Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[delts145]

Gateway groans

It looks like mess, but cars and traffic getting in and out

By Steven Oberbeck
The Salt Lake Tribune



The TRAX extension along 400 West in Salt Lake City has hampered the flow of traffic and pedestrians next to The Gateway, with construction expected to last well into next year. (Francisco Kjolseth/The Salt Lake Tribune )




Cars, construction equipment and workers share the same narrow spaces around The Gateway as construction continues, but in-and-out traffic seems to be fairly smooth, area merchants say.

Utah Jazz season-ticket holders Trent and Jenaway Bezzant typically try to arrive early to games so they have time to stroll among the shops in The Gateway mall across the street from the arena.
But these days, arriving early also provides another benefit - they get to avoid the pre-game gridlock caused by the construction along 400 West and on the streets just to the south of the stadium.
"Getting out of the game, though, is the real nightmare. It used to take us about five minutes. This last game it took almost 45 minutes," Jenaway Bezzant said. "It just seemed to take forever."
Construction on the roads near The Gateway is expected to continue through March 2008 as the Utah Transit Authority extends its light-rail line from the north side of the arena to the city's transit hub on 600 West, between 200 South and 300 South.
Although the primary objective of the construction is to link the light rail with the planned arrival of the commuter rail line coming in from the north, Salt Lake City officials are taking advantage of the situation to upgrade the streets and municipal utility lines, some of which are more than 100 years old.
UTA spokesman Justin Jones said the best way for visitors to avoid any inconvenience caused by the construction is to use light rail. "It provides easy access in and out of the area."
And so far, many of the business operators in The Gateway maintain that they have seen little financial impact from the roadwork. "Our customers haven't been complaining and they seem to be able to get here just fine," said Cecily Stevenson of Sur La Table, which sells kitchenware and other cooking accessories.
Mall General Manager Tracy James said the city crews and those from the construction company handling the work have done all they can to maintain street access for area businesses, including adding a parking lot at 600 West and 200 South, within walking distance of nearby shops and restaurants.
"We've been meeting with them frequently, sometimes on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. And whenever anyone expresses a concern, it gets addressed almost immediately," James said. "Just the other day, someone noticed a change in the way the street lights were working - they had been reset - and the problem was fixed within a few hours."
The solid communication has meant that those who do drive in the area usually are faced with only minor inconveniences. "At most, a driver will have to go through construction for only a half block before they get to one of the entrances to our garages," James said.
At the Estilo Salon across the street and to the east of The Gateway on 400 West, Rina Gutierrez said the construction so far has been a positive experience, considering. "Initially, I thought it would be terrible for us. But it hasn't hurt business. In fact, people seem to have noticed us a little more."
If anyone can complain, it would be the operator of the parking lot immediately south and across the street from the arena.
Parking attendant Doug Treasure said despite the lot's proximity to the arena, it has not been full during any Jazz game since construction began. "What seems to be happening is that people pull up the corner (of 300 West and 100 South), see all the construction equipment to the west and don't seem to realize that they can still get into this lot."
[email protected]

[delts145]

Historic homes may be razed

Condo developer has zoning on his side; Planning division wants to save them

By Heather May
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 02/22/2007 03:55:34 PM MST



The home at 268 S. 700 East. (Leah Hogsten/The Salt Lake Tribune )




