Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[EPdesign]

Sometimes I like getting on here to talk about size of buildings going up...sometimes I log on and get to read people measuring other things...at least your gentlemen about it.either way, I'm still waiting for news on the Regent, 151, or Cch.

Also. Why is the old La Porte site not been proposed for a high rise? Clearly both north and south corners aren't going to get anything taller. The should build tall...there isn't anything left to save

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

Sometimes I like getting on here to talk about size of buildings going up...sometimes I log on and get to read people measuring other things...at least your gentlemen about it.either way, I'm still waiting for news on the Regent, 151, or Cch.

Also. Why is the old La Porte site not been proposed for a high rise? Clearly both north and south corners aren't going to get anything taller. The should build tall...there isn't anything left to save

Has there been a new proposal for the La Porte lot?

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

Has there been a new proposal for the La Porte lot?

No. :-( I guess I could have posed the question better. Would it be possible to have a high rise at that location?

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

No. :-( I guess I could have posed the question better. Would it be possible to have a high rise at that location?

Absolutely Not! It would take away from the urban sprawl objectives of the south valley.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

No. :-( I guess I could have posed the question better. Would it be possible to have a high rise at that location?

It is my understanding that it would be possible if they were able to acquire the air rights from either building on the corners of the block.

No those two buildings probably aren't going anywhere anytime soon, but the owners would have to consider future owners 25-50 years down the line. Will downtown need additional space in the future, will those two corners be better off taller in the future? Will not having those rights to build taller effect the potential resale value down the road?

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

It is my understanding that it would be possible if they were able to acquire the air rights from either building on the corners of the block.

No those two buildings probably aren't going anywhere anytime soon, but the owners would have to consider future owners 25-50 years down the line. Will downtown need additional space in the future, will those two corners be better off taller in the future? Will not having those rights to build taller effect the potential resale value down the road?

Explain air rights.
Does that mean the transfer of being able to build to the max in that particular zoning (375 ft.), since neither building on the corners utilized it.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by bflatflat9

Explain air rights.
Does that mean the transfer of being able to build to the max in that particular zoning (375 ft.), since neither building on the corners utilized it.

That is my understanding of them. As it is currently written the C-1 zone allows for buildings on corners to be up to 375' by right and taller with conditional use approval. Corner buildings are a minimum of 100'. Mid-block buildings are capped at 100' With that said since the Broadway Tower and the other tower on that block both are shorter than 375' that could realistically translate to a mid-block tower taking that height instead. For instance that is how The Regent was built to it's height, is because the First Security/Deseret Bank building on the corner didn't utilize the height and was allowed to be "Transferred" ultimately removing the potential corner height in the future.

It is also a nice way of preserving older buildings. Transferring the rights to build taller does not make the property a target for demolition to build something taller in place of the shorter historic building, ie First Security.


Air rights can be big business in larger cites that are running out of space, this is a little different than the height rights in SLC. Here is an example; There is a building that is currently 15 stories tall, A person with money to invest in the long term can approach the building owner to lease the space from floors 16-99 for a term of 99 years. When the demand for something taller comes around the new developer must purchase the right to that space back from the person who leased it from the original owner.

[Viperlord]

I received this e-mail today. Looks likes some delays for 2 residential projects.....

These two projects were fully funded and permitted.

(The name of my company and the construction company have been left out of this for privacy & security purposes.)

######## Construction Company appreciates your proposal on the Pierpont Apartments. The project came in over budget and no longer works with the Performa with the current design. The project is under redesign and will bid again with new drawings in 3 months.

The following major changes to the project are anticipated: parking Level B2 to be removed, insertion of a new above grade concrete level, and an addition of five units. Also, modifications to product and material selections are anticipated.

As a related item, the 21st by Urbana project has been pushed to bid in January as anticipated modifications are not as extensive.

[asies1981]

Post on the North Temple Flats. They have their building permit and are just waiting for the demo permit.

