Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Metropolitan/Boulevard developer seeks county pilot; council presses for deeper, longer affordability and more detail
Summary
Metropolitan LLC briefed council on a revived Boulevard project at 9091 Baltimore Ave and asked for a letter supporting a county PILOT (15‑year payment‑in‑lieu) to close a financing gap. Council members requested pro formas, a hard copy of the revised DSP, clearer affordability targets (council sought deeper discounts and longer control periods) and answers on stormwater and promised parking.
Metropolitan LLC presented a revived development proposal for the 9091 Baltimore Ave site (the Boulevard/Metropolitan project) and requested a letter from the city to accompany a county pilot application that would provide a payment‑in‑lieu of taxes and tax abatement, which developers say are needed to make the project financially viable.
Applicant representative Chris Lassard told council the team restarted a previously approved development program and revised the unit mix toward more studios, one‑ and two‑bedroom units to improve revenue. He described public‑realm commitments including Route 1/Cherokee intersection improvements, a shuttle program, additional structured parking (66 spaces), off‑site streetscape work and a community amenity center to be shared with adjacent townhouses.
Developers and their consultant described financing challenges: conventional permanent loans and HUD options carry higher debt‑service and wage (Davis‑Bacon) implications; a county pilot with a 15‑year PILOT and 75% real‑property abatement was presented as the most feasible path to close a $6–8 million permanent financing gap. They offered alternative workforce housing mixes and said they could explore a split such as 60/80/100/120% AMI tiers rather than a single AMI band.
Council and residents raised longstanding site concerns: tree clearing many years earlier, visible stormwater and a crushed outfall pipe that staff and the developer said had been addressed recently, traffic impacts at Cherokee/Route 1, unresolved surface parking expectations dating from earlier phases and a substantial reduction in retail square footage from earlier DSP iterations. Several council members asked for hard copies of the revised detailed site plan and the developer’s pro forma to review financial assumptions.
Affordability emerged as a major point of contention. Some council members requested deeper affordability (council interest in 60% AMI levels for some units or a split with longer affordability control periods), longer covenant terms than the 10 years the developer discussed, and explicit protections preventing discounts from being eroded by increased fees. Other council members urged caution given the demonstrated market challenges and the developer’s claim that without county pilot support the project could remain unbuilt.
Next steps: Council directed staff to collect the developer’s pro forma, a hard copy of the revised DSP, and affordability modeling; staff will prepare materials and a draft letter (if warranted) to be considered at the next council meeting so the council can decide whether to support the developer’s county pilot application.
