Compare Scenarios
Compare the 3-story control case against 6-, 8-, and 10-story sensitivity cases.
5501 FORWARD DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
Development Economics
Preliminary scenario underwriting, market validation, capital uses, site-stabilization planning, and risk-control framework for 5501 E. 33rd Avenue.
5501 Forward is currently in a predevelopment and diligence phase. The purpose of this page is to show the economic questions being tested, the diligence required to answer them, and the capital needed before any larger development decision is made.
This page is for preliminary planning and discussion purposes only. It is not an offering memorandum, securities solicitation, appraisal, financing commitment, public funding approval, demolition approval, or approved development plan. All figures are directional and subject to environmental review, survey/title findings, entitlement strategy, design feasibility, construction pricing, market validation, financing terms, demolition permit requirements, and City and County of Denver review.
Purpose of This Page
The Development Economics page is intended to convert the project narrative into a decision-useful underwriting framework. The goal is not to publish a final pro forma at this stage. The goal is to identify which questions must be answered before ownership, public partners, lenders, or future capital partners can evaluate the project with confidence.
Validate Market Demand
Review rental, condo, retail, parking, affordability, and land-sale assumptions before larger capital is pursued.
Define Capital Use
Show what the next predevelopment tranche is intended to buy and what decisions it unlocks.
Identify Key Risks
Track environmental, entitlement, cost, parking, market, affordability, site-security, and capital-stack risks.
Preserve Optionality
Keep the lower-risk path available while testing whether additional height creates real risk-adjusted value.
Support Go / No-Go Discipline
Use diligence to decide whether to proceed, pause, recapitalize, sell, stabilize the property, or pursue a different scenario.
Core principle: Capital should not be asked to guess. Capital should be used to make the project underwritable.
Entitlement Momentum + Public-Sector Alignment
The project team recently completed a productive second meeting with City Council and DURA. The current public-sector workstream is focused on documenting environmental due diligence, clean-slate readiness, potential site-stabilization needs, and the public-benefit rationale for converting a vacant former gas / automotive-use property into a cleaner, safer, redevelopment-ready site.
Any public-sector discussion remains subject to eligibility review, documentation, formal program guidance, and approval. No public funding, entitlement approval, demolition approval, environmental clearance, or cleanup scope should be assumed at this stage.
Because the existing structure is vacant and aging, the team should also evaluate whether stabilizing or removing the structure can reduce safety concerns, improve neighborhood perception, and support the public-benefit narrative while redevelopment diligence advances.
Scenario Underwriting Framework
The project should not pursue height simply because height may be possible. Additional density should only be advanced if it improves risk-adjusted value after accounting for entitlement risk, community response, construction cost, financing complexity, public benefit, site-stabilization needs, and timing.
Retail is assumed to be ground-floor only and therefore remains generally fixed by the site footprint. Additional height is expected to increase residential square footage through apartment and/or condo program area, not retail area.
Directional only. Final unit count, retail square footage, parking, cost, and value remain subject to architect test fits, ALTA/survey review, civil/utility review, entitlement analysis, environmental results, demolition-readiness review, GC pricing, market validation, public-sector funding eligibility, and financing terms.
Preliminary residential SF ranges assume approximate apartment unit sizes of 650–750 SF and condo unit sizes of 850–1,050 SF. Final rentable/sellable area will depend on architect test fits, circulation, core, elevator, stairs, setbacks, parking, building efficiency, and final unit mix.
All residential SF figures are preliminary conceptual planning ranges only and should be treated as directional, subject to architect test fits, building efficiency, core/egress requirements, parking strategy, setbacks, unit mix, and entitlement review.
These scenarios are planning sensitivities, not proposed final designs. The 3-story case is treated as the by-right control case. The 6-story case is the primary feasibility case. The 8- and 10-story cases are higher-density sensitivity cases that would require additional entitlement, public-sector, infrastructure, market, cost, and capital validation.
BY-RIGHT CONTROL CASE
3-Story By-Right Control Case
Risk: Low / By-Right
Lowest entitlement-risk path. Use as the baseline control case while testing higher-density upside.
PRIMARY FEASIBILITY STUDY
6-Story Primary Feasibility Case
Risk: Moderate / High
Continue evaluating entitlement, parking, cost, public-benefit, and market validation considerations.
