Future of Stratford Analyzed

MetroCOG Drafts Regional Economic Development Strategy

By Rachel Rusnek

On September 15th the Metropolitan Council of Governments (MetroCOG), a regional planning organization serving Bridgeport, Easton, Fairfield, Monroe, Stratford and Trumbull, hosted a virtual meeting to discuss the proposed draft Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the region.

Executive Director, Matt Fulda and Deputy Director, Patrick Carleton presented the draft Strategy to a small audience over Zoom. The CEDS, a plan for regional economic development, is required by the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for the region to be designated as an economic development district and become eligible for federal development grants. The strategy, updated every five years, includes an assessment of each municipality, and the region as a whole, and evaluates the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, trends, identifies existing or potential capital improvement projects and lays out a strategy for complementary and coordinated economic growth.  The assessment and report were developed in conjunction with RKG Associates, a Boston economic planning consultancy.

Identified weaknesses include:

  • the lack of a unified vision for the region,
  • lack of cooperation between municipalities,
  • and public perception.

The proximity to major markets, transportation and skilled workforce represented top strengths for the region.

A notable finding of the assessment is that the strongest job growth has been in those positions requiring minimal education. Since 2010 the growth of jobs requiring a high school diploma or less has grown by 16,700, while jobs requiring bachelor’s and post graduate degrees have declined by 9,300.

The analysis of Stratford identifies that compared to peers, we have considerable open/vacant land, amounting to approximately 2,747 acres. Within this available space,  a substantial portion includes the abandoned Army Engine Plant.

The CEDS pinpoints the Army Engine Plant as the most substantial development opportunity in the region. Meanwhile, the towns’ primary growth in recent years has been in the development of warehouses, distribution, and self-storage facilities. The assessment notes “While the town has a strong manufacturing base, this segment of the industrial marketplace has not been served by recent development…”.

The CEDS lays out six priorities for the region which include:

  • Organization and Coordination
  • Business Retention and Expansion
  • Business Recruitment and Attraction
  • Existing Asset Development
  • Economic Development Toolkit
  • Outreach, Communication, and Marketing

A few strategies identified to implement these recommendations include the development of a Public Private Partnership to increase private sector engagement, involving MetroCOG citizens in community outreach and implementation projects, issuing an annual business survey, developing industry groups and creating a business recruitment effort.

The research and assessment on the opportunities for the region, and specifically for Stratford, contained within the report are worthwhile, and give a glimpse into the state of our current economic standing and future opportunities.

Review the report and appendix at the MetroCOG site (https://ctmetro.org/regional-planning/economic-development/).

The report is open for public comment until September 30th. Comments and questions can be submitted via email to: mfulda@ctmetro.gov and pcarleton@ctmetro.gov

The People Speak

Town Council Meeting Public Comments

September 13th

The Stratford Town Council conducted a regular meeting on September 13th  at 8 p.m..  During the public comment portion of the meeting, (which begins at 6:30 p.m., and adjourns one hour before the regular meeting) speakers were:

Mark Hannon, President, Arts Alliance of Stratford, spoke to Council members about all upcoming events sponsored by the Arts Alliance.

Mitzi Antezzo, expressed her concern over the Town of Stratford mandating that developers vying for the Center School Redevelop contract provide underground parking.  Ms. Antezzo detailed the history of flooding in Stratford Center, as well as the recent flooding that occurred with Tropical Storm Ada (which brought 5 inches of rain to Stratford).  She wanted to know who was going to be responsible for flood damage when the buildings were complete; were the contractors going to include flood prevention in their plans.

Kathleen Callahan, shared her thoughts on the proposed Stratford use of the American Rescue Plan (ARP), a once-in-a-generation investment opportunity for our town. She believes that the use of the ARP requires community input to set priorities and a focus on racism as a public health crisis.  “Racism is a social determinant of health, causing inequity and disparate outcomes in many areas of life… While not a new situation, COVID-19 has highlighted this health divide with people of color in Connecticut bearing a disproportionate burden of illness and death.”

