Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the 301 Leonard Mixed Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves work plan for 385 Leonard mixed-use housing project, prepares submission to MSHDA

3196741 · May 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Brownfields Redevelopment Authority approved a work plan and authorized execution of a development and reimbursement agreement for 301 Leonard LLC’s 385 Leonard mixed-use project and will submit the materials to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority.

The Brownfields Redevelopment Authority approved a work plan and authorized staff to execute a development and reimbursement agreement for 301 Leonard LLC’s proposed mixed-use project at 385 Leonard Street, clearing the way for submission to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority.

Mackenzie Miller, staff member, told the board the previously proposed plan had included 181 units but the current plan shows 171 apartments: about 43 studios (five of which will be restricted to households at or below 70% of area median income), approximately 112 one-bedroom units (five restricted at or below 70% AMI), 16 two-bedrooms, and an additional 26 units restricted at or below 100% AMI. Miller said total project cost is approximately $39,000,000 with roughly $28.5 million in construction costs. The project has a 15-year Neighborhood Enterprise Zone certificate valued at about $2,900,000. Construction was described as anticipated to begin in mid- to late 2025 with completion anticipated in spring 2027.

Miller said the project will also pursue funding through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Community Revitalization Program loan. James Lewis of Pinnacle Construction was present to answer timeline questions. Board members raised language concerns about using the term “restricted” for income-qualified units; James Lewis and other board members suggested “income qualified” or “reserved” as clearer alternatives and staff said they would adjust wording in materials going forward.

After discussion the board voted to approve the work plan and forward contractual documents to state review.