My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-02-27_HRA_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Housing Redevelopment Authority
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2015
>
2015-02-27_HRA_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2015 3:14:27 PM
Creation date
3/12/2015 3:14:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/27/2015
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
Attachment B <br />Mr. Stockwell concurred that one level units will be safer; and questioned the <br />projected length of construction time for all phases, as referenced by <br />Councilmember Etten between 2015 to 2018 based on GMHC presentations and <br />discussions at the HRA level. Mr. Stockwell opined that, as a marketer of new <br />construction, his firm couldnt even come close to the demand for new construction, <br />and since GMHC had a dedicated builder team ready to go, he anticipated a much <br />quicker construction timeframe. <br /> <br />Ms. Reuter noted that the quicker the project got started, the sooner the units could <br />be sold. <br /> <br />In an effort to confirm what she was hearing, Councilmember McGehee stated that <br />she wished the 18 unit proposal was actually the one before the City Council, as it <br />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, and <br />sought further comment from GMHC as to her understanding and a timeframe for <br />that option and whether or not it would still need to be phased. <br />Rich McNamara, Western Bank <br />Mr. McNamara briefly reviewed the position of Western Bank, and results of the <br />townhome portion of the appraisal coming back quite well. However, as her <br />previously noted and since Western Bank first began working with GMHC in <br />September of 2014, they had anticipated that the vacant land appraisal would come <br />back higher than it did in reality, and due to the difficulty in finding comparable <br />appraisal properties in Roseville, other communities were used for those <br />comparables. Mr. McNamara noted that the ten single-family home appraisals <br />came in much lower than envisioned by Western Bank, since part of the challenge <br />in Roseville was finding middle-ground comparably valued single-family homes <br />like those proposed, since those being built had higher housing values (e.g. Pulte <br />Homes/Josephine Lakes and Lexington/Victoria). While there were plenty of <br />ramblers in Roseville built in the 1950s and 1960s, Mr. McNamara noted that they <br />were not of similar type to the proposed housing product. Mr. McNamara advised <br />that Western could clearly look at the six homes along Cope Avenue, and with the <br />fire station razed at that point, the townhomes were anticipated to lead into Phases <br />II and III. However, having to work under banking guidelines for lending, Mr. <br />McNamara noted that since the appraisals had not come in as high as anticipated; <br />Western Bank could not commit to any further financing until sales of the <br />townhomes were initiated. <br /> <br />Mr. McNamara noted that single-family townhomes were highly sought after and <br />successful, and while asked by GMHC to consider the entire project, he was not in <br />a position to do so. Mr. McNamara noted that he had been working with GMHC <br />on the 25 unit plan since September of 2014, and was prepared to move forward <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.