My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008_0922_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2008
>
2008_0922_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2011 11:38:49 AM
Creation date
12/29/2011 11:03:49 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
167
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
F.Iffir-WITITIM, F.111 <br />c. During the inspection it was noted that some of the lower level windows appear <br />deteriorated. It is recommended that any windows showing evidence of rot or <br />malfunctioning be replaced at the time of siding replacement as later <br />replacement would be more expensive (after new siding is installed). It would <br />be necessary to inspect windows more thoroughly (and also from the interior) in- <br />order to determine which windows if any, require replacement versus <br />repair/paint. <br />d. While the decking J* oists and beams appear sound, it was not possible to inspect <br />the decking materials. These should be inspected for potential deterioration. <br />e. It is recommended that a 10%, contingency be budgeted for potential repair of wall <br />elements found to be deteriorated (often more extensive repairs are discovered <br />once work begins). <br />4.2 Are the owners able to finance the improvements — Is there an income need? While <br />the state statue for use of HIA does not specifically note that income data needs to be <br />collected and an income level determined, based upon section 468A. 13, sub. 1, "the <br />or► inan ce m us t in clu de fin dings tha t wi th o u t th e h o using impro vem en t area, th e <br />proposed improvements could not be made by the condominium associations or housing <br />unit owners, and the designation is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units <br />within the housing improvement area, " Therefore, a self certification of income was <br />prepared and mailed to all of the unit owners within Westwood Village 1. The results of <br />the survey are as follows: <br />a. 33 of the 47 units returned completed surveys or a 70% return rate. <br />b. Of those 3 3 units, 61 %, have incomes at or below 12 0%, of the average median <br />income for the metropolitan area as summarized below. The HRA has set 120% <br />as an affordable workforce housing limit within other programs such as the <br />Family Affordable Loan Program, Housing Redesign Program and Applewood <br />Pointe Project. <br />Income Level <br />Below 50% AMT <br />Between 51% - 60% AMI <br />Between 61% - 80% AMI <br />Between 8 1 % - 100% AMI <br />Between 10 1% - 120% AMI <br />% of total <br />affordable units <br />5% <br />10% <br />35% <br />30% <br />20% <br />c. According to funding requirements of other public entities for multi-family <br />prod ects such as (HUD, MHFA, Met Council and Ramsey County), 51 %, of the <br />units must be deemed affordable to be eligible for public assistance. This project <br />meets and exceeds that definition based upon Roseville's affordable housing <br />limits. <br />HIA Public Hearing (12-18-06) - Page 5 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.