minutes of the - salt lake city rdaslcrda.com/meetingsmin/2010/bod/020910/020910min.pdf · brian...

MINUTES OF THE 673rd MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, February 9, 2010

451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City, Utah

3:00 pm 1. 3:06:43 PM Roll Call. The following members of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City were present: Luke Garrott, Chairperson Carlton Christensen, Vice Chairperson Søren Simonsen, Director JT Martin, Director Van Blair Turner, Director Jill Remington Love, Director Stan Penfold, Director Also Present: Frank Gray, Director Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development D.J. Baxter, Executive Director Valda Tarbet, Deputy Director Others Attending: Matt Dahl, Project Manager Jill Wilkerson-Smith, Project Manager Travis Pearce, Property Manager Ed Butterfield, Project Coordinator Alisia Wixom, Project Coordinator Ashlie Taylor, Project Area Specialist Brian Roberts, Agency Legal Counsel Crayola Berger, Office Manager Jennifer Bruno, Salt Lake City Council Office Robert B. Cottle, RAC Appointee Bruce Bingham, Hamilton Partners Boston, LLC Bryce Baker, Hamilton Partners Boston, LLC Tom Brennan, EDA Architects Marilee Utter, Citiventure Ron Straka, Citiventure

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 2. 3:07:14 PM Briefing by the Staff. Executive Director Baxter stated that at the January meeting, staff failed to prepare a formal motion to affirm the selection of Chair and Vice Chair for the Board. He asked the Board if they would like this item added to next month’s agenda. The Board answered yes. Executive Director Baxter stated there are currently approximately 30 remaining lodgers at the Regis Hotel. Repairs on the Rio Grande Hotel are 70% complete. Fifteen of the current Regis lodgers have made reservations for the Rio Grande. Staff will be working with the Mayor’s Office media staff to develop an approach to supply complete information to the media and public prior to the closure of the Regis, which is currently slated for March 15, 2010. Staff will ensure there are adequate rooms at the Rio Grande to accommodate any lodgers from the Regis regardless of their having a reservation. Vice Chairperson Christensen asked if it would be possible to tour the Rio Grande once the renovations are complete. He also asked that the Board be supplied any information that is put together for the media. Executive Director Baxter said he would set up a tour and get the media information to Board members. Executive Director Baxter stated that the bid package for the renovation of the Gallivan Utah Center will go to the short list of general contractors today. The drawings will be submitted for building permits in the next few days. Ms. Wilkerson-Smith has met with the Salt Lake City Design Review Team and Building Services. 3. 3:09:57 PM Approval of the Minutes from the Previous Meeting held December 23, 2009 and January 12, 2010. Director Love made a clarification to the minutes of December 23, 2009. She stated rather than being listed as absent, on the advice of the Attorney’s Office, she recused herself from the discussion. Director Turner made a motion to approve the minutes with the amendment to the December 23, 2009 minutes as outlined by Director Love. Vice Chairperson Christensen seconded the motion. Upon roll call, Chairperson Garrott declared the motion unanimously approved and the amended minutes were adopted. 4. 3:10:40 PM Report of the Chief Administrative Officer. Mr. Gray stated the RDA Board and the City Council will be moving ahead with the plans for the comprehensive Cultural District facilities in the downtown area. He said the Administration is excited about the work that is moving forward and is committed to helping tie the Utah Theatre into the downtown planning effort. Mr. Gray said that in the next few weeks, the administration will be actively bringing a request for proposals and the work program for a Downtown Parking Management District analysis. This

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 analysis will be reviewed by the City Council to assist in beginning a coordinated approach to parking in the downtown area. This will have an impact on the RDA’s activities, and the administration’s actions will be tied with the RDA. Director Simonsen said he was excited to hear about the progress being made. He asked that an update be presented at the next RDA Board meeting on the Sugarmont/Wilmington Avenue alignment and the small area plan in the Sugar House Business District with a focus on the opportunities with the street car and the future extensions. Director Simonsen commented there should be a response on the Sugar House TIGER grant funds in the next week. Mr. Gray said he would bring reports back on those items. 5. 3:13:52 PM Public Comments. The RDA Board will accept public comments regarding Redevelopment Agency business in the following formats: 1. Written comments may be submitted to the RDA offices, 451 South State Suite 418, Salt Lake City, UT no later than 2 hours prior to the meeting start time on the day of the meeting. 2. Verbal comments of two minutes or less will be accepted at the RDA Board meeting. Chairperson Garrott called for public comments. There were none. 6. Redevelopment Business/Routine Matters. A. 3:14:50 PM Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Appointment of Robert B. Cottle to the Redevelopment Advisory Committee. Executive Director Baxter recognized Mr. Cottle and asked him to address the Board. Chairperson Garrott thanked Mr. Cottle for his willingness to serve and asked him what he felt he could offer the committee. Mr. Cottle said he understood that each member of RAC has a different expertise. He is a practicing architect in Salt Lake City. He is a managing partner of Babcock Design Group, a 30 year architectural firm. He said this is an opportunity to offer the benefit of his experience, and that he felt it would be interesting to see how the RDA works. Chairperson Garrott commented that one of the items before the Board tonight is a review of RAC assignments, it is a substantial list. He said the board will be looking forward to the committee’s deliberations and feedback on these items. Director Turner welcomed Mr. Cottle. He said in reviewing the resume provided to the Board he noticed several large projects such as a public Safety Complex, town centers, and schools. The Agency does large projects, but is often involved in much smaller projects. Mr. Cottle said he felt the decision making process doesn’t change for the scale of the project. As projects get more