HIGHER-DENSITY SENSITIVITY
8-Story Higher-Density Sensitivity
Risk: High
Higher-density case with potential long-term value if public-sector alignment and economics are validated.
LONG-RANGE SENSITIVITY
10-Story Long-Range Entitlement Sensitivity
Risk: Very High
Preserve optionality while City Council, DURA, entitlement, and capital-stack conversations continue.
Control Case / Lowest Entitlement Risk
3-Story By-Right Control Case
Development Role
Control case / fallback path
Total Units
18–24
Rental Units
10–14
Condo Units
8–10
Retail SF
2,000–3,500 SF
Apartment SF
6,500–10,500 SF
Condo SF
6,800–10,500 SF
Total Residential SF
13,300–21,000 SF
Parking
10–18 stalls or reduced parking strategy
Preliminary Cost Range
$8.3M–$10.4M
Entitlement Risk
Low / By-Right, subject to zoning confirmation
Preliminary Feasibility Signal
Lower-risk execution path with constrained upside. For-sale or hybrid strategies may improve economics if unit mix, cost, and pricing are validated.
Feasibility Considerations
The 3-story case serves as the by-right control scenario. It appears to carry the lowest entitlement-height risk because it aligns with the current zoning height framework, subject to confirmation. The key work is validating cost, site conditions, environmental follow-up, utility capacity, parking approach, unit yield, market pricing, and whether the project can be made financeable as a practical baseline.
Next Validation Step
Confirm by-right zoning assumptions, unit yield, site conditions, environmental follow-up, utility capacity, cost basis, parking approach, and market pricing so the by-right path can remain a reliable control case.
Primary Feasibility Study
6-Story Primary Feasibility Case
Development Role
Moderate lift study
Total Units
50–70
Rental Units
35–45
Condo Units
15–25
Retail SF
2,000–3,500 SF
Apartment SF
22,750–33,750 SF
Condo SF
12,750–26,250 SF
Total Residential SF
35,500–60,000 SF
Parking
25–45 stalls; structured, tuck-under, or reduced parking strategy
Preliminary Cost Range
$23M–$31.5M
Entitlement Risk
Moderate / High
Preliminary Feasibility Signal
Potentially stronger value creation than the 3-story case if added residential yield, public-benefit alignment, parking strategy, and pricing assumptions are validated.
Feasibility Considerations
The 6-story case is the primary feasibility scenario to test. It may add enough residential yield to improve viability, but only if entitlement pathway, public-benefit alignment, parking strategy, affordability treatment, utility capacity, construction cost, financing, and market pricing support the added complexity.
Next Validation Step
Continue testing entitlement pathway, public-benefit alignment, parking strategy, residential yield, utility capacity, affordability treatment, construction cost, and market pricing to determine whether this scenario should advance.
Higher-Density Sensitivity
8-Story Higher-Density Sensitivity
Development Role
Advanced feasibility case
Total Units
75–95
Rental Units
50–65
Condo Units
25–30
Retail SF
2,000–3,500 SF
Apartment SF
32,500–48,750 SF
Condo SF
21,250–31,500 SF
Total Residential SF
53,750–80,250 SF
Parking
40–65 stalls; likely structured or aggressive parking reduction
Preliminary Cost Range
$41M–$57M
Entitlement Risk
High
Preliminary Feasibility Signal
Higher-density residential scenario may create stronger long-term value if entitlement support, public-sector alignment, parking strategy, affordability treatment, and construction cost controls are validated.
Feasibility Considerations
The 8-story case should be treated as a higher-density sensitivity. It may create additional residential yield and long-term value, but only if entitlement support, public-sector alignment, infrastructure capacity, parking strategy, affordability treatment, construction cost, market pricing, and financing terms justify the added complexity and timeline.
Next Validation Step
Continue evaluating through entitlement counsel, City/DURA discussions, infrastructure review, public-benefit analysis, market validation, parking strategy, and construction-cost analysis.