She pointed out that the Connecticut Council of Municipalities (CCM), the largest, nonpartisan organization of local leaders across the state, crafted a toolkit that provided guidance on how to best allocate this funding. They encourage expenditures that include addressing racial inequities and disproportionate harm by identifying and addressing pre-COVID barriers to growth.

CCM also recommends that local leaders convene all stakeholders in the community and build consensus about needs, resources, and priority-setting. Previously approved capital improvement and equipment may be key components of our local annual budgeting yet not necessarily the best use of these funds. I urge this body to not rush to allocate this money to existing priorities but rather to step back and examine the total picture of our communities’ needs. Indeed the CCM states that we should be intentionally planning our horizon for this funding through 2026.

ARP dollars are the Willy Wonka “golden ticket” – a gift from the federal government to help recover from the pandemic while investing in projects and people who have not been the focus before. We can not only recover but grow, when we change our perspective to include ideas that never make it to the decision table.

Note: Barbara Heimlich also expressed dissatisfaction over the proposed spending of ARP monies by the Town, as well as seeing no input, nor monies, spent on non-profits and small businesses impacted by COVID-19.

Jennifer Budai one of the issues that she brought up was that the Town Council, who are elected by residents and serve at our pleasure, were disingenuous in holding a public hearing that is not attended by all council members, the mayor and her staff, as well as other department heads.  No opportunity for feedback to comments.  She reminded all that it was a tradition to do so, and now that council meetings are once again in person, should be reinstated. She also weighed in on ARP and how there have been surveys coast to coast on what to do with monies, none of which Stratford seems to have mirrored.

Stephanie Philips voiced concern over the flooding in District 3, a chronic problem which has been overlooked.  She pointed out that most of the District sits in a flood plain; residents pay extra insurance for being in a flood plain, and after each heavy rainfall spend yet more money on pumping out basements.  She also noted that the water is so high that the police block off streets, which hampers the response of ambulances, fire and police.  She asked the Town Council to look into catch basins.

Linda Palermo requested that Stonybrook Housing be added to “affordable housing” listing, which would enable residents to get funding for upgrades and repairs.

Town Council Meeting Highlights:

Grants have been submitted and approved for:

  • Funding for the latest de-escalation techniques for the Stratford Police Department
  • Grant to acquire and install up to 240 smoke/CO alarms with a bed shaker device for residents who are hearing impaired or hearing disabled.
  • A grant through the Connecticut Department of Economic Development’s State Historic Preservation Office to hire a qualified professional to conduct a survey and capital needs assessment on the Sterling Homestead at 2225 Main Street.

Consolidated Edison Solutions Inc. was awarded the contract for five school solar photovoltaic projects to be installed at Bunnell, Stratford Academy/Johnson House/ Wooster, Chapel Street, Second Hill Lane.  The total amount is: $2,503,545.48.

Approval of a cost overrun of $10,914.41 for approved electrical service at West Broad/Linden for a revised total of $22,662.91.

Awarding Titan Enterprises Inc. for Juliet Low Park improvements in the amount of $63,800.

Editor’s Note: To see the projects that the Town of Stratford plans to spend our ARP monies on go to the Town of Stratford website.

Center School Redevelopment: Spirit

Round #2

Updated 10 Year Cash Flow Model

Unit Mix

After the latest changes to the property design, the table on the right highlights the 160-unit mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments as well as 6 three-bedroom homes for rent.

Unit M

Studio

1 Bedroom 102
2 Bedroom 44 11
3 Bedroom Homes 6 1980 SF
Total Units 160 901 SF $

 

Project Budget

The Project Budget is inclusive of the changes from the original RFP submission, additional parking both below grade and on the ground level as well as adjusting the property orientation so that the main entrance faces East Broadway and lowering the traffic on Sutton Avenue.

Spirit KN are well financed and highly confident in its ability to capitalize this project. We are happy to discuss our financials with the Town of Stratford.