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 complex more issues can arise, but the basic thought process and problem solving efforts are similar. He said he has been involved with a number of smaller projects, and has had the benefit of doing some very diverse, interesting, and unique projects. He felt he has seen a lot of things he wouldn’t have expected, and he felt the benefit of those experiences applies to projects large and small. Director Turner thanked Mr. Cottle for bringing his experience to RAC. Vice Chairperson Christensen thanked Mr. Cottle for his willingness to serve. He asked Mr. Cottle how he felt he would reconcile between his own tastes and what the Board has asked to be done on items such as a list of expectations on an RFP. Mr. Cottle said that being from this background one is always going to have some type of an opinion. However, there are many different ways to solve a problem. Having responded to many RFPs himself, he recognizes that respondents must first follow the terms of the RFP and answer appropriately in order to have a chance to be successful. He said he is not a crusader as far as aesthetics are concerned. While aesthetics are important, he felt there are many other factors on the table. He said he viewed his role on RAC as looking at things from the point of view of the RDA, making sure the rules are followed, and that he could hopefully adding some perspective. Vice Chairperson Christensen asked that Mr. Cottle consider the Agency’s RFPs for anything that is cumbersome or could be changed to make a more productive process. If there is a way for the Agency to improve the process, the Board would welcome that feedback. Mr. Cottle said he would look forward to doing so. Director Simonsen made a motion to adopt the resolution approving the appointment of Robert B. Cottle to the Redevelopment Advisory Committee. Vice Chairperson Christensen seconded the motion. Upon roll call, Chairperson Garrott declared the motion unanimously approved and the resolution was adopted. B. 3:21:47 PM Open Meetings Training. Mr. Roberts said this training is statutorily required every year. The materials provided are the same as were presented to the City Council. The changes this year are minor, and include some technical alterations as to how minutes are treated for the purposes of GRAMA and storage requirements. He asked if there were any questions. Vice Chairperson Christensen asked if the open meetings requirement changed from one venue to another or if all groups are subject to the same standards. Mr. Roberts answered that meeting as different bodies does not alter the fundamentals of how the statute applies. C. 3:24:12 PM Semiannual Discussion and Recommendation of RAC Assignments for Fiscal Year 2009/2010. Executive Director Baxter said last summer the Board reviewed the process by which changes are made to the assignments given to RAC. One of the changes requested at that time was that the RAC Assignments be reviewed twice yearly to keep the list better up to date.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 RAC reviewed this list at their meeting last week. The only suggested changes were to eliminate items that have been completed, as shown in the briefing memo. Chairperson Garrott asked how the list compares in bulk with past assignment lists. Executive Director Baxter felt there are a few more items. There were some categories of items that were not taken to RAC in the past that they now review. Chairperson Garrott asked if there were items Board members would like to add or remove from the list. There were none. He recalled that at the retreat, the Board asked that most items be sent to RAC. Executive Director Baxter said the categories of items taken to RAC are outlined at the beginning of the memo. Another change that was made was that instead of defining categories, staff is doing its best to enumerate specific projects that are underway as well as projects we foresee that fall within the categories. Director Simonsen asked if there are new projects being contemplated that should be taken before RAC for review. Executive Director Baxter said he could not think of any at this time. He said part of the reason the assignment list is being considered twice a year to ensure new items are considered. Both the Board and the Chief Administrative Officer have the prerogative to add or remove items at any time. Director Simonsen felt that as new projects come up perhaps there should be a protocol to consider the delegation of responsibility to RAC. Chairperson Garrott noted that near the end of the memo there are items that are not to be taken to RAC. One of which is the Utah Theatre Acquisition and renovation. He questioned what the time table is for making these decisions and whether the calendar would accommodate taking this before RAC. Vice Chairperson Christensen made a motion to approve the RAC assignments as presented. Director Love seconded the motion. Upon roll call, Chairperson Garrott declared the motion unanimously approved. 7. Redevelopment Business/Old Business. A. 3:28:55 PM Discussion and Recommendation of Changes to Agency Tax Increment Reimbursement Programs. Chairperson Garrott commented that the Agency has been working to consolidate many of its loan programs. Mr. Butterfield said this would merge three programs into one. He felt one of the most significant changes being proposed by staff is to increase the amount available for tax reimbursements on historic renovations to $250,000. This amount is currently based on a cost calculation. Staff is also proposing that a set payment schedule be made for reimbursements up to $250,000. The other change would restrict reimbursements to eligible properties only within collection areas. Many of the Agency's project areas contain non-collection parcels. Under the previous programs, these parcels were eligible for tax reimbursement programs. As always, the Board could waive any of these criteria.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Vice Chairperson Christensen said he felt that these changes made sense fundamentally. But commented that there may be parcels, such as the UTA parcel in the Depot District, that were excluded from the project area. He asked if there was a change of the location of the bus facility and something of great value could be built there, would the Agency be able to incentivize that with a waiver by the Board. Mr. Butterfield answered yes. Vice Chairperson Christensen asked if there had been an analysis to assure the requestor would be guaranteed a $250,000 reimbursement. Mr. Butterfield answered no. The reimbursement is based on the actual increment collected. If the Agency does not collect adequate increment on the property, the requestor would not be reimbursed the full amount. For larger reimbursements, a request must be filed with the Agency each year similar to the request the Agency is required to file with the County. Vice Chairperson Christensen said he felt that on smaller projects the Agency should give a guaranteed repayment as an incentive. Mr. Butterfield said that on larger increment deals the requestor must file a request