Historic preservation is butting up against new development near the corner of 300 South and 700 East.
Developer Eric Saxey wants to demolish three historic homes to make way for 23 new condos that would sell for between the low $200,000s to the $400,000s. He has zoning on his side, since the single-family homes are zoned for moderate- to high-density buildings.
But because the houses on 700 East at 256 S., 262 S. and 268 S. are historic, though run-down - one was built in 1872 when the area was first developed - the city's Historic Landmarks Commission denied Saxey's demolition request.
Saxey doesn't see it as a setback. The city allows developers to go through an "economic hardship" study after the commission denies demolition to prove that keeping the homes as is, or even remodeling them, is economically unfeasible. A three-member hardship panel has already been named, and Saxey expects an answer - he predicts the panel will side with him - in about a month.
While city planners and the landmarks commission determined the buildings were historically significant, either because of their age or architecture, Saxey said they aren't connected to significant people or events, and he noted that other homes of the period exist nearby.
"It's just an old building that's just not worthwhile to fix," he said. "If I thought the buildings had a historical architectural value, I wouldn't attempt to tear them down. I live in Salt Lake. I love Salt Lake."
Saxey bought the property in March with the intention of toppling them. He also owns the adjacent vacant lot on the corner, which would become part of his condo project.
The city's Planning Division determined the homes should be saved. Because members of the landmarks commission agreed with the staff's findings, they had to deny Saxey's request, which they did in September.
A staff report said eliminating the homes would harm the neighborhood, since they are the last historic buildings on 700 East on the block between 200 South and 300 South.
The houses are part of the Central City Historic District, which includes some of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. The district has often been the site of land-use conflicts as modern commercial developments have taken the place of historic buildings.
Businesses like McDonald's, Chevron and Rite Aid long ago replaced the homes that once sat next to Saxey's. The problem is partly zoning: Single-family homes have been rezoned for commercial and high-density development.
The report acknowledges that so many historic buildings have previously been razed on 700 East that one could argue a "sense of the historic character of the area no longer exists."
Saxey agrees. "700 East has turned commercial all the way down. These houses, they're really out of place."
But the report said if the homes are bulldozed, "the 700 East block face that forms the eastern boundary of the Central City Historic district would no longer be tied to the history of the neighborhood."
The 1872 house, at 256 S., is one of the last pioneer homes built when the area was first settled, according to the report. The property is a "significant resource because it represents one of the first structures to exist in the Central City Historic District," the report says.
The one at 262 S. was built around 1891. And the Colonial Revival building at 268 S. was built as an apartment house in 1905.
Today, all three have been divided into a total of 10 apartments. They have been altered on the outside, too, with changes like stucco or asbestos siding and new window trims. Planners say such alterations could be reversed and the homes remodeled.
But Saxey said it would cost too much money to renovate them enough to justify raising the rents. He said rents cover only one-fifth of his mortgage payments. He provided numbers to the economic hardship panel showing he would lose almost $50,000 a year if he renovated the properties.
It's partly a function of the market: The land is worth more than the buildings.
If the hardship panel disagrees with Saxey, he may end up selling, and he said McDonald's has approached him. But he thinks condos are a better use of the land.
The Central City Neighborhood Council supports the demolition, though they have concerns with the design of the condos.
"I think I'm doing something that's really going to be beneficial to the area," Saxey said.

[delts145]

West-side story: Master plan of a growing city


By Rosemary Winters
The Salt Lake Tribune



West Jordan is poised to celebrate the 100,000 population mark in May - in fact, city numbers already put the head count at more than 101,000.
Next stop? The city expects to cap off at 166,000 people within three decades as it gets built out.
To prepare, West Jordan has created a master plan for 6,760, mostly undeveloped acres on the city's west side. The area - it encompasses about one-third of the city - stretches from 5600 West to Kennecott property along the Oquirrh Mountains, and from 6600 South to 10200 South.
Plans call for a variety of low-, medium- and high-density housing, mixed-use developments, business parks, light-industrial plants and open space. A balance of people with work and shopping opportunities - along with a system of bike and pedestrian trails - is intended to reduce traffic in the area and boost quality of life.
"That's the one area of our city that we can really do right. The rest of the city kind of grew up without a master plan," says Councilman Lyle Summers, whose district encompasses much of the city's west side.
It will be a "show piece for West Jordan," he says.
West Jordan community development director Tom Burdett likens the vision to Kennecott Land's Daybreak development, which butts up against the southern boundary of West Jordan's west side area.
But homes won't have to be brightly colored or feature neo-traditional architecture, as in Daybreak, Burdett says. Developers will be required, though, to use a consistent architectural theme throughout their projects.
Still, at least one landowner is unhappy with the plan.
Merlin Jones says that although he and other property owners were asked to participate in the planning process and shoulder part of the cost for an out-of-state consulting firm, the plan was changed at the last minute to impose lower-density housing.
Jones has refused to pay $40,000 for the $140,000 plan or to seek to rezone his 2,000-acre dry-wheat farm.
The City Council voted to lower neighborhood densities so the city's population cap would be 166,000, as predicted in the city's general plan - instead of 180,000 or 190,000 people, Burdett says. The council worried that bringing more than 66,000 people to the area would wreak havoc on the city's already congested roads.
But Jones felt the move was a breach of faith and sums up his situation by invoking the saying "You can't fight City Hall."
"They get their heads together and decide what you can do. Being landowners, we don't have much of a say," Jones says.
At 79, Jones is content to let the next generation - his family's and city government's - decide the issue. For now, he'll just sit on his 2,000 acres, which comprises nearly one-third of the west-side area.
But Burdett insists that, overall, the west-side blueprint resulted in density gains for landowners. On average, similar to the rest of West Jordan, the plan allows for 4.8 units per acre - far more than what was previously allowed on the predominantly agricultural lands.
"It's a business of compromise. Everybody gives a little, but everybody wins a lot," Burdett says.
In December, the city implemented the plan - it was created July 2006 - by rezoning 25 percent of the land area held by landowners who were ready and willing to change their zoning.
Anderson Development likely will be the first to test drive the new plan. The company is drawing up a mixed-use project on 138 acres west of State Route 111 and north of 7800 South.
Project Manager Ryan Mecham expects to submit preliminary plans to the city within the next three months. Mecham says the west-side blueprint requires developers to do more "front loading" and invest more in preliminary plans.
"There are still many things that are ambiguous," Mecham says, "but we look forward to working with the city and working out those ambiguities."

