Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4 - Page 323

Utah_Dave · #**6441** Posted **May 24, 2016, 12:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nushiof

Just got this email regarding the CCH public hearing. I won't be able to attend, but I would encourage all of you to go and be heard (as long you as advocate for a new tallest and iconic CCH). If you prefer a bland stucco wall of 20 stories, please stay home

. You can also submit comments via email below (I will do that). I imaging some 99 West residents may appear and argue for a shorter CCH, so we need to show up en masse.

"Tomorrow evening the SLC council will open a public hearing on the proposed changes to the D-4 Zoning District. The proposed changes will allow buildings taller than 120 feet in a portion of the D-4 Zoning District. The specific area is bounded by South Temple, West Temple, 200 South, and 200 West, the location of most of the Salt Palace Convention Center. The change will enable the developer of a convention center hotel in this area. A final location or design for the hotel has not been determined. That process is being led by SL County...."

"If you would like to participate in the public hearing, please complete a comment card and return it to a City Council staff member. When your name is called, you will have two minutes to share your comments on the zoning change... if you are unable to attend, you may submit written comments to [email protected]"

Remember, key word is Iconic for this building! Encourage them to create zoning that encourages Iconic buildings! Let's see if the wife wants to spend some aniversary night at the meeting.

Gastroc · #**6442** Posted **May 24, 2016, 3:00 AM**

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3924048-155/salt-lake-city-to-consider-scrapping

Article on CCH Salt Lake County meeting tomorrow

wrendog · #**6443** Posted **May 24, 2016, 3:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastroc

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3924048-155/salt-lake-city-to-consider-scrapping

Article on CCH Salt Lake County meeting tomorrow

Aaaaand... Once again I'm reminded how incredibly lame commenters are on sltrib.com.

Highrise_Mike · #**6444** Posted **May 24, 2016, 4:53 AM**

I'm writing an email to the Council right now and everyone else should do the same so there is some good support for the height increase!

ajiuO · #**6445** Posted **May 24, 2016, 4:06 PM**

I had a great idea for the 500 south improvements. We could move all of the homeless shelters to 500 south so that all the bums are hanging out on the street. We could put up billboards along 500s that say "Leaving Utah? Take a friend" then we could have a promotion that if you take a bum out of Utah you get free gas at the border.

jedikermit · #**6446** Posted **May 24, 2016, 4:23 PM**

(email sent)

ryerop · #**6447** Posted **May 24, 2016, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrendog

Aaaaand... Once again I'm reminded how incredibly lame commenters are on sltrib.com.

I just posted an article in the Sugarhouse thread from the Tribune and made the same mistake of reading the comment section, if the inversion were currently here I would say the comments are the result of lack of oxygen, but since it is currently pretty decent air I don't get some of the logic, or lack there of that commenters use.

Viperlord · #**6448** Posted **May 24, 2016, 6:58 PM**

A small blib about the State Street Project.

Challenges delay affordable housing project in downtown SLC

http://fox13now.com/2016/05/23/challenges-delay-affordable-housing-project-in-downtown-slc/

Future Mayor · #**6449** Posted **May 24, 2016, 7:23 PM**

I think the biggest issue was that the LaPorte Group got in a bit over their head on the project. I realize they have done many projects, but the majority of them have been rehab projects.

I had initially put in on the RFP (partnering with a developer from Cleveland) and was one of the three finalists selected, if full disclosure however there were only three submissions.

I realized that with the experienced partner over 1,700 miles away that it would be much to big of a project to enter the proposal phase, for my first project, and I reluctantly bowed out. I still like the concept of the project and I am confident it will get back on track really soon.

The 20% affordable threshold one key that I like about how they are trying to revive the project. It's no surprise to anyone because I continue to preach it, but I think the best affordable housing is mixed in with market rate, even if that percentage is up to 50% affordable, as long as there are affordable benchmarks, a percentage that fall within the 80%, 60%, 40% and even less of the AMI.

asies1981 · #**6450** Posted **May 24, 2016, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

A small blib about the State Street Project.