for that year and based on what is actually collected, the Agency would reimburse them. On a fixed payment schedule, the requestor does not need to submit a projection. However, the payment will still be dependent on what is actually received. Executive Director Baxter said it is a procedural assistance for the lower amount. The way the statute is set up imposes burden on the Agency to request how much tax increment we feel we are going to collect. On larger projects, the Agency is asking the requestor to give a projection of increment. For the smaller dollar amount, that procedural burden will be removed. Vice Chairperson Christensen asked what happens in the model of the larger reimbursements. If the estimate requested is less than the amount received, would the Agency get the benefit of the estimate. Executive Director Baxter said the Agency can collect only the increment requested, that is the same procedure that will be used for reimbursements. Director Turner asked if these procedures followed State statute. Executive Director Baxter answered yes. Director Love made a motion to approve the changes to the Agency Tax Increment Reimbursement Programs. Director Simonsen seconded the motion. Upon roll call, Chairperson Garrott declared the motion unanimously approved. B. 3:36:59 PM Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Approving the Terms of the Second Amendment to Option Agreement to be Executed Between City Centre Development, LLC and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. Deputy Director Tarbet stated that during the 1999 negotiations with Price Prowswood, the final agreements included an option to purchase the corner parking lot property on 400 South State Street. The option indicates that five years after the sale of the housing parcel where the Metro Condominiums now stand, the Agency could purchase the property if a development is not under construction. The development is to include a 100,000 square foot office building plus associated parking. The Agency sold the Metro Condominium parcel in July 2005, so the two year option period should begin July, 2010.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Deputy Director Tarbet and Executive Director Baxter met with representatives of the current property owner, Wasatch Properties. Wasatch Properties has plans in the works and is actively marketing the site and seeking an office user. Wasatch Properties has requested that the Agency delay the option. This amendment would extend the option for three years, with an option term from July 15, 2013 through July 15, 2015. Director Turner asked what the Agency envisioned for this property when the option to purchase was negotiated. Deputy Director Tarbet said the property was sold to Price Prowswood in the 1980s, and provided a lesson learned. This was a negotiated settlement on a deal where development did not occur. This is why the Agency now requires that the design is approved and the financing is in place before closing deals. This option was a way of pressing forward and making sure that something happened. She did not feel the RDA intended to do a development if this option was exercised, but would go through the typical RFP process utilized by the Agency to market the property for development. Director Penfold asked if the agreement indicated construction must be started or that the financing be in place. Deputy Director Tarbet answered construction must be started, so the financing and building permit would need to be in place with the developer ready to dig dirt to meet the requirements. Director Penfold asked if the rationale for the three year extension was to allow for the time involved to put the project in place. Deputy Director Tarbet answered yes. She said there would also be negotiations with a tenant for the building, which takes some time. Director Simonsen asked how the Agency would move forward if it purchased the property. Deputy Director Tarbet said the Agency would prepare an RFP to market the property. Director Simonsen asked if staff felt development would occur more quickly if the current owner is allowed to continue down the present course. He said this is a key corner, and three years is a long time to wait. Deputy Director Tarbet said Wasatch Properties actually asked for a five year extension, staff felt a three year term was a reasonable time frame and more closely matches when the Agency resources would be available to purchase the property. Executive Director Baxter said Wasatch Property’s first choice would be to have the option removed completely with a second choice of a five year extension. Staff proposed three years. He added that if the Agency were to put this property on the market, potential developers would go through the same process of finding a tenant this developer is undertaking. Chairperson Garrott asked if an office development is being considered. Deputy Director Tarbet answered yes. Chairperson Garrott asked if there was a residential component, Deputy Director Tarbet said Wasatch Properties has not fully described their plans, so while that is possible, she felt in all likelihood it would be only an office use. Director Simonsen asked if the Agency would place any requirements on the development and if the zoning would allow office use. Deputy Director Tarbet said the parcel is in a D-1 zone, which would be the only criteria the developer must meet.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Chairperson Garrott asked if the Agency has a formalized vision or policy for this corner. Deputy Director Tarbet said the Agency has not prepared the request for proposals where such a vision would be defined. Mr. Gray said in his research during the last year, a plan was prepared for the entire property that included a high rise office tower on this corner parcel. He said he did not know if that was ever officially submitted. Deputy Director Tarbet said it was. Mr. Gray said he felt the most logical developer for the property right now is the current property owner. One of the reasons is a burden to provide 250 parking spaces for the existing building. Should a third party come in, they would have to assume that obligation. Deputy Director Tarbet said there are also some CC&Rs on the block that require view corridors and fire access to the City Center, Metro Condominiums, and the two State of Utah buildings. She said this is a complicated site for development. Chairperson Garrott asked if there have been any issues in working with Wasatch Properties during these discussions and if staff has any other information to offer on their schedule or vision. Deputy Director Tarbet said she did not have any other information on the development. During the discussion with Mr. Dahlstrom, he indicated there are two or three firms actively looking at tenants for the site. Wasatch Properties has been very good to work with, and has been responsive in negotiating the change in the option agreement. Vice Chairperson Christensen said he felt this is a reasonable approach. He asked if the strip of property in the center of the parcel shown on the map was a public street that has never been vacated. Deputy