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by delts145

Historic homes may be razed


The home at 268 S. 700 East. (Leah Hogsten/The Salt Lake Tribune )

My sister lived in this one for about six months when she first started college. Nasty, NASTY place. I say demolish these and bring in new buildings with more density and people who will actually contribute something to the community.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by delts145

Historic homes may be razed

Condo developer has zoning on his side; Planning division wants to save them



The home at 268 S. 700 East. (Leah Hogsten/The Salt Lake Tribune )

I too say lets tear down these ugly homes to make way for new condos. I hope these condos will be tall.

[delts145]

I agree, 700 East is a a really poor location for these type homes. This one looks like it has enough architectural character to restore it. Then that would be only if they had the ambition and financial return to jack it up and move it into the interior off of 700 east.

I say the neighborhood should put some energy and focus on high standard's for the condo's, if they're not willing to move these homes and restore them.

[SLCforme]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

My sister lived in this one for about six months when she first started college. Nasty, NASTY place. I say demolish these and bring in new buildings with more density and people who will actually contribute something to the community.

Are you saying your sister didn't contribute anything to the community?

JK, but the way you worded it was funny.

I am big in to restoration of old structures instead of tearing them down and building something new, but I look at each case individually. In this case I'd have to agree with the developer. 7th is in no way historic anymore, it's commercial and high density residential. these are old structures but they're delapidated, and like he said, really don't have any historically significant aspects or beautiful architecture. And in my opinion really aren't worth renovating, from an economical or aesthetic standpoint.

I just hope they are good looking condos, but with only 23 units, I really don't think they will be very tall.
I personally think this is in a good location: the area between 4th and 11th east and 4th south and south temple. Between the U and downtown, and good access to public transport. I would like to see a bunch more high density (ie. tall) residential developments in the area. there are already several buildings in the 6-15 story range, so it's not like more would change the character of the neighborhood.

[Comrade]

Demolish those buildings? Why? Because they're a bit trashy now? Put some money into them and redevelop that area. You don't demolish historical housing stock just because it might be a bit on the gritty side. If we did that, most of central Salt Lake would look like modern day West Jordan, since many of those homes were in the state as the above in the 70s, 80s and part of the 90s.

I hope the city wins, because I hate seeing historical housing stock get demolished for what will probably be a boring condo building -- and not even a highrise one at that.

[DevdogAZ]

There is a place for historical housing, but that's not it. If the city wants to create a historic district and try to keep everything within that district old and get the owners to renovate them, that's fine. But when they've already allowed other buildings nearby to be razed for modern commercial development, and have changed the zoning to allow medium to high density residential, then they really don't have a leg to stand on if the owner of the property wants to tear it down.

I like seeing old homes restored, but I don't want to see old homes saved simply because they're old. There has to be something about them that's redeeming. If we're just going to save everything that's old, we'll never be able to redevelop any areas and people will simply move out of cities as they age.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

There is a place for historical housing, but that's not it. If the city wants to create a historic district and try to keep everything within that district old and get the owners to renovate them, that's fine. But when they've already allowed other buildings nearby to be razed for modern commercial development, and have changed the zoning to allow medium to high density residential, then they really don't have a leg to stand on if the owner of the property wants to tear it down.

I like seeing old homes restored, but I don't want to see old homes saved simply because they're old. There has to be something about them that's redeeming. If we're just going to save everything that's old, we'll never be able to redevelop any areas and people will simply move out of cities as they age.

