CC_Minutes_2008_0922 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 22, 2008 Page 6 tions 1 - 6 of the Imagine Roseville community visioning process and its priori- ties. Sue Shea, former President and now Vice President, Westwood Village I, 2666 MacKubin Street Ms. Shea also read from a prepared statement, noting that Village units were ninety-six percent (96%) owner-occupied; and reviewed her a-mail providing the steps taken to avoid a similar situation in the future; through hiring of a CAP to complete a reserve study and long-term financial plan for the Association; in- creased dues to meet long-term needs; the hiring of a third party construction manager to provide technical aspects of the project design specifications and re- view of bid documents; and monies spent on attorney fees throughout this process and in developing a Second Amended Declaration for the Association. Ms. Shea advised that, while all unit owners could not be appeased, the majority of over seventy-five (75%) had approved and adopted amended documents. Ms. Shea opined that the documents were fair and clearly established allocations for im- provements and assessments; and respectfully asked that the City Council honor the decisions of the majority of property owners; and asked that the City Council consider reducing the proposed administrative fee. Mayor Klausing referenced several portions of the Second Amended Declaration, provided to him at his request earlier in the day by staff; and apologized that he had not directed staff to copy all Councilmernbers prior to the meeting. Staff made copies of the document for all Councilmembers during the meeting, as well as for the public. Discussion among Councilmembers, staff and Association Board President Lindberg, and Vice President Shea included allocation of costs per linear foot and definition of the surface areas; uniqueness of the design of the units and varying levels of specific units; additional costs for courtyard door replacement on all 47 units; and door and window trim cost allocations; and limited common elements addressed in Section 6 of the Second Amended Declaration, Section 3.2, subdivi- sion 2 (i.e., gutters, downspouts and roofing) with window replacement being an individual homeowner responsibility. It had been determined by the majority vote that all units would be assessed equally, whether internal or end units, noting that benefit of end units was limited and everyone essentially benefited from the end units, based on advice of the Association's attorney and interpretation of common interest community law, and based on majority rule of the community.. Further discussion ensued regarding changes to original covenants and determina- tion of which properties were defined as unlimited common property; sizes of units (varying); and the City Council's obligation to determine if the requested ac- tion, based on the documents presented, was fair and equitable, without attempt- ing to micro-manage the project; and the nominal monetary differences for as-