Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Makid]

Originally Posted by FullCircle

My understanding was that phase I was dependent on phase II, so that would suggest the entire project is in jeopardy. You can't share any hints at all?

Phase 2 has always been contingent on the zoning and some additional parking from the County.

The Planning Commission didn't like some of the positioning for the Phase 2 buildings that would have removed nearly 1/2 of the apartments in the phase making the overall phase and project less successful.

Phase 1 of the project was already approved and the developer could have started but in trying to work with the City Council to get Phase 2 worked out, the City Council wanted changes to Phase 1. Those changes were to come out of meetings between the Japan Town representatives and the developer.

Any changes to Phase 1 without any guarantees for Phase 2 would limit the ability for the developer to complete a homogeneous project that works as intended for the developer and their investors.

Overall, it seems like more effort was put forth to keep the existing surface parking rather than allow the developer to have approvals for Phase 2 and request the developer work with the community to include some features or items for them.

Forcing a possible redesign, again, to appease to lost history is a bad precedent. It is items like this that do make the city come across as overbearing and problematic for developers.

This impression can explain why larger projects only happen by the LDS Church. They have the patience and money to go through the processes. Remember it took 2 or 3 years for City Creek to go from an initial plan to demolition because of all the changes and meetings to include the community in the process.

Sadly, I think this is part of the reason that both the Held and Patrinely projects aren't moving forward and are basically in the same position today as they were at the same time last year.

In this instance, the City should have worked with the Japan Town community to do something directly rather than force this on a developer who, again, is replacing a surface parking lot in Phase 1 of their 2 phase project.

[RC14]

The city needs to just let people build stuff. If a surface parking lot is what is being replaced I don't know why we need to ask for anything more. Especially when we are talking about a development like this. If we were talking about a stand alone Arby's or a Super Walmart I could understand why the city might want to stop it but we shouldn't make things more difficult for developers who are adding density and improving the downtown area.

[FullCircle]

Killing a development for replacing surface parking lots in an area that used to have cultural significance is beyond ridiculous. IF they were tearing down the actual Buddhist temple then it would be a different story. Who can we contact to voice our displeasure?

[scottharding]

Originally Posted by FullCircle

Killing a development for replacing surface parking lots in an area that used to have cultural significance is beyond ridiculous. IF they were tearing down the actual Buddhist temple then it would be a different story. Who can we contact to voice our displeasure?

YES! Who do we contact.
This is absurd. Japantown is gone. It's been gone for decades. It would be lovely to have it, or even to pay homage to it, but it's a goddamn parking lot.
The way this city approaches development is a joke.

[UTPlanner]

I haven't been around in a while and don't often feel a need to post but I feel I should respond to Makid's post. The city is not stopping or slowing development and is certainly not advocating for the retention of surface parking lots.

Phase 1 of that project was approved over a year ago and they have not even applied for a building permit. They could build Phase 1 as it was approved as soon as they obtain a building permit. The issue is that they don't want to cover the construction costs; they want public funding through a TIF scenario to cover a large portion of their costs. I may personally agree that protecting Japantown is a lost cause. However if they want to move forward using their own money there would not be additional scrutiny by the city/community into the design and/or layout of the project.

Patrinely and Held are not being held up by the city in any manner. Patrinely's design was also approved over a year ago. They could pull a permit and build it as designed but they have not applied for a permit and have not even purchased the property where they want to build their tower. Held has not even put forth an idea or a design.

Sure the city is far from perfect and mistakes are made but place blame when and where it is merited.

[Orlando]

Thanks for the clarification. I assumed as much about all of those developments. It's not the city that's impeding these developments.

[Utah_Dave]

The general feel and frustration I have, and probably most others on this forum have is SLC seems less willing or less easy to work with then some surrounding cities such as Lehi,Draper, and Sandy when it comes to developers. Perhaps this Japan town isn’t as big a factor as it seems but none the less we are talking about it and so is the city. It also seemed like the residents of 99 west had more say then they should have when it came to the height zoning of the convention center block. Then you have the State stepping in and wrestling control of the inland port from the city. Am I oversimplifying this? Or is SLC different then the rest of the Wasatch front when it comes to working with developers and implementing a vision or goal?

[Old&New]

Japan Town may be a thing again one day, but the Salt Palace is currently reserving that space. 100 south is just a back alley atm, and this development only would have helped the area.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

I haven't been around in a while and don't often feel a need to post but I feel I should respond to Makid's post. The city is not stopping or slowing development and is certainly not advocating for the retention of surface parking lots.