Director Tarbet said that was correct. Director Love made a motion to approve the resolution extending the option for three years. Director Turner seconded the motion. Upon roll call, Chairperson Garrott declared the motion unanimously approved and the resolution was adopted. C. 3:46:38 PM Consideration and Approval of Relocated Retailer Reduction for Gateway Associates Under the Participation and Reimbursement Agreement. Director Martin recused himself from the discussion and leaves the meeting. Deputy Director Tarbet said this calculation is reviewed by the Board annually. When the Gateway Associates Agreement was passed, it included a reduction in the tax increment to be paid to Gateway Associates for retailers that relocated from Trolley Square or the greater Main Street area into Gateway. At this point, there are only four or five remaining relocated retailers. Staff does a calculation reducing the reimbursement by an amount equivalent to the property taxes paid for these retailers. This year, the reduction would be $17,593. Gateway Associates paid the reimbursement reduction for the first four years. The Board waived the reduction the past three years given the construction difficulties with TRAX and other issues.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 The Board has also discussed removing the requirement. Staff is asking whether the Board would like to approve the reduction of $17,593, waive the 2010 reduction, or have staff draw up documents to terminate this part of the Reimbursement Agreement. Director Love said that in the past she has been comfortable with terminating the agreement. She felt the spirit of the agreement was to discourage Gateway from attracting retailers from the other downtown malls and Trolley Square. At this time, with all the projects downtown that are building and remodeling, that trend has almost reversed. She said she approves of waiving the reduction, and would agree to terminate it if other Board members felt that was appropriate. Director Turner agreed there was a concern when Gateway was built that retailers on Main Street would relocate there. He felt this isn’t an issue at this time and that perhaps the Agency should not take this reduction. While it was a wise thing to do at the time, the times have changed and there really isn’t any retail to relocate. Vice Chairperson Christensen said in the past he has been in favor of waiving the reduction, but that he has mixed feelings this year. Perhaps because it was a part of the deal terms or perhaps there is value in negotiating in the future. This was put in place as an incentive, and if it is removed that incentive is gone. Because there are not construction conflicts this year he said he was not as supportive in waiving the reduction. Director Love asked if a decision must be made at this time and Vice Chairperson Christensen asked if the payment was in effect unless it was waived. Deputy Director Tarbet answered that the distribution will be made 15 to 30 days after the Agency receives its tax increment from Salt Lake County. If the Board does not waive the reduction, it will be deducted from the payment. Vice Chairperson Christensen made a motion to defer the decision until March. Director Love seconded the motion. Upon roll call, Chairperson Garrott declared the motion unanimously approved. Director Martin was not present for the vote. Director Martin returns to the meeting. 8. Redevelopment Business/ New Business. A. 3:53:05 PM Hamilton Partners Boston, LLC Loan: Consideration and Approval of a Renovation Loan for Property Located at 9 Exchange Place. Chairperson Garrott recognized Mr. Bruce Bingham and Mr. Bryce Baker with Hamilton Partners Boston, LLC. Ms. Wixom stated that Hamilton Partners Boston, LLC has applied for a $2,200,000 high performance building renovation loan. The majority of the funds will be for tenant improvements. Other renovation costs include shower facilities, architectural and engineering fees and asbestos abatement. The loan will have a 3% interest rate, 20 year amortization with a 10 year balloon. The Agency will be in a second position behind the primary lender Chase Bank. Hamilton Partners has contributed over $9,000,000 of owner equity to the project. Chairperson Garrott asked the total cost of the renovation. Ms. Wixom answered $19,600,000.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Vice Chairperson Christensen thanked Hamilton Partners Boston for investing in Salt Lake City. He asked how the market for B+ class space is at this time. Mr. Bingham said the market is there, although it may be a bad market from a landlord’s perspective. The confidence of perspective tenants is unbridled. Hamilton Partners does see a market, and is making the best out of a different market. Vice Chairperson Christensen made a motion to approve the renovation loan. Director Simonsen seconded the motion. Upon roll call, Chairperson Garrott declared the motion unanimously approved. B. 3:56:26 PM Discussion of Short Term and Long Term Options for Utah Theater. Chairperson Garrott recognized Mr. Tom Brennan with EDA Architects. Director Turner commented he had recently seen a newscast on the Utah Theater, and complimented Chairperson Garrott with how he presented the building and how important he feels it is. Director Turner said he did not feel the general public knows what is in the building, and this was a good way to bring it to the public. Executive Director Baxter said that during discussions on the acquisition, the Board asked that staff consider what could be done with the building should the acquisition be made, and the timing. Mr. Brennan supplied Board members a time table (copy attached) that tracks some short term options and timing. He said this is an opportunity for the Board to discuss options and give staff guidance as to what to do with the building in the short term as well as how to approach the long term use. Executive Director Baxter said that after the building was purchased, staff asked EDA to look at the renovation estimates for the retail spaces. EDA affirmed the spaces are in useable condition, as presented in the memo. Executive Director Baxter said another idea he had Mr. Brennan consider and provide an estimate for was to demolish the retail spaces and construct a new building. Possibilities in doing so could include providing parking underneath, some newly constructed leasable space, and the opportunity to rebuild the façade for the theater. Executive Director Baxter said he would have Mr. Brennan comment on this, but he is aware of situations where a new structure has been used to seismically brace an older structure, so such a new building could be utilized to assist in preserving the Utah Theater building. Chairperson Garrott asked the goal for the discussion tonight. Executive Director Baxter said he felt this is an opportunity for the Board to give staff direction to pursue one of these options. Another consideration would be the funding source for any such work. The Agency is just starting the budget process for 2010-2011. The Board may want to direct staff to include funding for the Theater in the budget. Staff will need to determine how much funding will be required based on the option the Board chooses.