output available, the only information available were testimonials.  The height can be reduced by the factory.  The Board discussed noise, neighborhood compatibility and height.  Motion by Peter to approve the project with the following conditions and findings:

New Business:
Home Occupation Regulations Review

At 10 p.m. after an already long meeting, Chris presented a draft of Home Occupation regulations for review and modification as follows: 

It is the policy of the Crested Butte South Property Owners Association to allow home occupations in residential structures on residential lots, on a limited and/or case-by-case basis.  In order to maintain and preserve the residential character of Crested Butte South outside of the commercial district, home occupations will only be permitted when they meet the standards established below:

Home child care business shall be defined as a commercial business or activity conducted upon  real property of a primarily residential character which involves the owner of the residential real property providing, for a fee, child care services for one or more minor children under the age of 12 years.  A person who provides child care services only for their children in their own home is not engaged in a home child care business.  Home child care business shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, but in no instance shall operation with more than 6 children be allowed; and all in-home daycare operations must meet all of the following:  

The Home Occupation Committee consisting of Joanne Reynolds, Kathy Norgard and Ilene Spector presented copies of the regulations currently used in Crested Butte and Gunnison.  Discussion ensued regarding the impact Home Occupations has on neighborhoods including noise, environment, parking, traffic etc.  Home Occupations that do not have onsite visitors generally have little to no impact.  Businesses performed in the garage may be a step more intensive, and child care is one of the most intensive uses. The state has four levels of childcare regulations.  The impact on the neighborhood of childcare home occupations will vary with the level.  Other questions addressed included whether C.B. South should require an application fee, annual renewal fee, etc.  The Board directed Chris to continue to work on this issue.

With no further matters for discussion, Al Smith adjourned the Regular Board Meeting at 10:20 pm.

10:20 pm Executive Session for P.O.A. Property Acquisition Discussion and P.O.A. Building Loan Payoff Discussion