Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[Comrade]

Well I assume there are ways around zoning laws. But that does further my belief it won't be tall.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Well I assume there are ways around zoning laws. But that does further my belief it won't be tall.

Yes there are; those include a conditional use, up to 90' or request a zone change.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

The Depot/Gateway District has a maximum zoned height of 75', or 90' with conditional use approval.

While I don't agree with this I am just stating what is currently zoned.

Hold on, what about the Parc at the Gateway? That Condo building is 12-stories and looks a lot taller then 90FT.

[Makid]

I would just hope that if there was a serious offer for a 10+ story residential/mixed use building in that area that the city would seriously consider granting a waiver to exceed the limits.

With the land prices cheaper, I think that the SL Central area would be a great area for some taller buildings. Even if they were primarily residential, this would help transform the area.

With the existing Trax Line, planned extension and the planned Streetcar lines, the SL Central area is just begging for a zoning height adjustment.

I would be happy if the city changed the zoning in the SL Central area to:

75' minimum to 250' maximum for Residential
50' minimum to 110' maximum for commercial

Doing this, the city would be able to expand the skyline, encourage more of an urban lifestyle while not encouraging commercial highrises to leave the D1 area.

Once the Trax extension and Streetcar lines are built, the parking requirements could be lowered for the area or removed entirely and the allow the developer to determine the amount of parking needed.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Makid

I would just hope that if there was a serious offer for a 10+ story residential/mixed use building in that area that the city would seriously consider granting a waiver to exceed the limits.

With the land prices cheaper, I think that the SL Central area would be a great area for some taller buildings. Even if they were primarily residential, this would help transform the area.

With the existing Trax Line, planned extension and the planned Streetcar lines, the SL Central area is just begging for a zoning height adjustment.

I would be happy if the city changed the zoning in the SL Central area to:

75' minimum to 250' maximum for Residential
50' minimum to 110' maximum for commercial

Doing this, the city would be able to expand the skyline, encourage more of an urban lifestyle while not encouraging commercial highrises to leave the D1 area.

Once the Trax extension and Streetcar lines are built, the parking requirements could be lowered for the area or removed entirely and the allow the developer to determine the amount of parking needed.

Agreed. That area is perfect for some solid mid-rise (and maybe a couple high-rise) residential buildings.

[Future Mayor]

I agree, I think that a couple of additional 10-12 story buildings in the area would be ideal. Preferrable something a little more slim than the Gateway condos and apartments, I don't want a wall.

[ajiuO]

I would rather see a ban on stucco.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

ALSO

I forgot to mention that in the last month we did a very similar thing with Wood Partners. They flew in and met with us about purchasing and developing a site west of the Gateway area by the intermodal hub area.

So, outsiders are starting to notice SLC and want to be in our market.


here's their website
http://woodpartners.com/

It does seem like a lot of momentum is gathering for the development of housing in and around mass transit lines.

As mentioned by others, I would like to see some of the apartment projects Downtown start to develop on the taller side. This project below is adjacent to a busy transit metro stop on the Wilshire Corridor. I think an apartment development along this line would do quite well at attracting tenants to Downtown Salt Lake City, if it could pencil out okay.

A $200-million apartment and retail complex, The Vermont is the largest residential development under construction in Los Angeles since 2008. When completed in 2014, it will comprise two towers on the southeast corner of the Wilshire & Vermont intersection.

The two buildings — one 16 stories tall and the other 22 — will include 464 apartments, swimming pool, and gym; the retail portion is expected to have restaurants, coffee shop, boutique grocer, dry cleaner, bank and other neighborhood services.

Gross floor area: approximately 495,109 square feet

http://koreatownladirectory.com

.

[UtahProjects]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

When looking at annexing, you have to weigh the costs and benefits. Does annexing Millcreek bring the city more than it would need to invest into the transition? I don't think so.

Millcreek is mostly suburban housing, with no commercial center and limited amount of potential. It doesn't even include the area where the Cottonwood Mall once sat - and even the area around Highland Drive is limited (since the eastern side of the street is Holladay). So, you have to ask yourself - outside growing the population, and potential tax revenue from that population (which would also mean more spending on the whole as the city now expands its services), what does that area bring to the city?

So, Salt Lake's population now becomes 252,038 instead of its current 189,899. I don't really think that's reason to annex the area. Millcreek is a nice community - but I don't see the value it brings. I'd much rather focus on redeveloping the areas IN SLC than expanding to new areas.

