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
Prior to engaging with the development community, the hope was these meetings would generate <br />interest with 1-2 developers that we could then continue discussions with. The good news is the City has <br />received interest from eight developers. With so much interest, staff discovered very quickly that making <br />a decision on how to move forward would be very difficult being all eight proposals likely would generate <br />a great project. Commission members need to keep in mind the proposals submitted are a concept and <br />focusing on the development partner (mission, qualifications, ability to deliver, etc.) is just as important, <br />and maybe more important, as their concept proposal details. <br /> <br />Goal of Meeting <br />The concept proposals submitted by interested developers are important in understanding the realm of <br />redevelopment possibilities. With that in mind, but before diving into the individual proposals, staff is <br />recommending the Commission engage in a discussion about what redevelopment outcomes are most <br />favored. To do that, staff has provided two tables on the following page. The first table examines the list <br />of housing product types proposed. The second table lists the various criteria that each project could be <br />weighed against. Each commission member should be prepared to rank these, with 1 being their most- <br />desired/highest priority. Staff will compile the results during the meeting. <br /> <br />Staff suspects it may be difficult for Commission members to make these rankings without knowing what <br />those goals/criteria looks like in an actual project form. As such, all the development proposals are <br />attached for review. Staff has taken the two ranking tables and noted which developers accomplish the <br />various goals noted in the tables. This allows one to see what projects accomplish which goals, hopefully <br />allowing for informed ranking. <br /> <br />Next Steps <br />Once the Commission has identified the most recommended housing product and criteria for evaluation, <br />staff will examine the proposals and make a recommendation on which one(s) most align with those <br />recommendations. Please note, the Commission will be asked to hold a second meeting in May for this <br />discussion. Staff is recommending May 23rd or May 30th for the second meeting. Please examine your <br />schedules to determine your availability for those dates. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.