Developer withdraws residential proposal for 315 E. Diamond; city to re-evaluate Fishman site options

2082316 · January 7, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Sign Up Free
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

After a noise and vibration study found train horn activity would prevent acceptable interior noise levels, CraftMark Homes withdrew its proposal to develop for-sale housing on the city-owned Fishman site at 315 East Diamond Avenue; staff will re-evaluate options.

City economic-development staff told the Mayor and Council on Jan. 6 that a developer has withdrawn its proposal to build for-sale housing on the city-owned Fishman parcel at 315 East Diamond Ave. and that staff will “reset” development outreach for the one-acre property.

Tom Lonergan Sieger said staff had received three proposals after council guidance last May to seek for-sale housing: CraftMark Homes (for-sale two-over-two or five-plex units), SSR Real Estate (two-over-two), and Elmington Capital (109 rental apartments, based on prior conditional approvals). After CraftMark’s detailed due diligence — including an updated noise and vibration study because the site borders active rail tracks — the developer concluded that “residential units really could not be designed and built to fully address interior noise levels when trains sound their horns,” Sieger said. CraftMark then notified the city on Dec. 16 that it would not pursue the project.

Why it matters: The Fishman site has been under city ownership since 1998 and has attracted multiple prospective purchasers over the years. A development that cannot achieve acceptable interior noise mitigation would likely produce substandard living conditions for future residents and ongoing nuisance complaints.

Next steps: Staff said it will re-evaluate development opportunities, taking into account the new zoning code, the railroad adjacency and the prior history of uncompleted proposals. No new agreement or preferred developer was named at the meeting.

Ending: Economic development staff will bring options and recommendations to council after completing the re-evaluation.