Long-Range Sensitivity
10-Story Long-Range Entitlement Sensitivity
Development Role
Strategic upside case
Total Units
100–125
Rental Units
65–85
Condo Units
35–40
Retail SF
2,000–3,500 SF
Apartment SF
42,250–63,750 SF
Condo SF
29,750–42,000 SF
Total Residential SF
72,000–105,750 SF
Parking
50–85 stalls; structured or minimal-parking urban model
Preliminary Cost Range
$62M–$86M
Entitlement Risk
Very High
Preliminary Feasibility Signal
Maximum-density residential scenario may become more compelling if political support, DURA soft-cost participation, public-benefit alignment, entitlement pathway, and market pricing are confirmed.
Feasibility Considerations
The 10-story case is a long-range entitlement sensitivity, not a proposed base plan. It carries the highest entitlement, financing, construction-cost, infrastructure, parking, public-process, and community-response risk. It should be preserved only to understand the outer boundary of potential residential yield if entitlement, public-sector, market, infrastructure, and capital conditions support further study.
Next Validation Step
Preserve only as a long-range sensitivity while entitlement, DURA, public-benefit, infrastructure, parking, market, and capital-stack conversations continue.
Current planning read: The 3-story path is the by-right control case. The 6-story case is the primary feasibility case. The 8- and 10-story cases should remain sensitivity cases unless entitlement, public-sector, infrastructure, market, cost, and capital conditions support further study.
Cost ranges are preliminary planning ranges only and should not be interpreted as full development budgets, GMP pricing, investment return projections, or final sources-and-uses estimates. Final economics remain subject to land basis, design, construction type, parking structure, demolition/abatement, environmental remediation, financing costs, soft costs, contingency, public-realm obligations, and market validation.
The positive investment case is not based on assuming maximum height. It is based on preserving a practical control case while validating whether additional density can create enough value to justify higher entitlement, cost, timing, and capital complexity.
Market Validation Dashboard
The market validation work should test whether the project can support its cost, timing, and entitlement risk under conservative assumptions. Denver market conditions should be treated carefully: current multifamily conditions are softer, retail fundamentals are more resilient but mixed, and parking, site condition, and affordability requirements require early modeling.
| Market Input | Current Read | Underwriting Impact | Validation Needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newer Rental Apartments | Denver multifamily occupancy and rent trends suggest a conservative lease-up environment. | Use cautious rent growth, realistic concessions, and stabilized occupancy assumptions. | Broker rent comp packet, unit mix, lease-up schedule, concession assumptions. |
| Condo / For-Sale Product | For-sale value may support economics better than rental, but buyer affordability, HOA costs, financing rates, and absorption must be tested. | Model condo / for-sale case separately from rental case. | Condo sales comps, $/SF range, absorption, buyer profile, HOA sensitivity. |
| Small Mixed-Use Infill | Most relevant comps are neighborhood-scale mixed-use projects, not downtown towers. | Use comparable height, lot size, retail footprint, parking, and entitlement path. | Recent small mixed-use projects in Northeast Denver, Park Hill, Five Points, Central Park edge, and similar infill areas. |
| Retail Rents / Vacancy | Retail should be underwritten conservatively, especially ground-floor retail. | Retail should be treated as corner activation and community benefit first, profit center second. | Retail broker opinion, tenant demand, lease-up downtime, TI allowance, NNN rent range. |
| Parking Ratios | Denver’s parking framework may reduce minimum requirements, but market, lender, buyer, and neighborhood expectations still matter. | Do not overbuild parking, but do not assume the market will accept no parking. | Civil test fit, mobility strategy, buyer/renter expectations, neighborhood parking impact. |
| Affordable / Mixed-Income | 10+ unit scenarios likely need affordability/EHA review. | Model affordability compliance early because it affects revenue, unit mix, public benefit, and capital stack. | EHA analysis, set-aside options, fee alternatives, public-sector support potential. |
| Recent Land / Redevelopment Sales | Land value depends heavily on entitlement, environmental condition, buildable area, site condition, and financing environment. | Do not rely on listing prices alone. | Closed-sale comps, price per land SF, price per buildable SF, zoning, entitlement status, environmental condition, and existing-structure condition. |
| Existing Structure / Site Condition | Vacant aging structure may create security, nuisance, liability, and neighborhood-perception risk. | Site-stabilization or demo-readiness planning may improve risk control and public-benefit positioning. | Site security review, current condition photos, abatement/demolition bid ranges, utility shut-off requirements, asbestos/CDPHE review, and Denver demolition permit path. |
Rental Underwriting
Use conservative effective rent assumptions until broker comps are complete. Model lease-up concessions and occupancy sensitivity.
