Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers revise 1 East College plan to improve financeability; parking and TIF remain central issues
Summary
The 1 East College redevelopment team described a revised mixed‑use wrap design that reduces high‑rise elements, increases office space to enable separate financing legs and leans on HUD 221(d) and TIF support for a structured parking garage. Commissioners pressed on parking management, public parking, and the condition and reuse of the historic church.
The development team presented revisions to the 1 East College mixed‑use project centered on making the previously proposed parking‑wrapped condos and retail more financeable in the current market.
"1 East College is a mixed use class a development," architect Bart Klein said, describing a wrap design in which apartments, condos and office/retail would conceal a central parking structure. The team said it had reworked the program to reduce exposed high‑rise elements, move to 6–8 story wood‑over‑concrete construction in places, and increase office square footage so portions could be financed separately.
Klein said the team is pursuing a HUD 221(d) process for financing and has hired Walker Dunlop as a third‑party specialist to support that effort. Program numbers presented included roughly 167 residential dwelling units (up slightly from a prior 163) and an increase in for‑sale condos to 40 from 28; office/retail was shown in the 40,000–60,000 sq ft range. The team highlighted that parking and a TIF structure are central to the project's feasibility and discussed potential shared‑parking reductions and public parking spaces in the garage.
Commissioners and staff probed how parking would be managed and paid for, whether public parking spaces would be free or charged, and how condo/residential parking would be separated from public parking. The team said parking would likely be charged and that the TIF would play a role in making the garage financially viable. They also discussed design compatibility, accessibility concerns and the historic church on site: the design team said the church (built 1888) has been inspected regularly, the roof has been replaced, and the structure is being monitored and cleaned pending renovation.
The project remains complex and contingent on revised PUD and development agreements, TIF negotiations, and successful financing. Staff and developers asked the commission for design feedback and noted the item will continue through council and site plan review processes.