LTC $ Amount PSF $/Unit
SOURCES
Construction Debt 70% $28,234,719 $161 $176,467
Mezzanine Debt 9% $3,764,548 $21 $23,528
Equity 21% $8,339,469 $48 $52,122
TOTAL SOURCES $40,338,736 $230 $252,117
USES
Land ** $750,000 $4 $4,688
Acquisition Costs $550,000 $3 $3,438
Soft Costs $5,039,983 $29 $31,500
Hard Costs $30,810,963 $175 $192,569
Financing Costs $3,187,791 $18 $19,924
TOTAL USES *** $40,338,736 $230 $252,117

The current plan includes a below grade parking structure consisting of 206 spaces, of which 50 will be allocated to the Board of Education. The remaining 156 spaces will be rented to residents of Sutton Place. The previous plan had 198 below grade spaces, all of which were available for rent for residents of the building. As such, the difference equates to $25,200 in lost annual revenue (42 spaces at $50 per month) or approximately

$504,000 in reduced value. Additionally, the cost of the below grade structure has increased to $6.9M as a result of the increased parking count. As with Spirit KN’s previous submission, the goal of the proposed PILOT is to structure an abatement schedule that pays for the cost of the below grade garage plus the lost value of the parking on a net present value basis.

10 Year Cash Flow Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Rental Income

Market Rent

 

 

 

1,382,260

 

4,155,441

 

4,257,093

 

4,386,576

 

4,519,998

 

4,657,478

 

4,799,140

 

4,945,111

Gross Potential Rent 1,382,260 4,155,441 4,257,093 4,386,576 4,519,998 4,657,478 4,799,140 4,945,111
Loss to Lease (9,136) (56,397) (60,664) (62,509) (64,410) (66,369) (68,388) (70,468)
Concessions (101,510) (74,184) (40,442) (41,672) (42,940) (44,246) (45,592) (46,979)
Vacancy (773,202) (395,673) (212,855) (219,329) (226,000) (232,874) (239,957) (247,256)
Model Unit (8,388) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163)
Delinquency/Credit Loss (6,911) (20,777) (21,285) (21,933) (22,600) (23,287) (23,996) (24,726)
Total Rental Income 483,114 3,583,247 3,896,684 4,015,971 4,138,886 4,265,540 4,396,045 4,530,521
Other Income
Retail Income
Utility Income 4,935 30,664 32,991 33,815 34,661 35,527 36,416 37,326
Miscellaneous Income 54,967 248,321 262,668 269,235 275,966 282,865 289,937 297,185
Total Other Income 59,902 278,985 295,659 303,051 310,627 318,392 326,352 334,511
Effective Gross Income 543,016 3,862,232 4,192,343 4,319,022 4,449,513 4,583,932 4,722,398 4,865,032
Controllable Expenses
General & Administrative 20,315 61,453 62,989 64,564 66,178 67,832 69,528 71,266
Payroll & Benefits 115,947 350,739 359,507 368,495 377,707 387,150 396,829 406,749
Advertising & Marketing 22,120 66,913 68,586 70,300 72,058 73,859 75,706 77,599
Turnover 7,790 31,550 48,308 49,515 50,753 52,022 53,323
Repair and Maintenance 13,333 40,333 41,342 42,375 43,435 44,520 45,633 46,774
Contract Services 74,667 225,867 231,513 237,301 243,234 249,315 255,547 261,936
Total Controllable Expenses 246,382 753,094 795,487 831,343 852,127 873,430 895,266 917,647
Non-Controllable
Property Management 24,000 106,211 115,289 118,773 122,362 126,058 129,866 133,788
Utilities 41,100 79,330 76,735 78,533 80,376 82,266 84,202 86,187
Insurance 21,333 64,533 66,147 67,800 69,495 71,233 73,014 74,839
Property Taxes 4,051 52,808 104,342 168,103 226,647 287,263
Total Non-Controllable Expenses 86,433 250,075 262,221 317,914 376,575 447,660 513,728 582,078
Total Operating Expenses 332,815 1,003,169 1,057,708 1,149,258 1,228,702 1,321,090 1,408,994 1,499,725
Net Operating Income $ – $ – $ 210,201 $ 2,859,063 $ 3,134,635 $ 3,169,764 $ 3,220,811 $ 3,262,842 $ 3,313,404 $ 3,365,306
Calendar Year Full Tax Amount Year of Tax Incentive