Retail Underwriting
Keep retail modest and tenant-tested. Include downtime, TI, leasing costs, and vacancy reserve.
Parking Strategy
Evaluate right-sized parking based on market expectations, civil feasibility, mobility access, and neighborhood impact.
Affordability Strategy
Model market-rate compliance and mixed-income/public-support alternatives before selecting a preferred scenario.
Site-Stabilization Strategy
Evaluate security, clean-out, hazardous-materials review, utility cut-offs, demolition bid solicitation, and permit-readiness before committing to full demolition.
Site Stabilization + Predevelopment Capital Uses
This tranche is designed to fund two parallel needs: immediate vacant-property stabilization and the technical diligence required to determine whether the project should advance. From a residential development underwriting perspective, the objective is to reduce public-safety, environmental, entitlement, cost, market, and capital-stack uncertainty before larger capital is pursued.
This is not vertical construction capital. It is risk-reduction capital: site control, safety, environmental clarification, entitlement readiness, infrastructure review, and capital preparedness.
How to Read This Framework
This framework separates known diligence progress from remaining planning allowances. Completed owner-funded items show sponsor commitment. Quoted items, such as the Phase II ESA, define the next immediate decision cost. Remaining ranges are not final budgets; they are planning allowances designed to help determine whether the project should proceed, pause, re-scope, or advance into a larger capital event.
Known / Completed
Owner-funded diligence already completed, including geotechnical review and the sealed ALTA survey.
Quoted / Near-Term
Phase II ESA testing has been proposed at $24,875 and is the next environmental decision step.
Planning Allowances
Remaining ranges are early allowances for site stabilization, entitlement, civil, market, cost, environmental exposure, and capital-readiness work.
Known diligence update: Certain diligence items have moved from preliminary planning assumptions to owner-funded or quoted work. The geotechnical / soil report has been completed and owner-funded, the final sealed ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey has been received, and Phase II ESA testing has been proposed at $24,875. Remaining ranges are planning allowances only and may change based on findings, consultant scope, entitlement path, design development, and owner approvals.
Immediate Clean-Slate Readiness Scope
The immediate clean-slate readiness scope separates known near-term costs from conditional environmental / tank-response costs. This immediate scope is intended to support Phase II testing, stabilize the vacant site, reduce nuisance conditions, and prepare an informed abatement / utility / demolition-decision path before larger commitments are made.
| Use of Funds | Budget Range | What It Pays For | Why It Matters | Decision It Unlocks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase II ESA | $24,875 known proposal | GPR evaluation, soil borings, temporary groundwater wells, soil samples, groundwater samples, soil gas samples, lab analysis, findings summary, and reporting. | Determines whether soil, groundwater, or soil gas impacts are present before cleanup, closure, vapor mitigation, special-handling, or regulatory-response costs are assumed. | Can the site move forward without material environmental response, or is cleanup / closure planning required? |
| Vacant Property Stabilization / Fencing / Camera Monitoring | $11,000–$22,000 | Approximately 12-month temporary construction fencing, locked access, sandbags / anchoring, no-trespassing signage, one to two solar or cellular cameras, motion alerts, cloud or event recording, remote app access, mounting, removal, and minor field contingency. | Reduces trespass, dumping, vandalism, fire risk, nuisance conditions, and neighborhood-impact concerns while environmental, entitlement, and capital planning continue. | Can the property be stabilized quickly enough to reduce public-safety and nuisance risk while diligence continues? |
| Abatement / Utility Cutoff / Demolition Decision Readiness | $20,000–$50,000 | Asbestos / hazmat review, utility cutoff coordination, clean-out planning, demolition bid solicitation, permit-readiness review, demolition sequencing analysis, and consultant coordination. | Helps determine whether the existing structure should be secured, maintained, cleaned out, abated, or prepared for demolition. This is not a demolition decision. | What is the safest and most responsible clean-slate path based on environmental findings, public safety, timing, permitting, and cost? |
| Immediate Clean-Slate Readiness Subtotal | $55,875–$96,875 | Phase II ESA, stabilization, fencing, camera-only monitoring, nuisance reduction, and abatement / demolition-decision readiness. | Creates a near-term public-sector-ready cost package focused on environmental clarification, site stabilization, and clean-slate readiness. | Can the immediate clean-slate scope proceed into eligibility and funding consideration? |
| Rounded Immediate Planning Range | $60,000–$100,000 | Executive-level planning range for near-term clean-slate readiness. | Simplifies the immediate funding need for public-sector and executive review. | Establishes the near-term planning target without overstating cleanup need. |
Conditional Environmental / Tank-Response Planning Envelope
The Phase I ESA does not confirm that tanks remain in place and does not confirm that cleanup is required. However, the Phase I documents historical gasoline / automotive use, petroleum-related records, and user-reported tank removal or sealing history. For planning purposes, the project should preserve a conditional environmental / tank-response envelope until Phase II testing, GPR review, and records reconciliation confirm actual subsurface conditions.
