Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[EPdesign]

I might get slaughtered for saying this. But I actually like how it's turning out so far. I don't know how I will feel about it once the arches are complete. South Temple.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

I might get slaughtered for saying this. But I actually like how it's turning out so far. I don't know how I will feel about it once the arches are complete. South Temple.

I really like the poly sheeting facade, innovative.

[Makid]

Developer gives up on South Temple project, cites shifting concerns of Historic Landmark Commission

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3514348-155/developer-gives-up-on-south-temple?page=1

A prominent Utah home developer is canceling plans to build new apartments on Salt Lake City's South Temple after a city panel charged with protecting historic districts rejected his project several times.

After months of discussions, plan changes and public meetings, Bryson Garbett of Garbett Homes said he was forced to pull the plug due to costly delays, while voicing deep frustration about being given what he claims was conflicting guidance from the city's Historic Landmark Commission.

"I really don't see in the process any end to it," the company president said Monday. We're no closer now than we were. In fact, we're further away."

Garbett had proposed a six-story residential and commercial building on a vacant lot on the southeast corner of 500 East and South Temple, to be known as Hardison Apartments. The mixed-use complex was designed to include about 166 studio, one- and two-bedroom rentals; 5,000 square feet of retail space; and more than 200 parking stalls.

Although the project didn't involve demolishing existing structures, its South Temple location put it within a designated historic district, requiring review by the landmark commission for a certificate of appropriateness to the neighborhood's historic character.

Garbett said "we couldn't understand what they wanted. We complied with all their requirements — zoning, setbacks, design. We complied with everything."

Attempts to meet individually with commission members to better grasp their issues, Garbett said, were rebuffed. "They didn't want to talk to us," he said.

After spending nearly $200,000 on architects' fees and several renewals of an option to buy the South Temple land, Garbett said, he has been forced to let the Hardison Apartments project go.

"We're out of time," he said.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Makid

Developer gives up on South Temple project, cites shifting concerns of Historic Landmark Commission

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3514348-155/developer-gives-up-on-south-temple?page=1

After watching the meeting I sensed this would happen, the HLC was so vague in how the project could be better.

[asies1981]

Interesting RDA meeting today, the Mayor requested that the RDA reconsider the agreement for the Paperbox site.

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I really like the poly sheeting facade, innovative.

I knew you'd like it :-) <3 lol

[Makid]

County moves toward new offices for the DA

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3519695-155/county-moves-toward-new-offices-for

he Salt Lake County district attorney's office moved another step closer Tuesday to getting its own office space.

County Council members formalized a commitment made last June to budget an additional $20.1 million for the construction of two buildings to house the district attorney's administrative offices.

That addition increases the project cost to $65.4 million. When first proposed in 2009, the bottom line was roughly $33 million.

But problems soon developed with the original plan, sites changed and a second office building was deemed necessary to prepare for even more growth in the booming south county.

Even with the skyrocketing bottom line, the council accepted Mayor Ben McAdams' calculations that showed the county would save $19 million in the first 30 years of owning its own buildings rather than continuing to rent space.

The council also endorsed a consultant's suggestion that a "construction manager at risk" approach be followed to complete the project.

Consultant David Hart said that approach will function more effectively than a traditional design-build system by allowing the county's project team to confer more frequently with the contractor on budget matters and other issues involved in the two buildings:

• A 110,000-square-foot headquarters for the district attorney at 465 S. Main St., directly west of the Matheson Courthouse

The unfolding plans are being developed with an eye toward the county sharing the building with another tenant. Deputy Salt Lake County Attorney Ralph Chamness said his office has a letter-of-intent to include the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office in the building.

This may mean that we get a taller building then possibly expected. The site isn't all that wide and if the County is taking up 110,000 sq ft, another tenant could take another 50,000 to 80,000 sq ft.

I wonder if they would see if there is more interest. Just 2 tenant and close to 200,000 should be around 10 to 13 stories depending on the design. Another 1 or 2 tenants and it could top 300,000 and near 15 to 18 stories.

While costs would go up, the additional rents would help off-set the costs and bring in additional revenue for the County.

[bbart76]

Originally Posted by Makid

Developer gives up on South Temple project, cites shifting concerns of Historic Landmark Commission

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3514348-155/developer-gives-up-on-south-temple?page=1

I agree the Historic Landmark Commission does need to be more specific on what they are and are not looking for. Though, all of the renderings were basically the same dull style. Maybe if a non-Utah company developed the site, we might get something that deserves to be on South Temple.

[bbart76]

My 2 cents on The Gateway.

The only thing wrong with the Gateway were the owners. They cared less what happened with the property and what tenets they had and didn't have. They didn't do one thing to try to keep any of the tenets when City Creek opened and they didn't do anything to try to keep any or bring any in after. With owners who actually care about the Gateway, it will thrive with almost anything they do. There are a dozen mall stores that are not downtown that my wife and neighbors all go to Fashion Place or Station Park to shop. The location is great, there are plenty of people for two "malls" downtown. Now with the number of units going up within walking distance of the Gateway, if the new owners just put a little effort in, it will be just fine.

Yes, there are a number of things they can AND should do to make it better. I'm not saying it's great or that I even like the place, just that its failure had more to do with the owners than anything else.

I do think a grocery store in place of the old Staples is a fantastic idea.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Interesting RDA meeting today, the Mayor requested that the RDA reconsider the agreement for the Paperbox site.

Isaac, I do like the information and really like the thought from Micah Peters.

I think the city should look into this. They should also cap the amount of converted units to around 20% - 25%. This would help keep most of the current tenants/owners while also bringing in some lower income people.

I would also like to see something that would help the middle income people a bit more. Maybe something that would help lower rents/costs for all or even a set percentage of the units would help.

