My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0223
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0223
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2015 10:53:14 AM
Creation date
3/6/2015 10:41:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/23/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, February 23, 2015 <br /> Page 26 <br /> While lacking variety, Councilmember Laliberte asked if they had any concerns <br /> in marketing these units, or if they would be less desirable and salable; and asked <br /> at what rates they felt they could be moved. <br /> Ms. Reuter stated that, while the original proposal provided great and unique op- <br /> tions that would appeal to multi-property neighborhoods, based on their sales ex- <br /> perience around the metropolitan area and demand for one-level townhomes, she <br /> found no reason to doubt their marketability. Ms. Reuter noted that, with any new <br /> construction, she saw no problem selling the first phase of the project and selling <br /> it out quickly, and that the only concern appeared to be in financing the phases <br /> without more concrete and comparable appraisals in Roseville. <br /> Mr. Stockwell concurred with Ms. Reuter's comments; and based on inquiries to- <br /> date as previously noted, he anticipated ongoing demand for one-level units based <br /> on current demographics, but also seeing no decline in the demand for multi-level <br /> units either. <br /> Ms. Reuter stated that she had full confidence in either project option, but for it to <br /> develop quicker with the more conservative approach that would be safer for the <br /> City if that was of great importance to them. Either way, Ms. Reuter advised that <br /> she saw no problem in selling them, but anticipated the one-level units would sell <br /> more quickly based on current demand. Ms. Reuter noted that any new construc- <br /> tion in Roseville, as a fully developed community with limited housing stock op- <br /> tions, attracted a lot of attention. <br /> Mr. Stockwell concurred that one level units will be safer; and questioned the pro- <br /> jected length of construction time for all phases, as referenced by Councilmember <br /> Etten between 2015 to 2018 based on GMHC presentations and discussions at the <br /> HRA level. Mr. Stockwell opined that, as a marketer of new construction, his <br /> firm couldn't even come close to the demand for new construction, and since <br /> GMHC had a dedicated builder team ready to go, he anticipated a much quicker <br /> construction timeframe. <br /> Ms. Reuter noted that the quicker the project got started, the sooner the units <br /> could be sold. <br /> In an effort to confirm what she was hearing, Councilmember McGehee stated <br /> that she wished the 18 unit proposal was actually the one before the City Council, <br /> as it was a product for which they understood there was a need. Councilmember <br /> McGehee noted that, from her recollection, that type of unit was in the appraisal <br /> and approved by the bank as a known quantity, and no further requirements were <br /> needed; and needed less site work since it was less dense. Councilmember <br /> McGehee suggested that the neighborhood would be supportive of that option, <br /> and sought further comment from GMHC as to her understanding and a <br /> timeframe for that option and whether or not it would still need to be phased. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.