| Category | Cost Posture | Amount / Range |
|---|---|---|
| Tank Confirmation / Records Reconciliation | Conditional review based on Phase I tank history | $10,000–$25,000 |
| UST Removal / Closure Contingency | If tanks, tank remnants, piping, or related infrastructure are confirmed | $40,000–$120,000 |
| Conditional Petroleum Response Allowance | If Phase II confirms petroleum-impacted soil, groundwater, vapor, or closure requirements | $250,000–$500,000 |
| Recommended Environmental / Tank-Response Planning Envelope | Conditional planning band pending Phase II / GPR / records reconciliation | $350,000–$500,000 |
| High-Impact Environmental Sensitivity | Not base case; only if broader soil / groundwater / vapor pathway is confirmed | $600,000+ |
Important limitation
This framework does not state that tanks remain in place, that petroleum impacts are confirmed, or that cleanup is required. The $350,000–$500,000 planning envelope should be treated as conditional only, subject to Phase II results, GPR findings, regulatory record reconciliation, eligibility review, and formal approval.
Environmental Exposure Scenarios
| Exposure Scenario | Potential Scope | Planning Range | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| No material impacts confirmed | Phase II testing, lab analysis, findings summary, and environmental documentation. | Included in Phase II ESA proposal | Lowest exposure outcome. No separate cleanup allowance should be assumed if Phase II is clean. |
| Tank history confirmed but no active release identified | Records reconciliation, GPR confirmation, tank closure documentation, and consultant memo. | $10,000–$25,000 | Documentation and confirmation path only. No removal or remediation allowance unless physical tanks, remnants, or impacts are identified. |
| Tanks / tank remnants / piping confirmed | Excavation, tank removal, inerting, transport/disposal, closure sampling, backfill, and consultant oversight. | $40,000–$120,000 | Tank-discovery contingency if subsurface features remain. |
| Limited petroleum-impacted soil | Soil profiling, limited excavation, hauling/disposal, backfill, confirmation sampling, and reporting. | $75,000–$200,000 | Limited response if localized petroleum impacts are identified near former fuel or automotive-use areas. |
| Moderate petroleum / UST-related response | Additional investigation, impacted soil management, groundwater evaluation, vapor review, regulatory coordination, and closure documentation. | $200,000–$600,000 | Primary planning case if Phase II confirms petroleum-related soil, groundwater, or vapor concerns. |
| Significant soil / groundwater / vapor pathway | Broader remediation, groundwater monitoring, vapor mitigation design, engineering or institutional controls, and extended closure coordination. | $600,000+ | High-impact sensitivity only. Not the base case unless Phase II confirms broader exposure. |
Development Feasibility
These items test what can legally, physically, financially, and operationally be built on the site.