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Vice Chairperson Christensen thanked staff for putting together the tours of the Utah Theater and that it was helpful for him to go through the building. He said the tour helped him realize the substantial renovations that will be needed to bring it to a useable condition. He asked if the two side buildings were independent from the theater. Mr. Brennan said the two structures were built in the late 1800s between the Kearns Building and the building that now houses Gandolfo’s Deli. The building that once housed Shapiro’s and the grand hall entrance into the Theater were one building. The building to the south of Shapiro’s is a second building. They have a common wall, and there was a space about 10’ wide between the Kearns building and the original building housing the grand hall that was in filled at some point. While they are all interconnected, they are separate buildings. Vice Chairperson Christensen asked where a new building would be located if the Agency were to pursue this option. Mr. Brennan said the scenario presented is new construction of a 4 story building. Both the old buildings would be demolished and rebuilt, creating a new grand hall entrance to the theater, which would be a facsimile of what currently exists. The plaster work would be documented and rebuilt, the old marble floor would be removed and reinstalled in the new space. He felt this would be significantly less expensive than to build around the existing entryway. Vice Chairperson Christensen asked how much of the design nature of the old theater could be practically replicated. Mr. Brennan said with the proper design and construction teams, it can be done. Vice Chairperson Christensen asked if Mr. Brennan felt it would make a more functional building. Mr. Brennan answered yes. It would be a more functional, modern building. However, it is a judgment call. There are significant challenges with the existing building. The lack of parking on Main Street remains an ongoing issue for any use. The buildings do not have fire suppression equipment. The grand hall building was originally three stories, sometime in the late 1940s, one story was removed. There are exterior masonry sheer walls in the in-fill space that have been propped up with temporary beams. These buildings have not been well respected, and there are some real challenges in terms of restoring the buildings. Ultimately, the bigger issue is determining what those spaces should be. He felt the retail spaces create an opportunity to support the theater. Modern needs include concessions and assessable restrooms, which could be incorporated into the remodel or new building(s). He felt these main floor spaces should be viewed as opportunities to support and feed off the eventual cultural development in this area. Mr. Gray agreed, and said the Capitol Theatre has had issues in securing additional space to hold events and support the theater, and the entire arts district. He felt it was important to be cognizant that these support spaces around the Utah Theater, whether as new buildings or old, are important to making the theater building function. Saving the hall is just one part of the equation. Mr. Brennan mentioned that the support space on either side will be very important to the end user. This could become offices, storage, or whatever their needs require. Chairperson Garrott felt the Board cannot determine what the support space needs will be without determining the reuse.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Director Simonsen said he was intrigued with the option to replace what currently exists on Main Street with a taller building that could house retail or retail like spaces on the ground floor. There could be uses that support whatever programming is needed for both theaters, and maybe some office or other commercial space for lease on the upper levels. He felt timing would be a great challenge. He said he would like to move forward with this immediately, but until the programming and use of the theater is determined, it is difficult to plan. That being said, he felt it could be designed as flexible space, especially if there is parking underneath, which would allow access to add electrical, data, or plumbing. New structural technologies allow for fairly large and open floor plates without the structural members that are a hindrance in the existing structures. He suggested more analysis to see if this could move forward and still leave enough flexibility to do whatever is needed for the space in the future without knowing what the use will be. It could be used for retail for a few years and changed if needed. Chairperson Garrott asked if a four story building made sense for this use, and asked if residential could be considered. Mr. Brennan felt it would be worthwhile to speak with real estate agents and developers to get their input. He said a four story structure with a basement was included just for discussion purposes. Chairperson Garrott asked if this could be built with a type of construction technology that would keep it under a certain cost threshold. Mr. Brennan said there is not enough information to know what that threshold is. Vice Chairperson Christensen said he believes the zoning would limit the height to 100 feet. Mr. Gray said the market would limit such a use as well. There is a large stock of unoccupied residential units downtown, with many more under construction. He felt the idea of speaking with developers and real estate agents was important. Flexible spaces that could be converted to residential in the future may be a consideration. Director Simonsen asked about timing. He said if the Agency were to replace the retail space it would likely take a year or two, leaving the vacant spaces on Main Street. He felt one of the reasons the Agency acquired the property was to activate this block of Main Street on an interim basis. He said he was unconvinced of the amount of renovation required to bring tenants into these spaces. The quality of this space is equal to or better than much of the space on Main Street that is currently occupied. He said he understood the reasoning for seismic upgrades from a risk standpoint, but felt if the space would only be leased for a year there was little reason to put funding into renovating it. He felt if the Agency allowed $30 to $40 per square foot for tenant improvement as a budget, viable tenants could be found even on a short term basis. Mr. Brennan said he felt it was dependant on the Agency’s goals. He said the proposal was put together with the idea of preparing the spaces to attract long term rather than short term tenants. There are challenges with the buildings right now. The roof over the Shapiro’s building needs to be replaced. The mechanical systems are mostly non functional. The plumbing is old with small restrooms, none of which are ADA accessible. These are the items that are driving the costs estimates. Mr. Brennan said one idea that has been discussed is to rent the spaces as artist studios