This way we would see a larger array of residents in and around downtown.

Sorry for not bringing the quote that I am referring to over as Isaac does get paid by his site, I don't want tho reduce his income.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Makid

Developer gives up on South Temple project, cites shifting concerns of Historic Landmark Commission

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3514348-155/developer-gives-up-on-south-temple?page=1

I know the site and ordinance issues intimately having handled the original entitlements and plans for the 508 building (directly east of the Bernolfo parcel) years ago. Garbett was not "compliant". They failed to address the step back and massing requirements of the ST Historic District. Variances and conditional uses in SLC historic districts are nearly impossible. The only new construction that I know of that district that does not step back is the Lotus building across from the Cathedral. The only reason they got the variance is because it was similar to the massing of the FBI building to the east and the Barbara Worth to the west and they agreed to the scaffold "Green Wall" on the north end of the building as a carrot to the Hysterical Historicals. Garbett is not an apartment developer and this is a big first apartment project. Frankly, their civil team should have seen this coming and either adjusted the plans or walked on the contract.

That being said, all of the talk about the lack of quality design etc rings hollow. This stood as the first Bernolfo-Bamberger-Priskos parcel to be traded in decades. It's not a good thing that they pulled out. Now we have another weed lot that will sit there for who knows how long while our downtown overlords wait longer for the "right price" (the pricing on that parcel is borderline hilarious BTW). Not something to be reveled in or celebrated. No smart developer is going to swoop in and build anything for a long time.

[Ironweed]

". Not something to be reveled in or celebrated. No smart developer is going to swoop in and build anything for a long time.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I can easily get the home bums to set up an attractive tent city there at no cost. It'll surely add to the neighborhood.

[ThePusherMan]

Can't say that I'm upset. I'd rather have an empty lot than either of those proposals in a historic district. Build that 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in the suburbs.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

Can't say that I'm upset. I'd rather have an empty lot than either of those proposals in a historic district. Build that 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in the suburbs.

I agree. While a weed lot might sit there for 5-10 years at the most... The ugly building would be there for decades or centuries.... I would rather wait a few years and get something nice in that location.... We have enough of "the same old" going up on 400 south and around the gateway area... We don't need that garbage on south Temple.

I'm honestly unhappy with the way 400s is turning out. I think "Encore" is the latest? I hate that building. I think the city should require base retail space In most residents buildings along 400 s. I would like to see the section of block with KFC, Burger King, and wallgreens demalished and replaced with a residential building that houses all 3 of those former businesses in the base... Then I would like to see Baskin Robins move to the old Snailgroves location and maybe put some town homes where that and Wendy's is with retail on the west end of that strip

[Future Mayor]

While I agree that we want something nice, that fits the context of South Temple, I think the most frustrating part is that it seems as if the Historical Committee doesn't seem to know exactly what that is.

They told the developer what they didn't like, gave them direction on all the things that needed to be changed, yet when those changes are made, they still don't like it. They need to provide specific instruction rather than just general "we don't like this, change it" but then they don't like the changes they required. If it helps them know what they want, they need to do some research on new development in historic areas around the country to see what types of things they like and actually give that type of feedback to the applicant. Don't be vague, and then expect magnificent results based on vague suggestions.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

Can't say that I'm upset. I'd rather have an empty lot than either of those proposals in a historic district. Build that 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in the suburbs.

I agree with you. Keep the weeds trimmed and the lot clean. Wait for or actively solicit a developer that cares enough and is financially able to put up the right project for that location. There is no doubt that if a developer were willing and able to design and build a project similar in material and element finish of the Hardware or Regent Projects it would have enthusiastic support. Even better yet, create a sibling whose exterior is authentically similar to the Maryland, and the board will give the developer a standing ovation. Like myself, I'm sure at this point in time the decision makers are finally just sick and tired of developers trying to get away with dumbing down South Temple. Imo, If a developer can't afford to financially carry the extra risk of a properly finished upscale development on So. Temple, then they have no business wasting that very special street and neighborhoods time.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

I'm honestly unhappy with the way 400s is turning out. I think "Encore" is the latest? I hate that building.

Really? I don't mind the Encore building at all. I get what you are saying about street activation but I think it is a good looking building. Maybe I am just distracted by my desire to claw my eyes out every time I look across the street at the Season on Denver. JFC that building is hideous.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

While I agree that we want something nice, that fits the context of South Temple, I think the most frustrating part is that it seems as if the Historical Committee doesn't seem to know exactly what that is.

They told the developer what they didn't like, gave them direction on all the things that needed to be changed, yet when those changes are made, they still don't like it. They need to provide specific instruction rather than just general "we don't like this, change it" but then they don't like the changes they required. If it helps them know what they want, they need to do some research on new development in historic areas around the country to see what types of things they like and actually give that type of feedback to the applicant. Don't be vague, and then expect magnificent results based on vague suggestions.

I agree that they need some sort of clear vision... Rule #1 should be that the exterior is 100% brick.... We need a ban of stucco or any other cheap/easy product on south temple.... I'm sick of all the apartment buildings with stucco, touches of metal, facade brick highlights, and "modern" materials.... Most of the residential going up in this city looks the same.... I'm growing bored of it.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

I agree that they need some sort of clear vision... Rule #1 should be that the exterior is 100% brick.... We need a ban of stucco or any other cheap/easy product on south temple.... I'm sick of all the apartment buildings with stucco, touches of metal, facade brick highlights, and "modern" materials.... Most of the residential going up in this city looks the same.... I'm growing bored of it.

I was just thinking the same thing. We need higher standards on South Temple.

[Ironweed]

How about a free-mason temple part deuce? Hey, the Mormons do it all the time.