PC 041509 - Laserfiche WebLink

noted that Ponderosa Homes has been maintaining and subsidizing improvements since the onset of the project, and the cost of the dues, which has escalated, were all part of the Department of Real Estate’s approved budget which the homeowners received. In response to Commissioner O’Connor’s earlier comment, Ms. Hardy stated that at the time the project was approved, Ponderosa Homes thought there was going to be a school, and it was not until they knew of the plan for the residential project that they started thinking as well about a cost-sharing agreement. She noted that residents and the HOA have discussed this matter recently and that Ponderosa thinks it is reasonable to have cost-sharing agreement with the 110 homes. She reiterated, however, that Ponderosa needs to work through the budget process and cannot move forward with such an agreement until the project is approved. Ms. Hardy indicated that they do have a problem with making this a condition of this project approval as it is a separate matter. She reiterated that the original PUD required that the Ironwood HOA maintain the improvements and that ultimately, if the homeowners wanted to go back and approach the City about taking back some of the maintenance of the landscaping, they can do so. She noted that there will be a report back to the homeowners at their next Board meeting in June. Commissioner Blank inquired if the new senior project would have its own HOA. Ms. Hardy replied that it would. Commissioner Blank questioned why the new HOA would necessarily agree to split the cost of the landscaping and maintenance. He noted that once formed, an HOA becomes very vested in its issues alone, which is what it is there for. He noted that if he were sitting as a Board member of the new HOA and was approached by another HOA to split the maintenance cost, he would not necessarily agree to it. He stated that the time to instruct the new HOA that it needs to negotiate in good faith with the existing HOA is now. Ms. Hardy agreed and stated that she felt it was logical and reasonable to enter into a cost-sharing agreement. She noted that, however, they would not be in a position to conduct budgeting for a pro rata share until they receive project approval. She indicated that she was interested in what form the condition might take. Chair Pearce stated that she believed Mr. Otto had come up with proposed language. Mr. Otto noted that the language was very basic and related to Ponderosa Homes considering the request. Commissioner Olson asked Ms. Hardy for a definition of “pro rata” and whether it would be possible for the Commission to craft a condition that a pro rata sharing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 15, 2009 Page 7 of 24