The team behind the proposed redevelopment of Junction Commons said it’s listening to the Summit County Council’s feedback regarding the outlet mall’s conversion to a mixed-use residential development, but county councilors are pushing for more affordable housing units and details on traffic impacts before they feel comfortable putting the project to a final vote.
Singerman Real Estate, the company that purchased Junction Commons in 2018, originally proposed redeveloping the property to include a mix of commercial space and residential units, with 205 of the 433 units earmarked for affordable housing.
However, developers told the County Council last week that they’d listened to concerns about the number of affordable units included in the project compared to market rate units. They said they’d adjusted the development’s layout so they could build 233 affordable units and only 226 market rate units, which would mean 51% of the project is dedicated to affordable housing.
They said they’d also added a handful of three-bedroom units to accommodate families, which had been a concern of the County Council’s at a previous meeting, and committed to building affordable units at the start of each construction phase instead of prioritizing market rate units.
The proposed redevelopment also encompasses a more than 55,000-square-foot reduction in commercial space, with developers emphasizing their commitment to creating a walkable, people-oriented, mixed-use community. They estimated the project would take at least eight years to complete.
The County Council seemed appreciative of developers’ decision to add more affordable housing units, but county councilors Chris Robinson and Roger Armstrong said they didn’t think the proposal provided enough community benefits to outweigh the traffic impacts it would likely have on the area. They pointed out Junction Commons is one of many projects coming to Kimball Junction in the next few years, with a specific nod to developments at the Utah Olympic Park and Altus Park City, formerly known as the Dakota Pacific project.
“The fundamental question I keep having is, ‘Why do we want another couple hundred units of market rate housing?’” Robinson asked. “What’s the justification for wanting to do that?”
The developers said the market rate units were important to the project financially to offset the costs of including so many affordable units, but they also urged the County Council not to set a precedent of denying new proposals just because the proposal is in an area where other companies have existing entitlements.
The team reiterated their willingness to collaborate with the county government and engage in the development process transparently, saying it wasn’t fair to punish developers with a good project simply because other companies pursued other routes, seemingly referring to Six Ridges’ decision to approach the state Legislature to receive approval for Altus Park City.
“You guys have come up with a terrific plan that under different circumstances would fly through,” Armstrong responded. “I respect what you’re saying, but it’s not a blank slate. You’ve got to take it with what comes, with what preceded you. That’s always going to affect your development and what you want to plug in and where you want to plug it in.”
Armstrong said the project’s traffic impacts may be easier to stomach if all 459 residential units were affordable. Otherwise, the community benefits will be outweighed by the congestion and added density.
“Every one of those market rates and all that new commercial generates a need for more affordable, and we’re constantly chasing our tail,” he said. “That’s the challenge.”
County Council Chair Canice Harte said he was similarly struggling with the proposal. He said he liked the emphasis on affordable housing, but he was worried the targeted 80% area median income, or AMI, number for the affordable units was too low and suggested a target range between 40% and 60% instead.
“The rest of the project will fall into line for me when I feel like there’s enough affordable because that is the currency that drives the largest community benefit for me,” Robinson agreed.
The development team said they would be willing to research whether they could lower the AMIs any further, but they cautioned the County Council about wanting to lower rates too much, saying it’s easy to accidentally set a number so low that it prices out married couples with combined incomes.
County Councilor Megan McKenna said she still supported the project in its current form because of the changes it would bring to the Kimball Junction area.
“I keep going back to what is currently there and what this can be,” she said. “It’s such an improvement that I really hope we can get to a place where it is this model for the eastern side of Kimball Junction and these giant parking lots and commercial (spaces). I think that is a huge community benefit.”
The County Council plans to speak with the Junction Commons developers in-depth about a traffic study on the property in June, as well as participate in a site visit.