Laserfiche WebLink
Observations/Alternatives: <br />Preliminary Specifications <br />• Inland Group (http://inlandconstruction.com/) is a development company based out of Washington. <br />• One of their subsidiaries is Affinity Living Communities (http://affinitvforliving.com/). <br />• Senior, independent, 55+ (not assisted living) <br />• Estimated 175 units (may be adjusted) <br />• Market rate, high amenity (not low income) <br />• Anticipate a 4-5 story building <br />• Anticipate 1st floor structured parking (100%) <br />• Want roughly 1.5 parking stalls per unit (may be adjusted) <br />• Not willing to use a shared parking ramp (non -starter item) <br />• Opposed to any commercial/ retail (but, open to discuss if required by City) <br />• Desire a spring 2018 construction <br />• Need 3-5 acres <br />• No assistance requested at this time (however, this project will likely trigger construction of public <br />infrastructure, and staff expects a request to come at some point). <br />• The developer needs direction on site location before they can proceed with a project. <br />Developer's Comments <br />The developer has completed a preliminary review of the attached concepts. Below are their high-level comments. <br />Site A: Not acceptable. <br />This site would be an immediate non -starter. This is due to the parking ramp. The cost of parking ramps is too <br />much to absorb by the developer. However, more importantly, a parking ramp doesn't fit their model. They <br />need good site lines from all sides of their building (for residents to enjoy looking out their window/ <br />balcony). The developer also needs room for amenity spaces. Also, based on their model, senior residents do <br />not like the perception of parking ramps (look, safety, and functionality). <br />Site B: Desirable. <br />This site is the developers #2 favorite site. The developer likes to be located adjacent to the future municipal <br />plaza park. The developer likes being located near the rail station. The developer likes being located against <br />a hard edge (i.e. center street). The developer likes being located near other existing development (rather <br />than being in the middle of a parcel). <br />Site C: Desirable. <br />This site is the developers #1 favorite site. The developer likes to be located adjacent to the future municipal <br />plaza park (entire building). The developer likes being located near the rail station. The developer likes being <br />located against a hard edge (i.e. center street). The developer likes being located near other existing <br />development (rather than being in the middle of a parcel). <br />Site D: Acceptable. <br />This site is the developers #4 favorite site. The developer likes being located against a hard edge with <br />infrastructure in place (i.e. Sunwood Drive). The developer doesn't like this site as much (as others) do to its <br />distance from parks. <br />Site E: Acceptable. <br />This site is the developers #3 favorite site. The developer likes being located against a hard edge with <br />infrastructure in place (i.e. Sunwood Drive). This site is located near other important items (parks, other <br />development in the center of The COR, the rail station), but it's not directly adjacent. The developer is okay <br />with this site. <br />Funding Source: <br />NA <br />