[Marvland]

The new Gateway owners are now targeting a massive $100 million investment including a 162 room boutique hotel at the UP Depot. They should apply for a master UDABC resort license.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4646287-155/gateway-owners-to-spend-even-more

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Marvland

The new Gateway owners are now targeting a massive $100 million investment including a 162 room boutique hotel at the UP Depot. They should apply for a master UDABC resort license.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4646287-155/gateway-owners-to-spend-even-more

That's an interesting concept to have them apply for a resort license. I am not to familiar with all the details about how it works, but my initial reaction would be that if Vestar operated the bars and restaurants as the overall resort owner than they would be able to get around the limited number of licenses restrictions, I might however limit national restaurant chains from coming in, but I personally thinks that fine.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

I received this e-mail today. Looks likes some delays for 2 residential projects.....

These two projects were fully funded and permitted.

(The name of my company and the construction company have been left out of this for privacy & security purposes.)

######## Construction Company appreciates your proposal on the Pierpont Apartments. The project came in over budget and no longer works with the Performa with the current design. The project is under redesign and will bid again with new drawings in 3 months.

The following major changes to the project are anticipated: parking Level B2 to be removed, insertion of a new above grade concrete level, and an addition of five units. Also, modifications to product and material selections are anticipated.

As a related item, the 21st by Urbana project has been pushed to bid in January as anticipated modifications are not as extensive.

Stucco... here we come.

SLC = Stucco Laden City.

[asies1981]

New report shows that costs are less in Utah than other metros for Green/LEED buildings.

[UTPlanner]

AjiuO, I shouldn't be surprised that you only have negative comments to express about this subject. However, in this case you're incorrect. The Pierpont Apartments, proposed for construction by John Gardiner, are located in a zone that only allows for stucco/EIFS as an accent material such as trim. The building must be 70% brick or stone. Construction costs have increased dramatically and there is a severe shortage in skilled laborers due to so much development in the valley. There will be other projects that suffer the same fate.

[delts145]

Yeah UtPlanner, I'm getting a little tired of the myth of everything being all stucco too. Many are quite attractive in their variety of material choices.

If there is to be a legit complaint at this point, then perhaps asking for some more options when it comes to some of the projects design elements, and or of course a little more height.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Stucco... here we come.

SLC = Stucco Laden City.

Removing parking to add more living units is a good thing. I hope more developers recognize that they are sacrificing revenue by building too much parking.

[asies1981]

Updated plans for the Trolley Square mixed-use development. Developers want to build 6 buildings, mostly apartments with some commercial and a boutique hotel on 600 South.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Updated plans for the Trolley Square mixed-use development. Developers want to build 6 buildings, mostly apartments with some commercial and a boutique hotel on 600 South.

Well I'll be damned, a developer that is actually proposing to keep a historic structure rather than simply tear it down because it might be easier to design the building. I am of course referring to the old home on the SW corner of 5th and 7th. It also mentioned that they may one of two of the three homes that will be removed, they obviously understand the historical significance of the neighborhood and want to develop more housing while maintaining that historic character. I would hope they move all three but retaining two would be a huge change from most developers. Retaining one and possible relocating others could set a nice precedence in the city, when other developers such as Sizzler come in and propose to take out anything and everything that doesn't conform to a rectangular box shape. The City would be able to point at Trolley South and say, "they are were to do it, so you can too."


Overall I like the layout, it eases into the other residential areas with step backs or streets on the south side of the buildings. To continue to stay viable or even thrive Trolley Square needs to add population in immediate area. Trolley is not a regional destination like it once was, and it needs to solidify itself as a neighborhood commercial destination.

[UTPlanner]

Future Mayor before you go celebrating their generosity too quickly the only historic structure that is proposed to remain is one that they do not own. They have requested to demolish three residential structures along 600 South with this application. They are all contributing structures in the Central Community Historic District and their demolition will have to be approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission. They have stated that they are willing to relocate 2 of the three structures if they're forced.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

Future Mayor before you go celebrating their generosity too quickly the only historic structure that is proposed to remain is one that they do not own. They have requested to demolish three residential structures along 600 South with this application. They are all contributing structures in the Central Community Historic District and their demolition will have to be approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission. They have stated that they are willing to relocate 2 of the three structures if they're forced.

Well then I hope they are forced to relocate.