Agreement

% of Taxes Phased In  

Tax Savings

Abated Taxes to Pay
2024 904,585 Year 1 0% 904,585
2025 937,782 Year 2 0% 937,782
2026 954,835 Year 3 0% 954,835
2027 972,198 Year 4 10% 874,979 97,220
2028 989,877 Year 5 15% 841,396 148,482
2029 1,088,260 Year 6 15% 925,021 163,239
2030 1,108,049 Year 7 20% 886,440 221,610
2031 1,128,199 Year 8 25% 846,149 282,050
2032 1,148,714 Year 9 30% 804,100 344,614
2033 1,169,603 Year 10 35% 760,242 409,361
2034 1,339,730 Year 11 40% 803,838 535,892
2035 1,364,092 Year 12 45% 750,251 613,841
2036 1,388,897 Year 13 50% 694,449 694,449
2037 1,414,153 Year 14 60% 565,661 848,492
2038 1,439,869 Year 15 70% 431,961 1,007,908
2039 1,643,755 Year 16 80% 328,751 1,315,004
2040 1,673,645 Year 17 90% 167,365 1,506,281
2041 1,704,079 Year 18 100% 1,704,079

Center School Redevelopment: Romano Brothers Builders Proposal

Round #2

Romano offers $1,540,000.00 to purchase the Property.

Housing Units

Romano Builders proposes to build a total of 154 housing units with a total of 196 bedrooms based upon a 3.6 acre parcel in the TOD zone.

20 of the units will be two-bedroom flats in four unit townhouses, and an additional 134 units in a single four-story building where 14 units will be studios.  The revised building footprint is 36,608 square feet; therefore, at 4 stories, it is 146,423 square feet.

In total, 14 studio/ 98 one bedroom/ 22 two bedroom = 134 units/ 156 bedrooms requiring 140 parking spaces. Flats on Sutton, 20 units / 40 bedrooms requiring 25 spaces.

The townhouses are proposed to face Sutton Avenue with 5 four-unit townhouses; two buildings to the left and three to the right of the proposed greenscaped park area (“Sutton Park”) that will be accessible to the public as well as to occupants of the development at no cost to the Town.

The townhouses and main building are designed to be in keeping with the neighborhood and nearby historical buildings, namely, the First Congregational Church of Stratford building located at 2301 Main Street. The motif from the original proposal will be in keeping with this revised proposal.

The four-story apartment building will also include a business center, a recreation room, and a fitness center.

Adjustments to the number of proposed units may be made; however, there may be a corresponding adjustment to the purchase price.

Parking

It is proposed that a total of 260 units of parking be provided. A total of 245 spaces are required for the proposal, broken down as follows:

Board of Education:

  • Surface Spaces 20
  • Underground Spaces 60

Residential:

  • Studio/one-bedroom units (112@ 1/unit) 112
  • Two-bedroom units (42 @ 1.25/unit) 53

Total:  245 spaces

A total of 260 spaces has been provided as follows:

  • Underground 18l
  • Surface @BOE 20
  • Surface @ garage entrance 8
  • Along access drive 30
  • At building entry plaza 21

Total:  260 spaces

Ninety percent of the units above the at-grade parking will have a garage space available. It is likely that this would be more than adequate considering reduced car ownership in a T.0 .D. multifamily development. assuming a 90% mixed-use or T.O.D. parking need for the multifamily building, the required below grade residential parking is 121 spaces. This combined with the 60 Board of Education spaces equals the total 181 underground parking spaces provided. The developer is prepared to assign 60 underground spaces for use by the Board of Education and will conform to the Town’s Zoning Regulations for the residential development with 15 excess spaces being provided.

Romano does not intend to seek compensation for the Town’s use of these spaces.

Maintenance and snow and ice clearing will be the responsibility of Romano Brothers.

Romano believes that the townhouses and greenscaping along the western edge of the proposed park will substantially screen any onsite above grade parking from the view of the surrounding neighborhood.

There is an increase in subtenanean parking which has an impact on the price Romano can offer for the property so that there is a corresponding adjustment to the proposed purchase price. Additionally, a tax abatement will be required, to cover the cost of the additional subterranean parking spaces.

Sutton Park

An 80 x 120 foot public access park to be created and maintained by Romano at no cost to the Town.

