Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Viperlord]

I sent Molly Robinson (SLC Planning) an e-mail regarding the height increase in the D-4 zoning for the convention center hotel.....

You may want to make sure that you e-mail or contact her, and give her your input on increasing the height limit..


I received this response.

Thank you for your email. I’m sorry we do not have additional information about this item posted on our website. We will have maps, diagrams, and other information available at the open house on Thursday.

We are considering a number of alternatives to raise the height maximum to allow the construction of the convention center hotel. We have not yet made any recommendations on what exactly the change would be. Thursday’s open house is an opportunity for the community to express their concerns and provide input on our recommendation to the Planning Commission.

We are considering the following options, all of which maintain the base allowed height as 75 feet in the D-4 zoning district:

1. Remove the 120-foot max design review height, allowing buildings taller than 75-feet without a specific maximum height, if the project goes through a Planning design review process.
This is how additional height requests are handled in our Central Business District (D-1).
2. Raise the 120-foot max design review height to 264-feet (or similar), allowing buildings taller than 75-feet, if the project goes through the design review process.
3. Raise the 120-foot max design review height for a portion of the D-4 zoning district to a specific height, allowing buildings taller than 75-feet, if the project goes through the design review process. The smaller area may be limited to just the Salt Palace property, an area outside the view corridor from I-15 and I-80 to Temple Square, or some other portion of the D-4 district.

This is not an exhaustive list. We will use our conversations at the open house, and comments via phone and email to inform our recommendation to the Planning Commission.

You are also welcome to participate at the Planning Commission meeting when the change will be discussed. It is scheduled for December 9 at 5:30 pm in room 326 at City Hall. The agenda for that meeting will be set in the coming weeks when I will be able to share with you the approximate time this item will be discussed.

Thank you,
Molly


Read the Draft Downtown Community Plan (as recommeded by the Planning Commission on 8/26/15).

MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP
Urban Designer | Project Manager for the Downtown Community Plan

URBAN DESIGN STUDIO | PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION

TEL 801-535-7261
EML [email protected]

WWW.DOWNTOWNPLANSLC.COM

[Orlando]

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but I am against option 2, with a cap at 264'. That would spread the hotel across those large blocks, and 264' is not tall at all. I will email her. Though, I'm not a citizen.

[s.p.hansen]

Jackie is the mayor. Becker Conceded today.

[SLC Projects]

YAY!!!!
proposition 1 fails!


http://fox13now.com/2015/11/17/proposition-1-fails-in-salt-lake-county/

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

YAY!!!!
proposition 1 fails!


http://fox13now.com/2015/11/17/proposition-1-fails-in-salt-lake-county/

Yeah, YAY for more congested streets, leading to more pollution leading to more illness. YAY

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Yeah, YAY for more congested streets, leading to more pollution leading to more illness. YAY

Bigger population = more taxpayers, besides we've already raised other transportation taxes that will go towards transportation. I much rather keep the money in my pocket then the pay for UTA's travel expenses.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Bigger population = more taxpayers, besides we've already raised other transportation taxes that will go towards transportation. I much rather keep the money in my pocket then the pay for UTA's travel expenses.

But the money was specifically stated that it would go to transportation, buses (service and frequency) and minor rail. No part would go to bonuses, compensation, travel or anything outside of operating the additional service and frequencies.

Today is a sad day for everyone in SL County with Asthma, heart conditions, bronchitis, under 5 years or older than 55 years as their systems are more likely to develop problems due to air pollution.

It is also a sad day for those that want businesses to move or locate within the Salt Lake area. Air quality is what is stopping more businesses from selecting Salt Lake as the location for their expansion. Just making an effort to improve the air would bring in more companies and more jobs. All of this would have increased revenue to help keep all taxes low (this includes property taxes that have gone up every year to keep up with demand for services).

Hopefully it will pass in the 2016 General Election if the State doesn't do something to alleviate it in the 2016 General Session.