Phase 1 of that project was approved over a year ago and they have not even applied for a building permit. They could build Phase 1 as it was approved as soon as they obtain a building permit. The issue is that they don't want to cover the construction costs; they want public funding through a TIF scenario to cover a large portion of their costs. I may personally agree that protecting Japantown is a lost cause. However if they want to move forward using their own money there would not be additional scrutiny by the city/community into the design and/or layout of the project.

Patrinely and Held are not being held up by the city in any manner. Patrinely's design was also approved over a year ago. They could pull a permit and build it as designed but they have not applied for a permit and have not even purchased the property where they want to build their tower. Held has not even put forth an idea or a design.

Sure the city is far from perfect and mistakes are made but place blame when and where it is merited.

Thanks for this UT planner. Not sure why everybody is freaking out about Phase 2 when they really need to build Phase 1. That's on the developers. They are relying on the TIF to partially bankroll this thing it sounds like. The Japantown thing was inevitable because of the TIF ask. I am reaching up the ladder to float the idea of vacating 100 S., which is the most useless stretch of asphalt in downtown, and focusing the Japantown effort there. We will see if anybody likes that.

SLC is very difficult to work with, especially when you are dealing with public amenities or any of the many design review scenarios. One of the primary issues is the lack of communication between different divisions and a bunch of poorly written code. Here is the flow: The city staff will come out of DRT with a punchlist that never stays the same (I always recommend multiple DRT because of this). Then you're off to plan review where they contradict a buch of stuff from DRT. Then the fire marshal (a completely different thing than the fire part of building services) steps in and grinds everything up. They especially like to come in after ground breaking and cite their own "enhanced" version of IBC. Then the business licencing division and final inspection regime clown show starts. It's a mess. That will never, ever change. You just need to power through and stay positive. There is a major uprising against the whole fire process happening right now, with a coalition of major developers. Hope it changes things.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Thanks for this UT planner. Not sure why everybody is freaking out about Phase 2 when they really need to build Phase 1. That's on the developers. They are relying on the TIF to partially bankroll this thing it sounds like. The Japantown thing was inevitable because of the TIF ask. I am reaching up the ladder to float the idea of vacating 100 S., which is the most useless stretch of asphalt in downtown, and focusing the Japantown effort there. We will see if anybody likes that.

SLC is very difficult to work with, especially when you are dealing with public amenities or any of the many design review scenarios. One of the primary issues is the lack of communication between different divisions and a bunch of poorly written code. Here is the flow: The city staff will come out of DRT with a punchlist that never stays the same (I always recommend multiple DRT because of this). Then you're off to plan review where they contradict a buch of stuff from DRT. Then the fire marshal (a completely different thing than the fire part of building services) steps in and grinds everything up. They especially like to come in after ground breaking and cite their own "enhanced" version of IBC. Then the business licencing division and final inspection regime clown show starts. It's a mess. That will never, ever change. You just need to power through and stay positive. There is a major uprising against the whole fire process happening right now, with a coalition of major developers. Hope it changes things.

That stretch of 100 south is used to stage trucks for events at both vivint and the spcc. I like your ixea but unless it includes a subgrade used for freight I don't see it happening. That would be an expensive plaza but given the location it may be worth it.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by StevenF

I totally agree. Most of us as individuals don't see our personal impact on the environment as an issue. I once told someone about how a company in Europe was developing a water recycling technology for showers. It would reuse 90% of the water and spin out 10% behind the wall to remove the dirty particulates. He then said that did not matter as there is no sign of water issues in the Idaho Falls area and he saw no need for the technology for his personal use. This was over 5 years ago and now that he has a wife and kids with a home of his own I would love to see if his views have changed. But the fact is most people just don't see their individual impact as an issue.

Then there are those like me that do but financially I am unable to purchase an electric car. I don't own my own home for solar power.

My wife does take the bus to and from work, but that is easy since she just rides the 54 bus to Murray Central as she works at IMC. My wife and I do our best to keep school and jobs within 5-10 miles from where we live. With my wife working at IMC and my kids going to AISU, it would be great to find a place close enough to both so walking is possible.

We can't put the responsibility for change on the individual. The vast majority of our infrastructure is car centric and the vast majority of cars available to purchase are internal combustion. As long as those 2 things remain true we will continue to have nasty air.

We know what we have to do at a state and county level to address our air quality. Our gov can either act anz fix the issue or lay the impetus to act on the individual and live with dirty air.

[Ironweed]

Are the developers the ones at fault for the perpetual snafus? Possibily. This Richie Group sounds like it believes in unicorn ice cream and ferrie farts. The idea of this area susidizing any portion of their development is absurd. This is Utah after all. Some people here are so cheap they could rub two nickles together and start a camp fire.

Haven't Held and other developers built several project in other cities?

The demand is there. Especially for blocks of space up to 50sq ft. What's the problem?

