My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018.06.05 WS
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Packets
>
2018
>
2018.06.05 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/14/2019 3:22:02 PM
Creation date
2/13/2019 3:19:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
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
Community Assets & <br /> Development Department <br /> <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> <br /> <br />DATE: April 27, 2018 <br /> <br />TO: Economic Development Commission <br /> <br />FROM: Janice Gundlach, Asst. Director of Community Assets & Development/Planning Director <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Korean Church Redevelopment Concept Proposals <br /> <br />Background <br />As the Commission is aware, City staff has been spending considerable time meeting with developers <br />regarding the Korean Church redevelopment opportunity. The intent with these meetings was to learn <br />what experienced developers think the pros and cons to a redevelopment are, what the scope of <br />redevelopment uses are, as well as if they personally have interest collaborating with the City on a project. <br />City staff and Ehlers’ staff (Jason Aarsvold) met with the following developers from mid-February – early <br />April: <br />• Aeon* <br />• Sand Companies <br />• Dominium* <br />• Schafer Richardson* <br />• Sherman Associates* <br />• MWF* <br />• Northbay Companies* <br />• Timberland Partners* <br />• Stuart Companies <br />• Pulte * <br />• Inland <br />• Alatus* <br />• Norhart <br />Based on our discussions, the developers above noted with an asterisk (*) have expressed further interest, <br />with all but Northbay submitting concept redevelopment proposals to date. <br /> <br />Summary points learned from these meetings include: <br />• Commercial, retail, or mixed use isn’t viable <br />• Affordable housing for families and seniors (multi-family rental) is the most likely due to demand <br />and using 4% tax credits (9% tax credits would be tough due to competitive process) <br />• Market rate multi-family housing is tough, but could be done if City offered enough financial <br />assistance to close the gap between construction costs and market rents <br />• For-sale single family and townhomes may be viable <br />• Senior rental, both affordable and mid-market, is viable <br />• Senior cooperatives and one-level townhomes is not viable <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.