--We must break the shackles of the "No Taxes" regime. For if we want a better society, we must pay for it not expect it to be given to us.--

[asies1981]

The RDA unveiled renderings for proposed enhancements to 900 south in the Central Ninth neighborhood.

[Liberty Wellsian]

That seems like a very specific number even though she immediately qualified it with "(or similar)". It sounds like that may be the height of the tallest proposal.

Originally Posted by Viperlord

I sent Molly Robinson (SLC Planning) an e-mail regarding the height increase in the D-4 zoning for the convention center hotel.....

You may want to make sure that you e-mail or contact her, and give her your input on increasing the height limit..


I received this response.

Thank you for your email. I’m sorry we do not have additional information about this item posted on our website. We will have maps, diagrams, and other information available at the open house on Thursday.

We are considering a number of alternatives to raise the height maximum to allow the construction of the convention center hotel. We have not yet made any recommendations on what exactly the change would be. Thursday’s open house is an opportunity for the community to express their concerns and provide input on our recommendation to the Planning Commission.

We are considering the following options, all of which maintain the base allowed height as 75 feet in the D-4 zoning district:

1. Remove the 120-foot max design review height, allowing buildings taller than 75-feet without a specific maximum height, if the project goes through a Planning design review process.
This is how additional height requests are handled in our Central Business District (D-1).
2. Raise the 120-foot max design review height to 264-feet (or similar), allowing buildings taller than 75-feet, if the project goes through the design review process.
3. Raise the 120-foot max design review height for a portion of the D-4 zoning district to a specific height, allowing buildings taller than 75-feet, if the project goes through the design review process. The smaller area may be limited to just the Salt Palace property, an area outside the view corridor from I-15 and I-80 to Temple Square, or some other portion of the D-4 district.

This is not an exhaustive list. We will use our conversations at the open house, and comments via phone and email to inform our recommendation to the Planning Commission.

You are also welcome to participate at the Planning Commission meeting when the change will be discussed. It is scheduled for December 9 at 5:30 pm in room 326 at City Hall. The agenda for that meeting will be set in the coming weeks when I will be able to share with you the approximate time this item will be discussed.

Thank you,
Molly


Read the Draft Downtown Community Plan (as recommeded by the Planning Commission on 8/26/15).

MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP
Urban Designer | Project Manager for the Downtown Community Plan

URBAN DESIGN STUDIO | PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION

TEL 801-535-7261
EML [email protected]

WWW.DOWNTOWNPLANSLC.COM

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

That seems like a very specific number even though she immediately qualified it with "(or similar)". It sounds like that may be the height of the tallest proposal.

All of the proposals aren't in yet. That height, 264', also wouldn't be tall enough for a 800 room hotel let alone a 1000+ room hotel on either site.

I think the numbers are there to make people feel better but I think that they would go more with option #1. This would ensure that a design review occurs while also allowing a developer to get the most out of the land.

I also think that something like #1 should occur for all spots within the D1 area, both corner and midblock locations. Raise the minimum height for corners to 375' and 450' max, remove the maximum height if a design review is completed. Midblock locations would be 100' minimum and 150' max without design review. This would ensure that all new corners would be no less than 375' and Midblock would be 100' while removing the permitting costs for developers to go higher than the max as they would just need to go through the design approval process (time rather than both time and money that currently exists).

[EPdesign]

You know that image from 1100e 500s bend looking downtown with 111 and 151 photo shopped in. Someone should up date that with the Regent Hotel in it.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Makid

All of the proposals aren't in yet. That height, 264', also wouldn't be tall enough for a 800 room hotel let alone a 1000+ room hotel on either site.

I think the numbers are there to make people feel better but I think that they would go more with option #1. This would ensure that a design review occurs while also allowing a developer to get the most out of the land.

I also think that something like #1 should occur for all spots within the D1 area, both corner and midblock locations. Raise the minimum height for corners to 375' and 450' max, remove the maximum height if a design review is completed. Midblock locations would be 100' minimum and 150' max without design review. This would ensure that all new corners would be no less than 375' and Midblock would be 100' while removing the permitting costs for developers to go higher than the max as they would just need to go through the design approval process (time rather than both time and money that currently exists).