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 to bring some life to Main Street. He said this could be a short term use for the two buildings while considering the long term plans. Director Love said there appear to be a number of issues that need to be identified and reviewed. She also felt there were opportunities with the County for funding that should be explored. She suggested that the RDA Board form a working group to do so. Director Penfold agreed, and volunteered to be a part of the working group. Director Turner commented that the square footage of the retail around the Theater is much larger than he realized. He felt the retail could easily provide support for both the Utah and Capitol Theaters. He said he agreed with Mr. Gray’s comment that consideration should be given to how this retail component can provide support functions to the theater district. Chairperson Garrott asked the Board to consider some of the goals for the property. He felt there seemed to be consensus that providing support space for the Utah and Capitol Theaters should be a goal. The Board agreed. He asked if the retail activation on Main Street should be a short term goal. Director Penfold said he was not familiar with the needs of the Capitol Theatre space or whether that is appropriate in this project. He was not opposed to exploring their needs, and felt the Board should consider both short and long term retail. Director Penfold felt another critical piece is consideration for the façade. He felt it was important that the façade be restored to give the look and feel of the original theatre. Director Simonsen asked if the historic façade of the theatre still existed. Mr. Brennan said he believed parts of it were still there. Originally there were two buildings on Main Street. One was a three story brick building with an empty lot behind it. The Pantages Theatre was built on that lot, and the grand hall was built through the existing building and the façade changed. In the 1940s or early 1950s, the local ABC affiliate modernized it to what it is today. He did not know what is underneath the existing façade. Chairperson Garrott asked if in general terms for the goals, preservation and restoration should be included. Director Penfold said he felt it was important that whatever is installed pays deference to the theatre. Director Simonsen commented that from the walk through it appeared there may have been some exterior passageway south of the Kearns building. He said an exterior pedestrian passageway that connects to the block would be of interest to him, especially in adding some active uses. Chairperson Garrott clarified this would be a restoration of east-west mid block passage way south of the Kearns Building. Vice Chairperson Christensen asked if that portion of the building could be torn down to open up the walkway this year. Mr. Brennan said he felt it could. Executive Director Baxter said he felt the Agency should be sensitive to the many new retailers on the block that have made an investment and not do something that will make their continued success more difficult. Chairperson Garrott said he would be concerned in offering lower rents that may give a new business an advantage. Director Simonsen felt the Agency could consider something short term (24-36 months) such as a souvenir or T shirt shop that would not require a

