Developer presents Millhouse 272‑unit apartment plan and requests Chapter 100 help; council asks for more detail on finishes, parking and purchase terms

Developers with Millhouse presented a conceptual proposal for a 272‑unit multifamily community at the southeast corner of the Arbor Walk master development and asked the City Council to consider Chapter 100 incentives: a 10‑year fixed per‑unit pilot payment (proposed at $1,600 per unit per year, indexed) and a sales‑tax exemption for construction materials.

Millhouse said the site is unusually costly to develop because of undocumented fill, compressible soils and rock near the surface; the developer estimated roughly $3.5 million in extraordinary site remediation and grading costs. Project partners and city economic development counsel explained that the proposed pilot plus sales‑tax relief would bridge that gap and provide valuation certainty for lenders and equity during lease‑up. City economic development staff reviewed past Chapter 100 benchmarks and said this request would represent about 6.2% of the estimated $64 million project cost (developer’s estimate) and is within the range of previously approved incentives when compared with comparable projects.

At the planning commission hearing and at council, neighbors raised traffic and stormwater concerns. Staff told council the project is consistent with the Arbor Walk master plan and that traffic capacity in the surrounding street network can accommodate the project; planning staff said the applicant included hydrodynamic separators and other stormwater mitigations and that the plan conforms with the master development’s stormwater approach.

Council members pressed the developer for specifics before any incentive action: they asked for detailed building elevations and materials, proof the project will be “class A” construction, a firmer parking plan tied to unit mix and peer comparable parking demand, and protections in incentive documents if the site is sold (city review/approval of any sale while incentives are in force). Several council members said they wanted to see stronger guarantees that the project will have sufficient parking, high‑quality finishes and long‑term ownership or operating commitments before approving a pilot. A few members said they were sympathetic to the argument that rooftops are needed to attract retail and restaurants to the southern corridor and that the site has been idle for decades.

The presentation was conceptual; council did not approve incentives at the meeting. Council members gave conditional, directional feedback: staff was authorized to continue negotiations with the developer and to return with the requested technical materials and proposed legal language that would address purchaser review conditions, parking calculations, and specific finish standards if discussions proceed to a formal Chapter 100 ordinance.

No formal vote on incentives occurred; the project will return with more detail if the developer chooses to proceed.