It is in a historical district, the Central City Historic District. That whole neighborhood should be preserved unless it's proven that a building can't be redeveloped into something economically viable. I've seen a lot of blighted houses in the central city area that have been turned into great homes. Just look at WeCap, that entire neighborhood was in decay prior to gentrification and now it's one of Salt Lake's most thriving neighborhoods, even keeping the historical housing stock.

[Viperlord]

high speed rail front runner preview....

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=923605

[delts145]

In these situations we should be very specific. A neighborhood should definately be preserved. West Capitol Hill/Marmalade has become one of the most charming neighborhoods in the country. And now West Marmalade,on the West side of 300 West is being restored. However, like 700 East, "300 West is a large commercial street." I don't want to see car dealerships on 300 west or 700 east per se. But as with any six to eight lane street which serves as a major transportation and commercial artery, there must often be a denser type of residential development.
The good news is that the neighborhoods to the immediate east of 700 east have experienced an incredible renaissance. Also, the neighborhoods surrounding Liberty park on the West of 700 east are being gentrified.There should be an effort to map an overall vision statement for the specific 700 east corridor now.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

I too say lets tear down these ugly homes to make way for new condos. I hope these condos will be tall.

I'm not much of a preservationalist, but that quote makes me wonder. Back in the 60's they had that sort of attitude, that's now demonized in history ... the midset of "oh, that's a dump, tear it down."

Of course they were then replacing them with 20 story square boxes that quickly got filled with low-income tenants who turned the tower into a dump too. In our case the condos will probably stay nicer, but I wonder if we'll someday be demonized for not "saving history" by knocking that house over.

[Comrade]

One thing Salt Lake has that many western cities lack is an unbelievable historical housing stock. Even during the era of urban renewal, Salt Lake stuck it through and rarely demolished historical homes for modern residential units. Yeah, we all want height and blight definitely hurts our city, but I also want these 19th Century homes to be here well into the 21st Century.

Like I originally said, if a house can't realistically be saved, then by all means demolish it and build something better in its place. But these houses don't look that bad and with some work could actually look rather nice. And just because they're on 7th East, a rather busy street, does not make them any less historic. There are some fine housing around Liberty Park/Trolley Square and I would hate to see this become a more common thing in central Salt Lake, especially when there are already vacant fields to build on.

[delts145]

Comrade, You and I and many on this forum will agree,"threre is a reason other than just history that we want to preserve these older buildings and homes." Usually, they're just a hell of alot better looking than a lot of what is put up in their place." I do think that many new projects are definately more attractive than say the typical stock of the 60's,& 70's etc. But, I still think there needs to be a strict standard for the central city area.

[wrendog]

that house is hideous.. tear it down.

[i-215]

A little insight into the house.

[alphawolf]

Its kinda funny, these would be right at home in the Hawthorne District in stumptown. A thriving stretch of hood if I do say so myself.

[jedikermit]

(no, my sister didn't contribute anything to the community)

(really.)

I'm all for historic preservation when it makes sense--here there really isn't much worth preserving. That house looks a million times better on the outside than it does on the inside. Being divided up into ten apartments inside--that thing is already butchered. It would do it more honor to have a historic photograph of it saved and framed inside the lobby of the new condos than to leave the building standing. It's not even ON 700 East--it sits back a ways and faces the McDonalds Drive-Thru. Which is actually it's best feature, because the whole building smells like French Fries.

That section of 700 East has already been sacrificed--finish the job, get rid of these 2-3 beat-up houses, and focus on preserving something worth saving. There are beautiful homes on that same block (along 200 and 300 South), but these particular ones are slumlord firetraps who need to go.

[Comrade]

And we'll knock this down most likely for a bland, 4-5 story condo building. I think with the right updating and redevelopment that house could look pretty good. But it isn't just that house, there are two others on that lot that are even more historical (aren't pictured, but oh well). One house was built in the 1800s and owned by some pioneers.

I'm afraid we'll just continue doing this to all the poor housing in the city until there's hardly any left. You would be surprised at how a trashy house could completely be redeveloped into something spectacular. In my neighborhood, back in the early 90s, we had blocks of that type of housing and the city wanted to demolish it all for suburban housing. However people realized you needed historical context within the neighborhood and decided to revive the neighborhood. SugarHouse is now one of Salt Lake's hippest, most thriving hood and it kept its character.

My fear is that we'll do this and continue on down 7th East, go a bit east of that into the neighborhoods that are pretty rundown and build nothing but boring condos that will look completely out of date within 10 years.