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 lot of improvement. Vice Chairperson Christensen said he liked Mr. Brennan’s suggestion of targeting the artist community, more for the vibrancy than the sales. This type of use would be mobile and easily relocated. He felt this was a viable option that would not require a lot of investment in the spaces. Chairperson Garrott asked, besides solving the short term retail issue, what other items the working group should consider. Director Love said there seem to be many different people and groups who feel they have a stake in this property. She felt it was important to provide leadership with those different groups, including the County, potential users, and those interested in creating an arts district. She felt the work group could develop a process to keep everyone clear on a course of action. Chairperson Garrott asked to what extent this would include community engagement. Director Love felt the work group could come back with a recommendation of what the process should be and a list of decisions that need to be made by the Board. Executive Director Baxter suggested that the first order of business for the work group be to find a way to occupy and activate the retail spaces. Once that is complete the next step could be to consider the long term approach. He felt if the Board’s top priority is to get the spaces activated, that is where the focus should be. He felt it would be difficult to focus on all the issues surrounding the Utah Theatre simultaneously. Director Simonsen said he did not feel these items could be divorced from each other, because activating the spaces depends to some degree on what the larger project is and when it will be done. Director Penfold said he felt activating the spaces is going to have some expense. The Agency should be careful not to invest too much in a temporary use. Chairperson Garrott felt that since the short term activation of these spaces is going to be linked with other issues, it should be the first item on the working groups’ list. Director Love agreed with that approach, but expressed concern that the Agency may be missing some opportunities for funding that have timing windows. Chairperson Garrott asked if others would like to serve in the work group. Vice Chairperson Christensen and Director Simonsen agreed to do so. C. 4:35:28 PM Intermodal Hub Area Land Use Strategy and Marketing Plan Presentation. Chairperson Garrott recognized Marilee Utter and Ron Straka with Citiventure. Ms. Utter and Mr. Straka presented an update utilizing a power point presentation (copy attached). Vice Chairperson Christensen commented that a project brought before the Agency some time ago had some geological challenges with ground water that limited the heights of the buildings. He asked if the area doesn’t justify higher density from a development standpoint or if this is why lower densities are being recommended. Ms. Utter said there are utility and ground water issues in this area. Citiventure feels it would be expensive to go deeper than 3-4 feet. She said she did not feel the geological issues are deal breakers. Citiventure does not see this as a high rise area like Main or State Street. She felt four-story stick or podium buildings would provide ample density with more reasonable construction costs.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Director Simonsen commented it is ironic that the area of the valley that may have the best transportation access is the one of the least accessible parts of downtown. He said the presentation touched on ways to address that, but felt there may be other considerations. The interchange of I-80 and I-215, the two major freeway corridors in the western United States, are just a few blocks away. There are commuter rail and light rail lines nearby with more coming into the system soon, and potential street car lines that would come near this area. He asked Ms. Utter to elaborate on how Citiventure felt this should be addressed. Ms. Utter said this area has an often seen problem of trying to create a neighborhood around regional infrastructure that is somewhat isolated. Mr. Straka felt transportation options are both a curse and a blessing. There’s not a lot of through traffic, so a neighborhood can be created here without that being an issue, but it needs better accessibility. Right now, 500 West dead ends, once that can be extended up to 300 North and eventually 600 North, traffic can flow down from the north. He felt another issue is there is no left turn into the intermodal hub from 500 West 300 South. He felt a left turn here becomes very crucial. Mr. Straka said another issue is 400 South which runs parallel to the viaduct. He felt it would be helpful to have a way through to 600 West. Such connections would help encourage development to the south. He cautioned that too many through streets should not be added and that the key is a finer grain within the blocks that would allow access without a lot of through traffic. Director Simonsen felt punching through some secondary or tertiary streets and/or the pedestrian networks and creating infrastructure would help allow better focus on redevelopment. Mr. Straka felt there are some streets that have started to go through, especially on the north core block, and that this could happen on the south block. The demolition of one building could open circulation on 300 South to potential inner block uses or parking. Director Simonsen suggested this could also be continued through the next block. Mr. Straka agreed that dividing the blocks would make great pedestrian links. The key would be to set up the frame work of circulation in those blocks now to establish how to get pedestrians or automobiles in and out. Chairperson Garrott felt there was a need to make a “place” here. But as a public entity, he questioned what the steps are to do so. There will not be another large development like the Gateway here, but are there steps the Board should be taking to help this become a place. Conductivity and cutting through some of the 500 West Park blocks has been mentioned, as well as some other infrastructure. He asked if breaking up the blocks is what is needed to help attract development. Ms. Utter said that in part, this depends on the funding available. The Rio Grande block could be opened with a change of policy, such as keeping the doors open at night, or a change in use could bring more activity. Citiventure feels that demolishing some buildings and cleaning up the area to break-up the north block are important first phase steps. But a user or tenant should be identified first. Don’t just do the work and let it sit, do it in the context of speaking with users, developers, and tenants.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Mr. Straka said he would suggest providing connections with the activity from the church, restaurants, and office spaces east of 400 West through the Rio Grande block. Also, there isn’t anything on the intermodal block. It needs to be a destination. A lot of transit comes in, but there is no “place” there. At rush hour there is a lot of traffic, but after that it’s dead. One proposal made by UTA is a building at the terminus of 300 South. But that should be more than just a transit building, with uses such as offices that bring eyes on the park to make it a place where people feel comfortable and safe. Commuter rail creates a great place for offices. There is a need for some uses to anchor the place so people will want to come there day and night. He felt the block has much potential, but needs to be energized by things other than transit. Chairperson Garrott commented that a second hub has been created on North Temple and it is likely that UTA will be running fewer trains through this area. Mr. Straka said mega development is not going to happen until the smaller pieces are completed. There is a need to create place there, what is done now and how the infrastructure is set up will help dictate how this will become a special place in Salt Lake City that is like no other. Chairperson Garrott questioned if this was possible if it isn’t possible to get through the Rio Grande Depot. Mr. Straka said he felt it wasn’t necessary to go through the Depot because it is possible to get around it. There is a place on the North side near the restaurant that could allow this, and where other uses could be placed to help generate activity. Ms. Utter said another consideration is what the RDA and City do and do not control. How much of this will be done as partnerships and what part can the RDA and City do to make a difference that inspires the other partners to come to the table. Mr. Straka felt it is important to have a strong vision of what is wanted. It isn’t going to happen right away, but if there’s a vision you can sell the place. Maybe even a wild idea like covering the street that could create a different kind of place could get the right people involved here to make something special. Vice Chairperson Christensen said the Agency has discussed having an open public market, but it sounds like these two blocks wouldn’t support such a use. Ms. Utter said that is a popular notion, because good public markets are great uses. Many have questioned why this can be done in Seattle but not Salt Lake City. She said there are many issues; public markets are expensive, and there is a lot of competition with the Whole Food market and other sources of fresh foods that weren't available when many of the farmers markets were founded. Economically, the capital has to be provided to build them and if you have a really good operator they can probably make a reasonable salary. But there are many things that must be considered such as if it will be year round, sell only locally grown food or become a flea market when food isn't available, water needs, power needs, and how deliveries will be handled. It’s a very complicated deal to have a permanent market. She felt this probably isn’t the best location because of the access. A farmers market is really retail, and this is a tough retail site. She said there are many things that can be done with lighting and covers and design that can create that sense of enclosure and activity.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Chairperson Garrott felt having the Rio Grande Depot and the lack of conductivity could be turned into an asset by creating a pocketed neighborhood. Ms. Utter agreed, and said that is why it would be a good residential location. But, it is a curse and a blessing. This could be a cool little neighborhood downtown with boundaries around it with other assets and transit. However, parking would remain an issue. Mr. Straka said there is a need to define what a commuter village for Salt Lake City should look like and what basic ingredients are needed to make this area special and a destination. Ms. Utter said many have indicated a grocery store here would be home run. But we all know how difficult it is to make a successful urban grocery store. One possible strategy would be to have the first floor of a building house a micro market. Everybody knows it’s subsidized and can’t compete with the big guys, but it would be such a great amenity and is something Citventure sees happening all the time. Developers feel they will make what they need to on the residential which allows them to subsidize the micro market. Chairperson Garrott said that as the Council representative for this area he is often told that they need a grocery store now. Mr. Straka felt that smaller retailers like a meat market and a little vegetable store would be the types of uses that would make this a village. Chairperson Garrott asked what the next step should be. Executive Director Baxter stated this is an interim update to help the Board see the direction of the study. Ms. Utter and Mr. Straka will come back in a few months with final recommendations. Staff wanted the Board to begin considering the early steps. Ms. Utter also asked the Board's priorities, and if they would prefer to see the entire package or, considering the budget, space it out and work with the market. Chairperson Garrott felt the right direction is for something that is sustainable and organic that will build the neighborhood over time. He said one thing that wasn't addressed that he would like to see in the future is zoning. Citiventure mentioned that this shouldn’t compete with Main Street as far as density, but as a transit oriented place, is there a need for a different type of zoning. Chairperson Garrott thanked Ms. Utter and Mr. Straka and said the Board looked forward to their final report. 9. Budget A. 5:25:35 PM Discussion and Recommendation of 2010-2011 Budget Meeting Schedule. Executive Director Baxter said the briefing materials included the schedule for the budget process. There is a possibility that a special joint meeting of RAC and the Board will be required should the Agency receive a large number of funding applicants. Otherwise, the interview process will be handled at the regular RAC meeting at the beginning of April. This will be determined once the funding applications are received, Staff will report back to the Board at the March meeting.

