|
From: Craig McCullah <craig.allen.mccullah@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 10:51 AM
To: Ryan Tull <rtull@rhgroup.org>
Cc: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>; Tyler Wible <wible.pd@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Happy thanksgiving
Hi Ryan,
There is a total of 9 acres on the east side of Rochester; 7 acres are zoned for multifamily and the other two are zoned residential. Only 30 units can be built on the 7 acres due to the constraints of the fire code. I believe the images Henry shared were mockups made prior to approval of the zoning. I don't believe any portion of these 9 acres are currently advertised on Crexi.
There are approximately 23 acres (2 parcels; one is 6 acres the other is 17 acres) on the west side of Rochester that haven't been rezoned yet. Both of the parcels are currently advertised on Crexi.
Initial discussions with the City of Topeka have indicated that this land can be rezoned to have (M2) multi-family on the southern third of the land, M1A (duplex and fourplex) in the middle third, and either M1A or straight residential on the northern third.
And yes, both the east and west parcels are just north of Soldier Creek. There is one residential lot on the east side that sits between Soldier Creek and the 9 acres on the east. The land on the west side borders the creek.
I hope this helps,
Craig
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 5:00 PM Ryan Tull <rtull@rhgroup.org> wrote:
Thanks for sending Henry. I think that product probably works very well there. Is this the site shown on Crexi behind Dillions or Walmart? But it's actually on the other side of the creek? What you sent says the PUD is approved for 30 units, but it looks like more than that. Could you clarify.
Thanks,
-Ryan
Ryan Tull
Regional VP of Development
Resource Housing Group, Inc.
201 E. 18th Ave. #401
North Kansas City, MO 64116
Mobile: 785-550-1683
Office: 816-237-5351
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2023 7:29 PM
To: Ryan Tull <rtull@rhgroup.org>
Cc: Craig McCullah <craig.allen.mccullah@gmail.com>; Tyler Wible <wible.pd@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Happy thanksgiving
Subject: Exclusive Opportunity: Prime Property for 55+ Community Development
Dear Ryan,
I'm writing to introduce an exceptional opportunity that aligns perfectly with your interests in real estate development, particularly in the 55 and over community space.
We have an exclusive offering of 7.2 acres of prime land zoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) M2, presenting an incredibly lucrative prospect for the creation of a specialized living community. Here are the key features that make this property stand out:
1. Strategic Zoning: The PUD zoning allows for the development of 30 units in the form of duplexes or fourplexes, offering flexibility in design and layout.
2. Residential Zone Access: An additional 2 acres zoned for residential use, with direct access from Walnut Street to the North, enhancing the development's appeal and accessibility.
3. Architectural Plans: Comprehensive architectural plans are available, showcasing various options for duplexes and fourplexes, ensuring efficient utilization of space and resources.
4. Targeted Demographic: This community is meticulously designed for individuals aged 55 and over, offering all-electric, low-maintenance homes tailored to their needs.
5. Unit Specifications: The units consist of one and two bedrooms, one bath, with a single-car garage, 9' ceilings, zero-entry accessibility, and a bathroom built to FEMA standard safe room specifications, ensuring safety and comfort.
6. Infrastructure Development: Rochester Road, a primary access point, is slated for expansion to three lanes by 2028, enhancing connectivity and easing traffic flow.
7. Convenient Location: The property is conveniently located within a half-mile proximity to Walmart, Dillons, and falls within the sought-after Seaman School District.
This opportunity presents an ideal canvas for the realization of a high-demand living community, tailored specifically for the 55 and over demographic. The strategic location, combined with the carefully planned infrastructure and thoughtful design, sets the stage for a project that promises not only financial gains but also a positive impact on the community.
I would be delighted to discuss this opportunity further at your earliest convenience. Please feel free to reach out to schedule a site visit or a detailed discussion regarding the potential this property holds for your investment goals.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the possibility of collaborating on this exciting venture.
Warm regards, I hope you had a great thanksgiving
H
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 4:17 PM Ryan Tull <rtull@rhgroup.org> wrote:
Sound good Henry.
Send me information when you're able to and I'll try to get you feedback right away.
Happy Thanksgiving!
-Ryan
Ryan Tull
Regional VP of Development
Resource Housing Group, Inc.
201 E. 18th Ave. #401
North Kansas City, MO 64116
Mobile: 785-550-1683
Office: 816-237-5351
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Ryan Tull <rtull@rhgroup.org>
Subject: Happy thanksgiving
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of RHG. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I'm grateful I think we'll make some deals
Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
--
Henry McClure
Time kills deals
785-383-9994
From: Craig McCullah <craig.allen.mccullah@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 1:20 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Sewer line extension
Henry
The city's policy for extending sewer lines appears to be inequitably applied to property owners based on their proximity to existing sewer lines so I'm trying to wrap my head around how this works.
The way I understand the city's development policy (for properties within city limits) is that:
a) connecting to sewer is mandatory for new construction and;
b) the developer must pay for extending the sewer main up to and thru their development.
So here's the rub. To get the sewer to my property I have to extend it through public land. Assuming the publicly held properties bear no financial responsibility for the sewer extension, how are the costs associated with extending the line through the publicly held properties distributed among the privately held properties?
It appears that the method of extending sewer lines (based on the city's mandate to connect to sewer) is discriminatory based on one's location to existing infrastructure. I understand that those costs could be distributed equally among those privately held properties but that doesn't eliminate the disparity created by having to cover the cost of extending a line through public ground. I'm not arguing that the developer shouldn't pay for extending the line through their property. What I'm confused about is why I would have to pay to extend it through public land as well. Shouldn't the cost to extend the line through public land be paid for by the public? Just seems odd that a property owner within city limits has to pay to extend a line through public ground in order to comply with a public mandate.
I appreciate any clarification you can provide.
Craig