| Use of Funds | Budget Range | What It Pays For | Why It Matters | Decision It Unlocks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geotechnical / Soil Report | Completed / owner-funded | Completed Terradyne geotechnical engineering evaluation, four soil borings, lab testing, subsurface review, foundation recommendations, slab/fill guidance, drainage considerations, and construction monitoring recommendations. | The completed report supports early foundation, earthwork, drainage, and constructability assumptions. Terradyne identified low swell potential, no groundwater encountered during exploration, and potential shallow foundation support subject to the report’s recommendations. | Can the by-right control case and future scenarios move forward with preliminary foundation and earthwork assumptions, subject to final design, civil review, and geotechnical engineer review? |
| ALTA / Survey / Title / Legal Base | Completed and sealed; title/legal review allowance under review | Sealed ALTA survey integration, title exception review, boundary review, easements, access, utilities, and legal site constraints. | Before the project can be underwritten, the team needs to understand the actual legal development envelope, access rights, utility conditions, title exceptions, and constraints affecting buildable area. | What can actually be built on the site from a legal, access, easement, boundary, and title standpoint? |
| Entitlement / Zoning / Land-Use Counsel | $15,000–$60,000 | By-right confirmation, entitlement-change pathway, city process, public hearing strategy, timeline, and approval-risk memo. | The 3-story path may serve as the by-right control case, but higher-density scenarios require a formal entitlement pathway. Political and public-sector support must be converted into documented process steps and approval-risk analysis. | What is the realistic approval path for the 3-, 6-, 8-, or 10-story scenario? |
| Architecture / Massing / Test Fits | $25,000–$75,000 | Test-fit studies for 3-, 6-, 8-, and 10-story scenarios, unit yield, residential square footage, parking concepts, ground-floor retail layout, massing diagrams, core/egress implications, and building efficiency assumptions. | Additional height only matters if it produces usable residential yield and value that justify added cost, entitlement risk, parking complexity, financing risk, and timeline. | Which scenario produces the strongest risk-adjusted residential development program? |
| Civil / Utility / Parking / Public Realm Feasibility | $15,000–$50,000 | Drainage, grading, ROW, utility capacity, sidewalk/public-realm impacts, access, parking feasibility, infrastructure constraints, and frontage conditions. | Civil, utility, parking, and public-realm constraints can materially affect cost, timing, design, public-sector support, and neighborhood acceptance. | Are there site infrastructure constraints that change the project scope, budget, parking strategy, or public-benefit plan? |
| GC Conceptual Estimating / Cost Plan | $10,000–$35,000 | ROM hard costs, constructability review, phasing, schedule assumptions, escalation, parking/structure cost input, and early cost-plan review. | For residential development, cost discipline is critical because added height, structured parking, code requirements, and schedule risk can increase cost faster than value. | What is the realistic cost basis before deeper capital is pursued? |
| Market / Broker Validation | $7,500–$25,000 | Rental comps, condo sale comps, retail rent assumptions, absorption, land comps, parking expectations, affordability sensitivity, and exit pricing validation. | The project needs market-supported assumptions before lender, investor, JV, or capital partner discussions can be credible. Market validation may also inform public-sector discussions by clarifying demand, use mix, affordability considerations, and redevelopment feasibility. | Does the market support the preferred scenario’s unit mix, pricing, absorption, parking assumptions, and exit strategy? |
Capital + Public-Sector Readiness
These items convert diligence findings into organized materials for City Council, DURA, lenders, investors, and future capital partners.
| Use of Funds | Budget Range | What It Pays For | Why It Matters | Decision It Unlocks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community / Public-Sector Materials | $5,000–$8,000 | Meeting exhibits, DURA follow-up materials, basic feedback tracking, postcard/email updates, public-benefit summary materials, and light coordination support. | This work is limited to basic documentation, public-benefit materials, meeting exhibits, feedback tracking, and community-facing coordination. It should not be interpreted as approval, lobbying, or a public funding commitment. | What materials are needed to support City Council, DURA, and community-facing discussions without overstating approvals or funding commitments? |
| Investor / DURA / Lender Data Room | $15,000–$40,000 | Document index, sources and uses, scenario model, risk register, assumption tracker, capital stack logic, cost range summary, public-benefit narrative, and decision package. | Investors, lenders, DURA, and public-sector partners need a controlled diligence file, not scattered documents or informal assumptions. | Is the project ready for lender, JV, PE, public-sector, sale, recapitalization, or next-stage funding discussions? |
| Contingency | $25,000–$50,000 | Unknowns, revisions, supplemental studies, consultant scope refinements, environmental/civil follow-up, and additional diligence discovered during the process. | Early-stage residential redevelopment often produces new requirements once environmental, title, entitlement, civil, utility, and cost reviews begin. | Can the team absorb normal diligence surprises without immediately needing another capital request? |
Predevelopment Tranche Summary
DURA / Clean-Slate Readiness Planning Summary
| Summary Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Immediate Clean-Slate Readiness Need | $55,875–$96,875 |
| Rounded Immediate Planning Range | $60,000–$100,000 |
| Conditional Environmental / Tank-Response Planning Envelope | $350,000–$500,000 |
| High-Impact Environmental Sensitivity | $600,000+ |
The immediate clean-slate range is the near-term actionable scope. The conditional environmental / tank-response planning envelope should only be preserved if Phase II, GPR, or records reconciliation confirms tanks, tank remnants, petroleum impacts, vapor, groundwater, closure, or special-handling requirements.
