Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer asks Pleasant Grove to count nearby retail toward Valley Grove's retail requirement to unlock apartments
Summary
Saint John Properties requested a modification to the Valley Grove development agreement to allow several nearby retail parcels to count toward the project's retail square-footage requirement so residential phases can proceed.
Saint John Properties representatives told the Pleasant Grove City Council on Dec. 3 that they are seeking a narrow change to the Valley Grove development agreement to allow four planned retail parcels to count toward the development'wide retail square-footage requirement that triggers residential phases.
City staff explained the development agreement requires the project to provide a total of 200,000 square feet of retail when fully built. Under the agreed phasing, earlier phases must reach certain retail thresholds before later residential phases can proceed. Scott summarized the request: the developer asked that four currently empty retail parcels within the development be eligible to "receive credit" toward those retail thresholds, allowing residential construction to advance sooner.
Marty, representing Saint John Properties, said retail leasing momentum is strong: a hotel is under construction, two buildings have pulled permits and multiple retailers have expressed interest. "We're 85% full in all of our retail area down there," Marty said, and added that several tenants have signed letters of intent though he did not disclose tenant names.
Marty said the change would not reduce the ultimate retail obligation: "Everything's exactly the same. The agreement's the same," he said, describing the amendment as a timing and phasing flexibility that would allow planned retail parcels within the development to satisfy phase thresholds. He noted the city's commercial requirements (phase split and square-footage thresholds) remain in place.
Council members asked about tenant commitments and were told that some tenants have LOIs but the developer could not disclose specifics in the public meeting. Staff and the developer characterized the request as a technical modification to section 1.2 of the development agreement rather than a reduction in retail required by the agreement.
The matter was presented for discussion in the work session; staff indicated the item would return to the formal council agenda for action. No formal vote was taken during the work session.