Challenges delay affordable housing project in downtown SLC

http://fox13now.com/2016/05/23/challenges-delay-affordable-housing-project-in-downtown-slc/

We could see the height of this project increase to accommodate more units to make the project more financially feasible for the new developer.

nushiof · #**6451** Posted **May 24, 2016, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highrise_Mike

I'm writing an email to the Council right now and everyone else should do the same so there is some good support for the height increase!

I sent my email earlier today. If anyone attends the hearing tonight, please post a recap for the group. I'd be interested to hear what was discussed re CCH.

Future Mayor · #**6452** Posted **May 24, 2016, 10:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by asies1981

We could see the height of this project increase to accommodate more units to make the project more financially feasible for the new developer.

Is the current structure, foundations and steel already in place, designed to accommodate a taller structure? I don't see why they would have built it to handle a larger load than was planned. If they did, than that would be part of the funding and cost problems they ran into.

While I'm no structural engineer, I would assume that building a foundation that could accommodate 2 or 4 more stories to a 10 story building, increasing the potential load by 20 - 40% would be a really bad plan for the developer, especially on a project that already had a tight financial window. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on adding 20-40 percent more floors adding 20-40% greater costs.

urban.cyclist · #**6453** Posted **May 24, 2016, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Is the current structure, foundations and steel already in place, designed to accommodate a taller structure? I don't see why they would have built it to handle a larger load than was planned. If they did, than that would be part of the funding and cost problems they ran into.

While I'm no structural engineer, I would assume that building a foundation that could accommodate 2 or 4 more stories to a 10 story building, increasing the potential load by 20 - 40% would be a really bad plan for the developer, especially on a project that already had a tight financial window. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on adding 20-40 percent more floors adding 20-40% greater costs.

I've been told by someone at the city that it will all have to be ripped out. Apparently the structural engineer list his license over the project.

Viperlord · #**6454** Posted **May 25, 2016, 12:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban.cyclist

I've been told by someone at the city that it will all have to be ripped out. Apparently the structural engineer list his license over the project.

I can confirm that. The structural engineer did lose his license. He also lost his whole business as well.

I would be that the structural issues with the project will continue to plague the building. I don't think that what has already been built can be salvaged.

Comrade · #**6455** Posted **May 25, 2016, 3:40 AM**

That whole site was such a waste. The buildings there weren't great by any stretch but infinitely better than the hole that'll dominate the site for the foreseeable future.

Utah_Dave · #**6456** Posted **May 25, 2016, 3:42 AM**

Anything good to report from the city council meeting? Figured we would have some news on here about it.

Ironweed · #**6457** Posted **May 25, 2016, 6:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Anything good to report from the city council meeting? Figured we would have some news on here about it.

Crickets.....As usual.....

Viperlord · #**6458** Posted **May 25, 2016, 6:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Crickets.....As usual.....

I watched the city council meeting minutes online.

http://slcgov.iqm2.com/citizens/default.aspx

The majority of people who commented were against the "unlimited height" clause. They felt that the unlimited height limit was premature and way out of line. They feared that unlimited height really left it too wide open, and could result in a building that would be "too tall" for the area.

Also 2 or 3 of the city council members agreed that they were opposed against the unlimited height limit, without knowing what the final product will be. They didnt want to give unlimited height without knowing what the product would look like (size, width, etc). One council member favored the south site location over the north site.

delts145 · #**6459** Posted **May 25, 2016, 11:31 AM**

Okay, so what do these people consider as too tall for the area?

Also, regarding the State St. project. What sort of resume did that structural engineer have before the State St. project? What projects had he already completed?

nushiof · #**6460** Posted **May 25, 2016, 1:21 PM**

Man this height restriction talk is bumming me out. Now, this article says Mayor McAdams envisions a CCH of only 25-30 stories. I am underwhelmed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/24/salt-lake-county-wants-height-limit-scrapped-for-t/