RDA Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 10. 5:26:21 PM Adjournment. Director Simonsen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Director Love seconded the motion. Upon roll call, Chairperson Garrott declared the motion unanimously approved. ________________________________ Luke Garrott, Chairperson

C I T I V E N T U R E A S S O C I A T E S , L L C

Intermodal Hub AreaImplementation Strategy

Intermodal Hub Area Implementation Study

Intermodal Hub

Studies for Intermodal Hub Area

Visionary Gateway Plan/1994

Rail Consolidation Plan/1997

Gateway District Land Use & Development Master Plan/1998

Gateway Specific Plan/1998

RDA Depot District Project Area Adoption/1998

IBI Intermodal Hub Area Study/2006 (draft)


RDA Land Ownership Map

RDA Property Holdings in Intermodal Hub Area

Serta Properties: Purchased in 2002 for approximately $3.8 million, 3.95 acres

Wright Property: Purchased in 2004 for $680,000, .31 acres

Intermountain Furniture Properties: Purchased in 2008 for approximately $6 million, 2.8 acres

SDI Property: Purchased in 2010 for $3.5 million, 1.62 acres


Implementation Strategy Goals


Serta Property

Intermountain Furniture Property

Develop context and framework

Determine potential uses

Private/Public Investment

Determine when RDA properties should be marketed/sold

Potential partners

Develop phasing strategy

Trip #1

Day 1: Interviews with Property Owners

Day 2: Planning Exercise with RDA/City/UTA representatives

Day 2: Open House

Trip #2

Day 1: Interviews with property owners, developers

Day 2: Interviews with developers, RDA Board briefing


Interviews/Planning Exercise and Open House

STRENGTHS:

Proximity to various transit modes/downtown/ GatewayHistoric characterArtspace developmentUTA plans for future developmentLarge public sector land holdings Growing activity on 300 South (east of Rio)Vacant land allows development of midblock

connectionsLarge parcel assemblage


What We Heard:Strengths and Weaknesses

WEAKNESSES:

Run down buildings and vacant land create negative imageArea perceived as unsafe/unfriendlyConcentration of social services nearbyMinimal traffic to support retail businessesRio Grande Depot block forms barrier to the development and activity to the east

Area perceived as isolated and inaccessible500 West Park Blocks prevent left turn onto 300 SouthUnrealistically high land prices


What We Heard:Strengths & Weaknesses

Create unique mixed-use urban district

Make 300 South pedestrian-friendly (500-600 West)

Relocate/reconfigure social services

Revitalize/reconfigure infill Intermodal Hub property

Pursue streetcar connection

Include Bike Station

Pursue the University Incubator

Create pedestrian connectivity throughout the district

Keep arts

Add residentialIntermodal Hub Area Implementation Study

What We Heard:Suggested Actions and Vision

Phase redevelopment over timeStay flexible and market-drivenLikely uses over time:

ResidentialArtsSmall businesses (limited retail)Educational/Institutional uses

Don’t compete with downtown densityPedestrian friendly/transit access big drawRezoning now will likely help


Consultant Development Observations

Focus on Users, not Developers

Encourage UTA to catalyze development

Phase I: Clean-up, lighting, landscaping, demolition worth investment

Phase II: Shared parking structures key design and incentive strategies

Consider special district financing or PILOT for infrastructure

Public/Private Partnerships essential to get this done

Who are the champions?


Consultant Development Observations (cont’d)

Residential developers are interested—if the deal makes senseLand buy downsFinancing backstop

University Incubator is interested—if part of a redevelopmentThere are probably others—but need pursuingGateway welcomes enhancement of their district—and needs itMarket is a challenge for tenants, opportunity for construction UTA doesn’t have immediate funds to implement development plans Special district financing is a classic tool for urban infrastructure—

excellent opportunity here if the public sector will participateRedevelopment will require Public Private Partnerships

UTA, State, City, RDA, Developers, property owners, special district

Key Question: This area can be expedited, but it will take energy and money: Where does it rank? Is it worth it now?


Consultant Development Observations (cont’d)

Any Questions?


minutes of the - salt lake city rdaslcrda.com/meetingsmin/2010/bod/020910/020910min.pdf · brian...

Documents