It's worthwhile because this large area would now have the urban policies , development codes, and ideology of Salt Lake City, which would make the entire area more urban over time. It would also make SLC a more powerful city in the county and state with the increased residents.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by UtahProjects

It's worthwhile because this large area would now have the urban policies , development codes, and ideology of Salt Lake City, which would make the entire area more urban over time. It would also make SLC a more powerful city in the county and state with the increased residents.

Spot on. Having 250,000+ residents is alot more impressive then only 189,000 residents.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by UtahProjects

It's worthwhile because this large area would now have the urban policies , development codes, and ideology of Salt Lake City, which would make the entire area more urban over time. It would also make SLC a more powerful city in the county and state with the increased residents.

I'm really skeptical of this considering there remain huge pockets of the city that are just as suburban today as they were when they were developed in the 1950s, 60s and 70s - namely the area around Foothill and around Rose Park, which already developed similarly to Millcreek. It would just further stretch areas that are already in need of an urban makeover.

As I've said, I'd rather focus on making Salt Lake City's current limits more urban than annexing an area into the city that then will also have to be a focal point. There is enough problem areas that have been ignored by the city for a generation that we need to turn our attention to - which includes bettering the west side, better developing the Foothill neighborhood and, as I've said in the past on this forum, doing something with the area around the ballpark. The addition of Millcreek doesn't change those needs, it just adds another area to focus on for the city.

Moreover, though I'm not a west-sider, I do have to wonder how they'd approach this debate. Here the city is potentially annexing an affluent area on the east side, while a great deal of the western part of the city remains ignored - and this is a legitimate problem. It's gotten better over the years, but I know a lot of people who live in Rose Park, Poplar Grove and Glendale who feel the city constantly puts them on a back burner for development - whether it's supporting the revival of SugarHouse, 9th and 9th, downtown or the area between it and the U, while putting little effort into the neighborhood communities (especially the areas positioned fairly far from North Temple). They're legitimate concerns, and does the addition of Millcreek subtract from their potential as the city shifts its focus to the area it just annexed?

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Spot on. Having 250,000+ residents is alot more impressive then only 189,000 residents.

To whom? Can either of you point to an example where SLC was hurt by its current population, and would have, without a shadow of a doubt, benefited from the increase to 250,000? From what I can tell - the city still holds an immense amount of weight at the county & state level and I doubt they've been marginalized over these years for their population.

There just doesn't seem like a specific issue that has arisen in the past that could've been rectified by the addition of 60,000 people - not getting the MLS Stadium or the aquarium or whatever.

Now you could certainly make the case if Salt Lake consolidated with the county, it would have more influence, since it would be the county - but we're not talking about that (and the logistics of this make it nearly impossible).

[downtownslcresident]

Just found this, I don't know if anyone has seen it yet but I knew those of you that haven't would want to....it's models of the new airport terminal! Looks great!


http://www.gpaarch.com/Projects/GPA-Arch...e-City-Airport-New-Terminal-Complex.html



Edit*** when I finished actually reading the article it's the old plans, before it was put on hold. But I think that it still looks similar to te actual current plans? Think it'll still be the same?

[Comrade]

Yeah...those plans are at least fifteen years old (developed before 9/11).

Here are the plans for the new airport:



It actually calls for a reduction of 12 gates and will only be one terminal instead of three.

But there have been no concrete exterior or interior renderings - just the overview of what expansion will look like. My guess it doesn't look much like the original plans for security reasons, since they were scrapped after 9/11 (the old plans called for a lot of glass).

The project is actually going to be finished in stages - with the first major stage beginning in 2015. The entire airport is projected to be finished by 2026. So, we still have a good decade - but the terminal construction will begin in 2015 and Terminals 1 & 2 will be demolished in 2019 (and the south terminal will begin construction).

[Future Mayor]

Yes that is the plan, Phase 1, but not the entire plan. The existing A, B & C gates that are shown as "renovated" in the above rendering will eventually be demolished when the demand for more gates is needed. At that time a second set of gates will be added to the north, like the one in the GPA rendering.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Yes that is the plan, Phase 1, but not the entire plan. The existing A, B & C gates that are shown as "renovated" in the above rendering will eventually be demolished when the demand for more gates is needed. At that time a second set of gates will be added to the north, like the one in the GPA rendering.

