Laserfiche WebLink
Community Assets & <br /> Development Department <br /> <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> <br /> <br />DATE: May 31, 2018 <br /> <br />TO: Manager Lotter <br /> Mayor <br /> Members of the Council <br /> <br />FROM: Janice Gundlach, Asst. Director of Community Assets & Development/Planning Director <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Korean Church/Old New Brighton School Redevelopment Concepts <br /> <br />Since early in 2018 City staff has been working on developing and implementing a process that would <br />produce interest from the development community at the Korean Church/Old New Brighton School <br />property at 701 8th Avenue NW. Before engaging in any process, staff has been seeking input from Jason <br />Aarsvold at Ehler’s (the City’s public finance consultant), who has a lot of experience in this area. Staff, <br />with participation from Ehler’s, conducted informal developer meetings on the site in mid-February thru <br />early-April. Informal meetings seem to be the preference in the development community over the <br />RFP/RFQ process. Staff met with the following developers: <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 (partnered with Schuett Companies) * <br />• Inland Development <br />• Alatus* <br />• Norhart <br /> <br />During these informal staff meetings, staff sought feedback on the site. This feedback is summarized in <br />the attached EDC Memo dated April 27, 2018 (bottom on page 1). During these meetings staff inquired <br />whether the developer had any further interest in the site, and the developers above noted with an <br />asterisk (*) did and followed up by submitting a concept proposal. All of the proposals are attached. Be <br />advised these are concepts, and the site plans and various project details are very likely to change as staff <br />and the redevelopers engage further in the process, most notably engagement with the neighborhood. <br />To staff’s surprise, nine developers expressed varying levels of interest. While the amount of choice was <br />broad, staff learned very quickly that making a decision would be difficult as nearly every proposal was <br />