The finger is pointing right back at the city and it's incompetence. I mentioned a while back that a good friend of mine used to work for the redevelopment agency. She left after ninety days. They have no clue what they are doing.

[Makid]

My issue and what I was primarily referring to was the City Council imposing near impossible items on the Developer in order to receive a possible approval of the D-4 Overlay zoning without the increase Southern Setback required by the planning commission for Phase 2.

Because the developer got approval for a Planned Development, Phase 1 is contingent on approvals for Phase 2. This is why Phase 1 hadn't started construction yet.

The only money that the developer has requested is $15 Million for additional parking within Phase 2. The original request came from SL County and SL County will provide the funds to be repaid over 15 to 30 years. SLC would have first access to the funds once repayment started allowing them to keep the money within SLC if wanted.

Without the funds, the Developer would scale down some retail and the Western Apartments (West side of the planned road, to be built after the 26 story residential tower). This is due to a request for additional parking to support the Convention Center from the County.

The Developer hasn't asked for any other funds or loan guarantees. Yet, when the Developer approached the City Council for removing the Planning Commission setback near the old mansion along 2nd West, it was brought up that the Developer should work with representatives for Japan Town for updates along 1st South and the already approved Phase 1 buildings and zoning.

It is this that I was referring to when I said the City slowing processes and making outside requests. This is what creates the stigma of a City being hard to work with. A developer approaches the City Council for a zoning update on phase 2 or 3 of their Planned Development and the City Council making update requests for Phase 1.

This causes extra time and money as well as possible design changes to an already approved portion of the project. Had the City Council said it needed to work with Japan Town for possible updates to Phase 2 and items along 2nd West, I don't think there would be any issues as Phase 2 was only mocked out rather than fully planned with architectural work being completed.

With regards to Block 67, without the approvals on Phase 2, Phase 1 would need to change to ensure that the entire project was profitable.

I have no issue with the Planning Commission as they were quick, it is the City Council that has messed it up.

[JMK]

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases...m-the-huntsman-foundation-300776633.html

Huntsman Cancer Institute's Next Expansion for Cancer Patients Nearly Doubles in Size Thanks to a $30 Million Gift from the Huntsman Foundation

Peter Huntsman, CEO of the Huntsman Foundation and chairman and CEO of the Huntsman Cancer Foundation (HCF), announced today a transformational $30 million gift from the family's foundation. This donation allows Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) at the University of Utah (U of U) to better plan for and address the future needs of cancer patients in the Mountain West. The gift is in addition to the $40 million already raised by HCF to support the construction of the Kathryn F. Kirk Center for Comprehensive Cancer Care and Women's Cancers at Huntsman Cancer Institute.
The gift will allow the planned HCI expansion to grow from 102,000 square feet of new space to 200,000 square feet, and from four to eight stories. Since the initial announcement of this new expansion, the Huntsman family has worked in cooperation with the U of U and U of U Health to address HCI's longer-term needs.

After a Huntsman Foundation board meeting, members unanimously decided to commit further resources for additional capabilities. "My mother Karen, our family foundation's chairwoman, my siblings, and I, are honored to continue to invest in the future of HCI. Combined with the more than one million donors who help support this globally recognized institute, we are committed to eradicating this disease," said Huntsman.

Susan Sheehan, president and COO of HCF, noted, "The Huntsman family has once again extended immense generosity and kindness to help our community in an area of critical need. As it has done since HCI's founding in 1993, the family is looking toward the future and anticipating ways they can offer hope and optimism in the face of this dreaded disease. We are very grateful for the family's vision and loyal support."

Other major donors to the expansion are the Spencer and Kristen Kirk family, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and doTERRA International.

The major expansion of HCI is projected to cost $129 million, of which more than $70 million will come from philanthropic funds. The new patient care facility will include four floors of clinical space, an expanded wellness center, two floors to house faculty offices, and two floors available for future build-out based on cancer patient needs. Pending final approval by state and university entities, construction is slated to begin December 2019 and the building is anticipated to open to patients in September 2022.

[nushiof]

New information and renderings for Liberty Sky have been added to the citizen portal. 21 stories, with a height of 262 to the top of the architectural feature. Happy to see this moving forward but disappointed it keeps getting shorter. Looks to be about the same height now as the Regent, but with more width.


https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Citizen...64&agencyCode=SLCREF&IsToShowInspection=

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Makid

My issue and what I was primarily referring to was the City Council imposing near impossible items on the Developer in order to receive a possible approval of the D-4 Overlay zoning without the increase Southern Setback required by the planning commission for Phase 2.

Because the developer got approval for a Planned Development, Phase 1 is contingent on approvals for Phase 2. This is why Phase 1 hadn't started construction yet.