The broader $250,000–$400,000 recommended initial tranche remains an investor / predevelopment planning framework and should not be confused with the immediate DURA clean-slate readiness scope.
Total Preliminary Use Range: $177,000–$528,000
Recommended Initial Tranche: $250,000–$400,000
Tranche Logic: Known diligence items now include completed owner-funded geotechnical / soil review, a completed sealed ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey, and Phase II ESA testing proposed at $24,875. The broader preliminary use range remains a planning framework for remaining diligence, site-stabilization, entitlement, market, cost, and capital-readiness work. Environmental exposure remains a planning sensitivity until Phase II results are received. The current $250,000–$400,000 tranche should fund near-term risk reduction and decision readiness, while any larger environmental response allowance should be refined after testing confirms whether soil, groundwater, vapor, closure, or special handling obligations exist.
These ranges are preliminary analyst estimates. Known diligence status is being tracked against this preliminary framework and should continue to be updated with consultant proposals, approved scopes, invoices, and owner-approved budgets as they become available.
Exact historical owner-funded costs should be tracked in a private sponsor contribution ledger, reimbursement schedule, or controlled sources-and-uses file. The public page summarizes diligence status and planning logic; it should not be interpreted as a reimbursement approval or public funding request.
The Phase II ESA proposal establishes the testing and reporting cost only. It does not include future remediation, closure, vapor mitigation, special soil/groundwater handling, or construction-related environmental response costs if impacts are confirmed.
The geotechnical report supports preliminary soil, foundation, drainage, and constructability assumptions for planning purposes. Final design, structural assumptions, foundation design, and civil coordination remain subject to architect, engineer, geotechnical engineer, and permitting review.
Public/private boundary note: Public-sector discussions should focus on eligible public-benefit or redevelopment-readiness items, such as environmental clarification, infrastructure, public realm, nuisance reduction, and community-serving outcomes. Private return, vertical construction, and speculative entitlement upside should remain privately funded unless a formal public program determines otherwise.
Vacant Property Stabilization / Fencing / Monitoring is intended to reduce trespass, dumping, vandalism, fire risk, and neighborhood safety concerns while redevelopment planning continues. Public-sector eligibility should not be assumed unless confirmed.
Abatement / Utility Cutoff / Demolition Decision Readiness is a planning and risk-control budget only and should not be interpreted as confirmation that full demolition has been approved or will occur immediately.
Community / Public-Sector Materials is limited to lean coordination, public-benefit documentation, and decision materials, and should not be interpreted as approval, lobbying, or a public funding commitment.
Decision Gates This Capital Unlocks
The purpose of this tranche is not open-ended planning. It should produce clear decision gates.
Site Stabilization Decision
Determine whether the vacant structure can be secured, monitored, cleaned out, maintained, or prepared for demolition while planning continues.
Environmental Decision
Determine whether the site can move forward, requires remediation planning, or should pause pending environmental strategy.
Scenario Decision
Compare the by-right 3-story control case against higher-density scenarios using cost, market, entitlement, parking, site-condition, and public-sector criteria.
Entitlement + Public-Sector Decision
Convert early public-sector momentum into documented entitlement direction, DURA eligibility review, timeline, and public-benefit rationale.
Capital Event Decision
Determine whether the project is ready for lender, JV, PE, public-sector, sale, recapitalization, or next-stage funding discussions.
All figures, ranges, and scenarios shown on this page are preliminary and for discussion purposes only. They are not final budgets, appraisals, commitments, guarantees, permits, demolition approvals, or investment offerings. Final project economics remain subject to environmental findings, survey/title review, entitlement strategy, design feasibility, construction pricing, market validation, demolition permit requirements, financing terms, public-sector review, and formal approvals.