2015-03-31_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 continuing to make the neighborhood a better place to live, opining that they didn’t’ see any 2 benefit in what was ultimately probably going to happen, nor in having it in process for four 3 years. 4 5 6 Councilmember Willmus opined that one thing to keep in mind was the change in zoning 7 undertaken as part of the process, with the property along Dale Street originally guided High 8 Density Residential (HDR) and now re-guided to Medium Density Residential (MDR). 9 Councilmember Willmus clarified that any decision to step back and go back out for bid would 10 be under that new guidance and zoning of MDR, which should alleviate the concerns of the 11 neighborhood about an apartment house that would no longer comply with MDR zoning. 12 13 14 Ms. Olson opined that she believed that the timeframe indicated was a worst case scenario; and 15 if the market was there to buy the units GMHC would continue to move construction and 16 phases along. Ms. Olson stated that she believed the market was there; but felt it was prudent 17 to lay out something indicating a slower pace so as not to confuse anyone. 18 19 Member Lee noted, with consensus of the body, that the original concept went to RFP’s, all 20 other developer proposals submitted involved apartments or a combination of housing stock 21 that included an apartment building.Therefore, Member Lee opined that this proposal was as 22 close as the HRA and City could come to a single-family housing stock development, since it 23 had been found financially infeasible for detached single-family housing to work as an option. 24 Having used the CDI process, Member Lee noted, as confirmed by Ms. Kelsey, that the City 25 was having to subsidize this project and this type of housing stock to accomplish this preferred 26 development model. 27 28 In response to Member Etten’s preference for Option 3,Member Wall opined that this seemed 29 to him as the direstoption; and from his perspective appeared to provide the potential for the 30 most delay of any of the three options. Member Wall returned to the comments of Mr. Bilotta 31 that is you started Phase I and it looked like the market would take over, it would determine 32 whether GMHC or another developer went forward with additional phases and without losing 33 any time. Member Wall noted his request of staff as to whether or not they had a problem with 34 that option, and their response that they did not. Therefore, Member Wall questioned why 35 staff would be directed to terminate a relationship with GMHC and start over again. 36 37 At the request of Chair Maschka and Ms. Kelsey, HRA Attorney Graham responded that there 38 was no legal requirement for the HRA to out for another RFP and start over again. 39 40 Member Leequestioned if there was any guarantee that the project would move any faster with 41 another developer. 42 43 Ms. Kelsey clarified that staff had not been able to talk with any other developer(s) about that 44 concept. 45 46 Member Lee, from her work with developers in her career, stated that she was not clear if there 47 was any guarantee that another developer would have any different experience than that being 48 experienced by GMHC. 49 50 Chair Maschka noted that a developer having an equity partner available would be able to 51 proceed more quickly. 52 53 Member Lee argued that this would not be the case if the market was not there. 54 55 Chair Maschka noted the impetus was to get this built.