Dog Park

If desired, Romano intends the inclusion of a dog park for use by tenants at no cost to the Town. A proposed location is shown on plans but this location may be changed.

Mixed Use

Romano does not believe that commercial use – retail, business, office or otherwise, will be successful on the Property. However, the Board of Education’s use of the property is, essentially, a mixed use of the property.

Tax Abatement

The increased underground parking greatly drives up the cost of the project. For this revised Proposal Romano requests the application of the tax abatement schedule as set forth in Section 191-11 of the Stratford Town Code entitled Incentive Programs, for cost of improvement, $20,000,000.00 or greater.

Section 191-11 of the Stratford Town Code

This schedule is as follows:

During the period of construction, but not greater than eighteen (18) months, or such additional time as may be extended by the Tax Partnership Screening Committee, but not to exceed six (6) additional months. Given the scope of construction, although not anticipated, it is possible that additional time will be required, but see Development Time Line below, or (2) until the receipt of Certificate of Occupancy, whichever shall occur first: 100% exempt, then following such period of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:

Year 1: up to 100% Exempt;

Year 2: up to 100% Exempt;

Year 3: up to 100% Exempt;

Year 4: up to 80% Exempt;

Year 5: up to 70% Exempt;

Year 6: up to 60% Exempt;

Year 7: up to 50% Exempt;

Year 8: up to 40% Exempt;

Year 9: up to 30% Exempt;

Year 10: up to 20% Exempt.

Tod

The Romano Proposal is consistent with the TOD zone requirements and will not require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Proposal will provide an alternative to the traditional single family home environment.

In addition, the Romano Proposal will lead to market growth in Stratford Center. It will be the redevelopment of an unutilized property. The Proposal will create an environment that encourages walking and bicycling as transit use, thereby reducing auto dependency.

The Romano Proposal will provide a range of housing options for people at different stages of life and will be consistent with enhancing the nearby streetscape. It will be within walking distance of the Stratford Train Station and the GBTA bus line.

Resources Required from the Town of Stratford

It is not anticipated that any resources will be required from the Town of Stratford other than that standard administrative services for construction related activities. The Town of Stratford will not be involved financially in the project’s capital status. However, tax abatement will be required.

Development Time Line

The construction is proposed to be formed in a single phase. A conservative estimate for time is six (6) months for land use approvals; six (6) months for design, bidding and contracting; and one and a half (1½) yearn to build out.

Public Outreach

It is anticipated that the Romano team, during the land use approval phase, will plan and conduct at least two informational sessions for the public and local businesses.

Center Street School Redevelopment Pro Forma for Click here

 

Center School Redevelopment – 2nd Round of Interviews

Don’t’ Forget!

Two of the four developers who responded to the Town’s Request for Proposals for the Center School Redevelopment Project (RFP #2022-1) have been invited back for second interviews.

At this time, the two developers will present modified versions of their original proposals, incorporating the requests of the Center School Property Selection Committee.

The presentations will take place in Town Hall Council Chambers on Tuesday, August 31st. Romano Brothers Builders will present at 9:00 a.m. and Spirit Investment Partners/Kaali-Nagy Properties will present at 10:30 a.m.

The presentations will be videotaped and posted to the Town website.

Floral Park Neighborhood Designation and Housing Strategies of Stratford

Town of Stratford Planning Commission

Monday, August 23rd

The Town of Stratford Planning Commission conduced a special meeting on Monday, August 23rd on-line. The major focus of the meeting was for the Planning Commission to act on a petition to amend the Town Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) to adopt The Housing Strategies of Stratford document. The Housing Strategies document has already been approved by the Town Council, MetroGOG had been given the required 35-65 day notice in advance (and had replied with a letter of support). All legal notices were posted as duly required by state statutes.

Harold Watson, Chairman of the Commission, stated that the Planning Commission fully supports this document. The motion was passed unanimously.

The Commission also passed a motion referred by the Water Pollution Control Authority for sewer extensions to: 320 Bayberry Street, 170 Oronoque Lane, 246 Hilltop Drive, as well as 3945 and 3965 Main Street. The motion passed and was sent to the WPCA with a favorable recommendation.