Yeah...but that is so far in the future that it's pointless considering it part of the plan, since things can certainly change between now and whenever the airport feels the need to expand into Phase 2. For all we know, that project is 40 or 50 years off - if not longer.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Yeah...those plans are at least fifteen years old (developed before 9/11).

Here are the plans for the new airport:



It actually calls for a reduction of 12 gates and will only be one terminal instead of three.

But there have been no concrete exterior or interior renderings - just the overview of what expansion will look like. My guess it doesn't look much like the original plans for security reasons, since they were scrapped after 9/11 (the old plans called for a lot of glass).

The project is actually going to be finished in stages - with the first major stage beginning in 2015. The entire airport is projected to be finished by 2026. So, we still have a good decade - but the terminal construction will begin in 2015 and Terminals 1 & 2 will be demolished in 2019 (and the south terminal will begin construction).

What exactly is the point of this project? I can understand doing an expansion if it actually expands the number of terminals / gates.. But if it indeed reduces the number of gates by 12.. I don't really see the point. This new design doesn't seem to make walking distances any shorter... Our airport is getting a bit on the old side but its not so bad that it warrants a compleat rebuild unless we are going to get something out of it... I would rather see the money go towards expanding trax.

Am I missing something here? Is our airport such a bad earthquake hazard the it can be repaired or something?

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

What exactly is the point of this project? I can understand doing an expansion if it actually expands the number of terminals / gates.. But if it indeed reduces the number of gates by 12.. I don't really see the point. This new design doesn't seem to make walking distances any shorter... Our airport is getting a bit on the old side but its not so bad that it warrants a compleat rebuild unless we are going to get something out of it... I would rather see the money go towards expanding trax.

Am I missing something here? Is our airport such a bad earthquake hazard the it can be repaired or something?

While we are not getting more gates, the new airport will be bigger. Bigger Terminals, bigger parking garage. Fact is we have out grown our airport for awhile now and this old layout was design to handle haft of the people we are now dealing with day to day. Overall the new airport has a much better layout and better use of space.

[Makid]

This does provide the ability to have another terminal building built directly to the north. There is already a tunnel built for an underground people mover for the north terminal.

My understanding is that a second tunnel still needs to be built also.

The airport reconstruction will be to reconfigure the current terminals as well as to update the seismic stability of the airport. This will also make it more efficient. Money for this cannot be spent on Trax or other projects as it is dedicated to airport expansion and operations.

Skyguy or Projects should be able to provide more information and clarification.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

What exactly is the point of this project? I can understand doing an expansion if it actually expands the number of terminals / gates.. But if it indeed reduces the number of gates by 12.. I don't really see the point. This new design doesn't seem to make walking distances any shorter... Our airport is getting a bit on the old side but its not so bad that it warrants a compleat rebuild unless we are going to get something out of it... I would rather see the money go towards expanding trax.

Am I missing something here? Is our airport such a bad earthquake hazard the it can be repaired or something?

One thing to make clear is that the current system with its "more gates" is a bit misleading. Some of those gates can only be accessed by small aircraft (think SkyWest and the like or smaller), the new airport all gates will be able to serve all sizes of airplanes, thus we will be able to use the gates a lot more efficiently than just having some gates "dedicated" to small planes.

[redzeppelin]

Terminal 1 and the central plant facilities are 50+ years old. I've read that the heating and cooling systems are terribly inefficient and maintenance costs must be huge. The seismic stability of the older areas is such that rebuilding is more practical than retrofitting to meet current standards. The airport does a lot of things very well, and the recent/ongoing improvements to the current facilities are proof that airport management is dedicated to serving travelers well. I fly a lot for my job, I've seen a lot of airports, and I love to pass through SLC. But there is no question that the airport is due for a major overhaul.

The current plan is very practical, and provides for multiple stopping points if conditions change. The plan has full support of the airlines, who along with their passengers will pay more of the price than local taxpayers do. Even after raising fees for airlines and rental car companies, the fees that SLC charges to those companies will be lower than what many other airports charge. A lot of the project will be funded with the airport's existing cash reserves. This is a smart project all around. This slide presentation is worth a look if you want to learn more: http://www.slcairport.com/cmsdocuments/TRP-1-17-12.pdf