Gleneagle Civic Association, Aug. 12 – GCA holds Town Hall to review rewritten covenants

By David Futey

On Aug. 12, the Gleneagle Civic Association (GCA) board held a Town Hall Zoom meeting to seek feedback from the Gleneagle community on a draft version of the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions document. Board members Jimmy Owenby, GCA president, Steve Kouri, treasurer, Glenn Leimbach, board member at large, Mark Connell, board member at large, and Jeff McLemore, board member, along with GCA legal counsel Bryce Meighan with Orten, Cavanaugh, Holmes & Hunt LLC were present.

Before the Town Hall, the GCA board informed community members of the event through email on Aug. 4 and 11, including a draft of the rewrite and outlining the need to rewrite the declaration in the latter email. In part, the Aug. 11 email stated, “Our current documents, originally written decades ago, have become increasingly difficult to interpret and, in some areas, contradict provisions of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). After careful consultation with the community’s legal counsel, the board determined that a full rewrite—rather than piecemeal amendments—was the most effective way to bring our governing documents up to date.”

The email continued that the stated goals of the rewrite were to “align the documents with current state law and regulations; simplify and streamline the language for ease of understanding; modernize the content to reflect the evolving character of our neighborhood.”

At the opening of the Town Hall, Owenby reiterated the need for a rewrite. The board seeks to replace the existing covenants that were created in 1973 and updated in 1983 along with additional amendments after 1983. The existing covenants document is difficult for homeowners and the board to interpret and the board to enforce, he said. The goal is to create a clear, legally compliant with CCIOA and other laws and community-acceptable document that reflects changes that have occurred within the community.

The draft also seeks to remove unenforceable provisions and outdated rights and powers held by the original developer since the community is now fully owned and managed by its members who clarify governance and operational roles within the GCA. Owenby said the major reason for the rewrite is to clarify “the governance and overall operation of the GCA.”

Owenby said the board expressed thanks for the “really good feedback” received by email from community members before the Town Hall. He said the board will hold additional Town Halls including an in-person one, before a community vote is taken in November. Voting on the finalized covenants will be conducted by mail over 60 days to accommodate a quorum for the over 700 GCA households. Owenby said all lot owners are members and there is one vote per lot. He also emphasized that this is the first draft with revisions to follow based on community feedback and board review.

The Town Hall proceeded through eight of the 12 articles in the document during its two hours, with the board providing a description and overview for each article and allowing for feedback and discussion with online community members. The following articles were covered: Article 1: Name and Location; Article 2: Definitions; Article 3: Association Membership, Allocation of Votes, and Allocation of Liability for Common Expenses; Article 4: Easement and Common Area; Article 5: Assessments; Article 6: Maintenance Responsibility; Article 7: Architectural Controls; Article 8: Covenants.

The following provides an overview of what was discussed during the covenants’ draft document review.

The board clarified that there is no current intention to pursue a special assessment but included provisions for future boards to do so with a high approval threshold of 67% of total membership, rather than a simple majority. (Article 5.6).
A cap on annual assessments is proposed in the draft at $400 per lot (adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index or 5%). This would maintain the community’s small plan status as a limited expense HOA, being below the CCIOA threshold. Community members asked if a lower amount than $400 is possible and expressed concern over potential future increases. The board and attorney explained that the cap at $400 or less would be below the CCIOA threshold.
The GCA annual assessment is presently at $67. It can only be increased at a maximum of 5% annually. A vote by the membership would be required if the board seeks an increase higher than that percentage. Owenby stated that “assessments have not kept up with what we are doing now, such as taking care of the open space.”
Borrowing provisions are included in the draft to allow the association to quickly access funds for emergencies, such as flood damage, with banks typically requiring pledges of future assessments as collateral. The board acknowledged community members’ concerns about including borrowing guidelines and expressed willingness to consider adding those in the next revision.
The document consolidates voting procedures, including quorum definitions and approval thresholds for various actions. Quorum requirements differ depending on the activity, whether for board meetings or membership voting, for example. A 20%-member quorum, based on 2018 bylaws, is needed for voting during a board meeting to put an issue to vote to the general community. An approval of 67% of all members is recommended for special assessment approval instead of the present 51%, and a recommendation is being put forth in the draft for 80%-member vote approval for changes to the open space.
Homeowners are required to maintain their lot and make improvements consistent with community standards, with specific timeframes (e.g., 15 days to control weeds, 30 days to complete maintenance and repair) for addressing violations.
A discussion involved current practices involving notices from the board and submissions by neighbors for covenant violations. There was an expressed desire for the process to be professionally managed, fair, and equitable across the entire community. Owenby noted that the latter is difficult with the present four volunteers. Community members expressed interest in formalizing the violation adherence process in the covenants to provide consistency and prevent overly strict enforcement.
Meighan suggested community members submit suggestions relative to Article 6.3 regarding Failure to Maintain.
The covenants establish an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) responsible for approving property improvements, with a 30-day review period. If the ARC does not respond, the applicant can notify the board president they intend to proceed as identified in the application. If the association does not issue a written disapproval within 15 days, then the improvement can proceed and deemed in compliance (Article 7.8).
The board plans to update the architectural guidelines to reflect modern community standards and accommodate changes such as artificial turf, which is allowed with ARC approval.
Concerns were raised about the requirement for homeowners to pay for consultants hired by the board to review project applications (Article 7.5), especially for smaller projects, and members suggested including guardrails to prevent excessive review costs.
The board acknowledged the need for flexibility in construction timelines due to contractor availability and other delays, and the potential inclusion of permit closeout requirements.
The covenants draft addresses the use of lots, attempting to balance the allowance of home-based businesses with restrictions to maintain residential character (e.g., limiting traffic).
A discussion involved the existence and feasibility of short-term rentals (e.g., Airbnb). It was stated that Colorado courts defined short-term rentals as residential and not a commercial business. There are no current restrictions on short-term rentals in the draft, but the board is open to future community-driven discussions on this topic because community members have expressed issues with such rentals.
Leasing provisions include the association’s right to require owners to evict tenants for covenant violations (Article 8.3), although this might conflict with recent Colorado tenant protection laws requiring 90-day notices, a legal complexity the board intends to review further.

**********

The board intends to announce another Town Hall after the next draft revision is completed and provided to the community. The Town Hall is expected to be held in the second week of September.

David Futey can be reached at davidfutey@ocn.me.

Other Gleneagle Civic Association articles

Reader Interactions

Leave a Comment Cancel reply