Mr. Watson accepted a motion by Joseph Gerics to amend the bylaws of The Greenway/Complete Streets Committee to allow four alternates (Karen Rodia, Stacie Tavaras, John Staley, and Mr. Gerics to become full members as positions become available. This was unanimously passed.

The final item of the night was the Floral Park Neighborhood Designation that had been referred to Planning from the Town Council.

The proposed neighborhood designation request came from Floral Park area residents, including Sabrina Matis (136 floral Way) and Patricia Clark Sperling (186 Holmes Street).

After a lengthy discussion Mr. Watson then accepted a motion by Mr. Boyd to approve the subject petition and send to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation designating the Floral Park neighborhood boundaries as follows: All of the residential parcels generally bounded by Sherwood Place to the West, Stratford Avenue to the North, Main Street to the East, and South Avenue to the South.

Susmitha Attota, Town Planner, stated that she will write a letter of recommendation to the Town Council based on the Planning Commission’s discussion and vote on this item, as well as stating the concerns expressed by the two Commissioners who voted against this neighborhood designation request. (John Staley and Joseph Gerics)

An Executive Summary of the 2021-2026 Housing Strategies that was adopted into the POCD follow. To read the entire summary go to:
http://www.townofstratford.com/filestorage/39879/40023/119557/119872/Executive_Summary_022621.pdf

Executive Summary: 2021-26 Housing Strategies for Stratford

This is an executive summary of the “Housing Strategies” report prepared by the Stratford Housing Partnership in 2021. The complete report is available on the Housing Partnership webpage on the Town website.

Goal: 
Seek to provide for a variety of housing choices in Stratford
for people and households of all ages and characteristics.

Basic Concepts
1. People need housing.
2. People need housing that meets their circumstances and needs.
3. People need housing to be available when they want or need it.
4. Census data shows that housing needs are diverse and changing.
5. Housing needs in Stratford have been recognized for some time.
6. Stratford should refine its housing policies to address present and future needs.

Community Input
The Housing Partnership conducted surveys of different groups in Stratford as part of preparing the report. Survey information is available on the Housing Partnership webpage on the Town website. In this executive summary, the level of agreement with different strategies is presented in the following format for three survey groups:
• Stratford residents (Residents) with 1,048 participants.
• Members of the Stratford Housing Partnership (SHP) with 9 participants.
• Members of Town boards and commissions (BC) with 73 participants.

When is Housing Considered Affordable?
Housing is considered affordable when people spend less than 30 percent of their income on it.

The issue of “affordability” becomes more significant for persons and families earning less than 80 percent of the median income.

According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the median household income in 2020 for the Stratford area was $98,000.

Then, when broken down by household size, the 80% threshold equates to about:
Household Size 80% of AMI

Annual Income
1 -person HH $55,000
2 -person HH $63,000
3-person HH $71,000
4-person HH $78,000
5+ person HH $85,000

Center School Redevelopment – 2nd Round of Interviews

Presentations Open to the Public

The presentations will take place in Town Hall Council Chambers on Tuesday, August 31st. Romano Brothers Builders will present at 9:00 a.m. and Spirit Investment Partners/Kaali-Nagy Properties will present at 10:30 a.m.

Two of the four developers who responded to the Town’s Request for Proposals for the Center School Redevelopment Project (RFP #2022-1) have been invited back for second interviews.  In soliciting bids for the property this year, the town asked developers specifically to include underground parking in their designs, and said the town would be open to a cost-share agreement to finance the concept.

At this time, the two developers will present modified versions of their original proposals, incorporating the requests of the Center School Property Selection Committee.  An update posted to the town’s website identified the two proposals as Romano Brothers Builders and Spirit Investment Partners/Kaali-Nagy Properties (Sutton Place).

Spirit Investment Partners is part of a team that includes the New Canaan-based Kaali-Nagy Company, which is currently in the process of developing a former Christ Episcopal Church property on Main Street into an apartment complex.

Spirit’s $40 million proposal, called “Sutton Place,” included a four-story, 162-unit apartment complex with a pool, community gardens, dog run and public park and a purchase price of $750,000.