The only money that the developer has requested is $15 Million for additional parking within Phase 2. The original request came from SL County and SL County will provide the funds to be repaid over 15 to 30 years. SLC would have first access to the funds once repayment started allowing them to keep the money within SLC if wanted.

Without the funds, the Developer would scale down some retail and the Western Apartments (West side of the planned road, to be built after the 26 story residential tower). This is due to a request for additional parking to support the Convention Center from the County.

The Developer hasn't asked for any other funds or loan guarantees. Yet, when the Developer approached the City Council for removing the Planning Commission setback near the old mansion along 2nd West, it was brought up that the Developer should work with representatives for Japan Town for updates along 1st South and the already approved Phase 1 buildings and zoning.

It is this that I was referring to when I said the City slowing processes and making outside requests. This is what creates the stigma of a City being hard to work with. A developer approaches the City Council for a zoning update on phase 2 or 3 of their Planned Development and the City Council making update requests for Phase 1.

This causes extra time and money as well as possible design changes to an already approved portion of the project. Had the City Council said it needed to work with Japan Town for possible updates to Phase 2 and items along 2nd West, I don't think there would be any issues as Phase 2 was only mocked out rather than fully planned with architectural work being completed.

With regards to Block 67, without the approvals on Phase 2, Phase 1 would need to change to ensure that the entire project was profitable.

I have no issue with the Planning Commission as they were quick, it is the City Council that has messed it up.

I'm not sure why Phase 1 couldn't be profitable by itself. Is it dependent on the garage tif on phase 2? Does the city have issue with Phase 2 because they trying to do 2 or 3 towers on one quarter of a block? The only renderings that I've seen seem like a jumbled mess. I really like Phase 1 though.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I'm not sure why Phase 1 couldn't be profitable by itself. Is it dependent on the garage tif on phase 2? Does the city have issue with Phase 2 because they trying to do 2 or 3 towers on one quarter of a block? The only renderings that I've seen seem like a jumbled mess. I really like Phase 1 though.

Phase 1 is profitable but the road cutting through the phase in anticipation of Phase 2 wouldn't work without the approval of plans for Phase 2. This does mean that they could build Phase 1 without the road but that would limit the retail offerings as they are based on a completed road and an estimated weighted value of Residences and Visitors for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. This would reduce the profit margin to a point that the ROI for investors may need to be extended to 10+ years.

Regarding Phase 2, the Planning Commission wanted an increase setback above 25' to provide a visual setback for the mansion (antique store) along 2nd South. This would cut out nearly 60% of the residential from the primary residential tower. As the 3 towers share a single podium, the costs would increase greatly to move the residential to another location.

It was the Developers desire to have the Planning Commissions setback removed by the City Council that during that discussion, it was brought up that the development along 1st South (Phase 1) should work with Japan Town and incorporate changes.

The City Council agreed to take up the Developers request for the removal of the setback once the Developer completed some mediated meetings from the Japan Town community to take their input and requests and make changes to the plans.

These changes if implemented would require going through the planning commission again adding increased costs for the project. There is also no guarantee on the setback update as the City Council would want to see the updated plans and the approval from the Planning Commission before making their update. This is only because once the City Council removes the setback, there would be no guarantee that the Developer would use the updated plans for Phase 1 without the Planning Commission sign off.

It sets up a catch-22 situation where if the Developer makes the changes and the City Council doesn't approve the setback removal, the updated phase 1 may not be profitable by itself. This could lead to a revamp of Phase 2 or a complete scrapping of the project.

The developer doesn't need the TIF for parking in Phase 2. The County is offering the money only because they would like to have some guaranteed parking for the Convention Center. It would be County funds but as the funds would be administered by the City, it needs City approval (because it isn't a County funded project).

[Makid]

Originally Posted by nushiof

New information and renderings for Liberty Sky have been added to the citizen portal. 21 stories, with a height of 262 to the top of the architectural feature. Happy to see this moving forward but disappointed it keeps getting shorter. Looks to be about the same height now as the Regent, but with more width.


https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Citizen...64&agencyCode=SLCREF&IsToShowInspection=

Even though it is shorter and down from 300 units as originally proposed, I still like it and can't wait for it to be built.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Elevated setbacks came about in this country because easterners feared that these new skyscrapers would block out the sun leaving their streets in perpetual shade. With our wide right of ways and being across the street from a public building setbacks seem downright silly and pointless.

One of many examples of zoning run amok. This is why we can't have nice things.

[Orlando]

There's all sorts of reasons for setbacks. In the Seattle zoning code, there are different setbacks depending on the particular zone. They are there to help transition or to soften some heights of buildings adjacent to others. It's not just a Manhattan thing.