click here for printer friendly version
Dakota Ridge Board Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2021 @ 8:30am
Present: Sarah Jones, Jim Lob, Ron Lemieux, Holly Van Deursen, Carrie Rawlins, Andrea Wilhelm (CPG)
The first item on the meeting agenda were two recent ARC violations noticed on lots 72 and 17. Ron provided a summary of the 2.5 hour meeting he and Sarah held in May with the owner of lot 72. Aside from a recent solar panel project that was submitted to the ARC, it was noticed that there are four violations of unapproved structures on the owner’s property in conflict with the covenants including: a fence, a wagon, a greenhouse and a trash shed. In April, the Board reached out to the owner with concerns regarding these structures and asked to set up a meeting with the owner. In the meantime, the owner submitted a full landscaping and site plan including these structures as well as a proposed solar array. After much discussion including a review of the language in the Dakota Ridge Covenants Section VIII and advice from legal counsel, the Board unanimously decided to notice the owner of the following:
1) The solar implementation was thoughtful and well-designed in regards to visibility for neighbors and landscaping therefore it is approved as presented.
2) The fence and garbage structure are to be removed within 60 days from notice but the ARC will consider approval of bear-proof trash enclosure at the bottom of the cul-de-sac for the lot owners 71-74. If a contractor is scheduled within 60 days but cannot complete the job by then, the Board will consider an extension.
3) The covered wagon may remain due to the fact that it is interpreted as a child’s play structure and/or decoration vs. a detached structure.
4) The greenhouse must be removed within 60 days or as an alternative, a new submittal may be presented to the ARC to relocate the greenhouse as an attached structure to the existing house.
Moving to the topic of the lot 17 violations, the structures in question included a greenhouse and perimeter garden fence around it. Andrea reported on her conversation with the owner of lot 17, who said both had been there for over 10 years, although the greenhouse was recently reinforced with more durable material. The owner also reported he could remove it at any time as a temporary structure but had no intentions to do so. After additional discussion, the Board decided on a similar course of action but due to the temporary nature of both structures, they asked CPG to notice the lot owner with a 30 day timeframe for removal.
Andrea said she would cross reference the HOA documents and governance policies with the HOA’s legal counsel to ensure the proper notification procedure to both homeowners which would include an opportunity for each owner to request a hearing with the Board.
Additional action items were requested of CPG during this conversation including an upcoming revision to the Design Guidelines to include additional language surrounding the following topics: solar installations, ARC fees, detached structures vs. “yard art”, water meters and meter pits, firewise construction and/or tree removal. Andrea was also asked to solicit legal counsel on any language that would allow the HOA to physically remove violations from the owner’s property and charge back those costs vs. simply assessing fines and liens on the property. It was also suggested that once the revised Guidelines are drafted, the covenants should also be reviewed and possibly edited if there are any inconsistencies or outdated language. Jim suggested that based on his expertise, Ron should be closely involved in this process between Andrea and the HOA attorney, Paul Sachs.
The second order of business was a decision on whether to proceed with the time and materials bid from Native Excavating bid for excavation costs to have DIPRA (Ductile Iron Pipe Research Assoc.) perform a soils test in two locations on each end of the DIP sections of water main that exist under River Rd. As opposed to the excavation, the DIPRA evaluation report would be free and include an evaluation of the exposed pipe. There was discussion about the fact that this report still wouldn’t provide any true data regarding the interior or current condition of the pipe. There was also discussion about the fact that the new 4” smart meter going into Vault 1 this summer should provide the ability to detect potential leaks in that section. Andrea said the bid was conservative in that it included $2k of asphalt repair which was included for a “worst case scenario” in case of road damage boat Matt Mielke felt it should be much less. As a precautionary measure and to help with future planning, the Board voted to proceed with the project in anticipation that the cost will be more like $6k.
The third order of business was an update on the water meter project and plumber bids. Tammy submitted the first equipment order for 51 meters and all endpoints and the delivery timeline is projected at eight weeks. Additional information/specs are needed for 11 homes which Andrea and Jeannie are working on for a second order. The initial estimate for equipment was $43,500 plus another $5,000 for the 4” vault meter so roughly $50k. Next, she reported that the RFP was sent to 11 local plumbers at the end of April but after multiple follow up attempts, only 4 vendors supplied bids: Professional Plumbing, Mt. High Mechanical, Perfect Slope, and Glenn’s Plumbing. All ranged within $350-$485 per meter and Andrea discussed some of the pros and cons including the fact that the first two would involve a team of installers and quicker installation. The technology requirements to potentially troubleshoot endpoint signals with the user software and software customer support was also discussed. The Board voted to award the bid to Mountain High Mechanical. The vendor required seven days notice prior to equipment delivery for scheduling the job. Their bid indicated they will attempt to cover 4 homes per day and complete the project within 2-3 weeks. Holly reminded Andrea that installers should double check where irrigation lines tie into the service lines to ensure they are after the meter and they should also ask homeowners if they are aware of other sources of water consumption on the property and ensure the same. Lastly, per the RFP Andrea confirmed that the installer will be utilizing the acoustic leak detection tool (recommended by CDC and purchased by DRHOA) at each house on the service lines to double check for leaks while the water is shut off.
Next, Andrea inquired about whether the Board wanted to move forward with scheduling the annual crack-filling work typically performed by RMA in August or September. She reported that RMA has been providing all of the annual road maintenance including crack-filling, seal coating, and patching since the 2009 overlay and is very familiar with the roads, the NWCC report, and the budget. At some point in the future, the Board said they may want a competitive bid but given the circumstances, all members present voted to move forward with RMA. Based on schedules, Andrea was asked to see if she could coordinate an on-site meeting with Ben Schreiner on July 7th, 8th, or 9th.
The last order of business was the scheduling of a 2021 fire mitigation education session for homeowners via Zoom. Sarah reported the Wildfire Council was standardizing a set of recommendations for all of the various HOAs that had requested it since the recent five-seminar Wildfire council series. She said she would solicit a member of the CO State Forest Service to join and the session and recommended that it consist of an overview of the home ignition zone and associated materials, followed by contractor resources, then a question and answer session. The Board suggested a date of July 6th or 7th at 4:30 or 5pm and Sarah said she would confirm then CPG will send notice to owners.
The topic of recordkeeping was postponed until the July 19th meeting with the understanding that the Board is looking for specifics on financials, ARC approvals, and road and water maintenance records for the subdivision. Andrea briefly shared what the current ARC tracking and reporting records look like in the AppFolio software and the Board agreed they were sufficient but said they wanted to add the two submittal forms recently developed in order to standardize the review process. Sarah said she would send those to CPG later in the week for posting on the DR website and Appfolio.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40am.
Commercial Property Group