In the proposal Sutton Avenue is lined with four small homes that reinforce the single-family character of that street. The 4-story multifamily building is set back 80 feet from the street, has a traditional wrap around porch that further reduces the scale of that building, and provides a welcoming transitional space. 198 parking spaces are located below grade, both under the building and under a fully landscaped amenity courtyard for the residents. The area around the building is treated as a park providing green space for the community.

The plans include 21 studio apartments with $1,700 rents, 96 $1,900 one-bedrooms, 41 $2,400 two-bedrooms, four $3,500 rental homes fronting Sutton Avenue for a total of 162 units containing 211 beds.

Parking is provided for the Board of Education generally at its present location. No curb cuts are proposed from East Broadway so as to not impact the adjoining historic buildings. While the entrance to the building is currently situated along Sutton Avenue, we are open to discussing other concepts.

In order to finance the cost of the garage, pegged at about $6.5 million, the proposal also asked for a 14-year tax abatement, which was estimated to total roughly the same cost. The abatement would run out in 2038.

Further phases of the development could include a community arts center, developer Damian Kaali-Nagy said.

Romano proposed paying $2.1 million for the property and building a total of 142 units — 20 $2,900 two-bedroom townhouses, 14 $1,800 studio apartments, 92 $2,000 one-bedrooms and 16 $2,450 two-bedrooms. The townhouses and a public park would front Sutton Avenue and the apartments would be in a four-story building behind.

Romano’s $27.2-million development plans showed 176 parking spaces, with 82 of them below the apartment building. More underground parking could be provided, but that would mean a lower purchase price.

The presentations will be videotaped and posted to the Town website.

Romano Brothers Builders

Spirit Investment Partners/Kaali-Nagy Properties

Center Site Proposal: Spirit Investment Partners

Spirit Investment Partners: Sutton Place

Spirit Investment Partners and Kaali-Nagy Properties.

Spirit’s $39.8 million proposal, called Sutton Place, would be a four-story, 162-unit apartment complex with a pool, community gardens, dog run and public park. The development could also include a community arts center. There would be 21 studio apartments with $1,700 rents; 96 one-bedrooms at $1,900; 41 two-bedrooms, $2,400; and four $3,500 rental homes fronting Sutton Avenue. The underground parking garage will have 198-spaces.

The time frame for the development is expected to be 18 months – providing all required permits and paperwork are met. In order to finance the cost of the garage, pegged at about $6.5 million, the proposal asked for a 14-year tax abatement, which was estimated to total roughly the same cost. The abatement would run out in 2038.

Check Out the Full Spirit Investment Partners Proposal Here

 

Center Site Proposal: Primrose Companies

A Partnership Between John N. Guedes and Biagio Barone

Guedes’ presentation was for an apartment unit having 34 two-bedrooms, 18 one-bedrooms, and 30 studio apartments. Rents for the units would be $1,500 for the studios and $1,800 for the townhouses. Their plans for apartment development also included plans for an early childcare center. The proposal showed 156 parking spaces and did not include any underground parking, which the town asked developers to include.

Asked by Redevelopment Agency Chairman George Perham why there was no underground parking, Guedes’ said it didn’t make financial sense.

“It doesn’t matter who it is, nobody is going to build a public parking garage on this site. The economics are just not going to make it work,” he said. “Generally structured parking does well in communities where the rents are high and taxes are low. That’s not Stratford. You have the opposite in Stratford.”

Check Out the Full Primrose Proposal Here

 

Center Site Proposal: Romano Brothers Builders

Headed by Mark Romano design, in keeping with the neighborhood, would mirror the Congregational Church.

The development would have 27 townhouses and a public park facing Sutton Place, with a total of 142-units. The remaining apartments would be in a four-story building behind the townhouses.

There would be 20 two-bedroom townhouses, with a rent of $2,900; 14 studio apartments renting at $1,800; 92 one-bedrooms, $2,000; and 16 two-bedrooms, $2,450.

There would be 176 parking spaces with 82 of them below the apartment building. There would be no commercial development, as his goal was to maintain a “walkable” development that would utilize the present commercial development in Stratford Center.

Check Out the Full Romano Brothers Builders Proposal Here