Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homewood board reviews four competing proposals to redevelop two downtown village-owned sites
Summary
Village economic-development staff presented four finalist proposals to redevelop the Village Hall parking lot (2024 Chestnut) and the Matrix building site (2066 Ridge), with varying mixes of market-rate apartments, commercial space and public parking; staff will evaluate fiscal impact, TIF projections and design before recommending a finalist.
On Jan. 13 the Village of Homewood heard presentations from four teams that responded to a request for proposals to redevelop two village-owned downtown parcels: 2024 Chestnut (the Village Hall parking lot) and 2066 Ridge (the Matrix building). Economic & Community Development Director Angela Miseres and Assistant Director Noah Schumer told the board that staff will use fiscal-impact and TIFF analyses, housing goals, design quality and utility/parking studies to identify a finalist.
Why it matters: The two sites sit at the gateway to Homewood’s downtown and could add more than 100 housing units, new retail or grocery space, and structured public parking. Decisions about incentives and TIFF projections will shape the village’s long-term tax revenues and downtown parking supply.
Staff presented four proposals. Granite Realty Partners proposed an all-residential building at the Village Hall site (about 78 market-rate one- and two-bedroom apartments over a parking podium, with 20–30 public spaces) and a mixed-use five-story building at 2066 Ridge with about 40–42 apartments and roughly 6,000 square feet of commercial space. A Granite representative, identified at the meeting as Mr. Smith, said the firm regularly performs shadow, noise and traffic studies and would coordinate utility and renewable-energy planning during permitting.
The Southland Development Authority, with architect Edward Peek, proposed 85 market-rate apartments on the Chestnut site with a parking structure that includes public spaces and about 22 larger units on Ridge with a public plaza. Edward Peek emphasized integrating public open space and building durable façades that ‘‘age well’’ to serve as a downtown gateway.
Holiday Properties pitched a Class A, transit-oriented project with roughly 110 market-rate units on Chestnut and about 140 dedicated parking spaces (including one below grade), stressing a hotel-like lobby and amenity program intended to attract long-term residents.
Far South Community Development Corporation proposed a mixed-use plan that includes about 72 apartments on the Chestnut site—partly funded through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits to include affordable units—and an 11,000-square-foot grocery-anchored commercial presence, plus 39 apartments at Ridge. Far South’s president, Abraham Lacy, said the proposal aims to pair market-rate and affordable units and support existing residents through HUD-certified housing-counseling services.
No formal selection or vote was taken. Schumer told the board staff will refine evaluations, analyze TIFF increment scenarios and return with a recommendation for a finalist at a future meeting; the village will then solicit alternatives and negotiate terms if it selects a developer.
Several trustees asked for additional detail about safety and security strategies, public-safety vehicle parking close to the sites, and the scope of required utility and traffic studies. Representatives from each team remained after the presentation to answer questions.
Next steps: Staff will complete consultant TIFF analyses and a detailed scorecard; a recommendation for a finalist is expected at a future board meeting before any incentives or agreements are approved.