Any decent sized project should go through a Design Review process.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by asies1981

The RDA unveiled renderings for proposed enhancements to 900 south in the Central Ninth neighborhood.

This is great! Thanks for posting! Is there a packet of additional text information to go along with the renderings that are available online?

[urban.cyclist]

Originally Posted by Makid

All of the proposals aren't in yet. That height, 264', also wouldn't be tall enough for a 800 room hotel let alone a 1000+ room hotel on either site.

I think the numbers are there to make people feel better but I think that they would go more with option #1. This would ensure that a design review occurs while also allowing a developer to get the most out of the land.

I also think that something like #1 should occur for all spots within the D1 area, both corner and midblock locations. Raise the minimum height for corners to 375' and 450' max, remove the maximum height if a design review is completed. Midblock locations would be 100' minimum and 150' max without design review. This would ensure that all new corners would be no less than 375' and Midblock would be 100' while removing the permitting costs for developers to go higher than the max as they would just need to go through the design approval process (time rather than both time and money that currently exists).

Not everything is about height. We don't need more skyscrapers. We don't need mazes of streets left constantly in the shadows because someone thought it would be cool to have a whole bunch of tall buildings. Do we really want to be Rem Koolhass' Generic City?

Let's be realistic here. Tall buildings are cool, but they do not create a good downtown. I think it would be interesting to look at a cap and trade system that allows tall buildings by selling development rights of neighboring parcels or by including certain design elements that improve the quality of the street and the pedestrian experience.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by urban.cyclist

Not everything is about height. We don't need more skyscrapers. We don't need mazes of streets left constantly in the shadows because someone thought it would be cool to have a whole bunch of tall buildings. Do we really want to be Rem Koolhass' Generic City?

Let's be realistic here. Tall buildings are cool, but they do not create a good downtown. I think it would be interesting to look at a cap and trade system that allows tall buildings by selling development rights of neighboring parcels or by including certain design elements that improve the quality of the street and the pedestrian experience.

This is exactly why the city currently has mid-block height restrictions as to not create a canyon effect through downtown. Mid-block height restrictions are eased when the neighboring building on the corner aren't taking advantage of their height potential. Example is The Regent and it's shorter neighbor on the corner, First Security; as well as Regent St Hotel, and it's shorter neighbor The Walker Center.

I don't see the city eliminating the corner and mid-block guidelines, even if it does increase the heights in these proposed area, those corner and mid-block heights may simply be bumped up some.

As for the Convention Center Hotel example, which is why this is being considered, taller is better in this case, because the two parcels being offered to the developer, by the county, could come no where near the required height to accommodate 800-1,000 rooms under the current regulations.

I have constantly argued just what you are saying though; Height for the sake of height doesn't make a city livable or walkable, but there are times where height is important to create a more pedestrian friendly street.

The current regulations in the capping a building out at 120' with a conditional use is ineffective on some streets in making them walkable. For instance a quick measurement of 300 W around 200 S says that the width of the right of way, from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk is 128'. Urban design and place making experts stress the importance of having buildings that are taller than the street is wide helps to visually narrow a street, making it more walkable, bikeable,pedestrian friendly and helps in slowing vehicle traffic, because while not physically narrower it is visually narrower.

While one really tall skyscraper doesn't make a city vibrant, there is benefits to high densities, as it brings more people to a specific area resulting in the demand for more retail services nearby, including shopping and restaurants, and it takes advantage of transit systems.

As I've said before I would rather have 2 30 story buildings in the CBD than one 60 story building. Two of that size create density and life at the street level, simply based on the sheer number of people, but does so in two area of town or even two ends of the block, to which the sphere of the densities influence reaches out from two points rather than simply one.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Orlando

This is great! Thanks for posting! Is there a packet of additional text information to go along with the renderings that are available online?

I've been promised that I will get more detailed information as soon as it is available.

[asies1981]

Photo update of the 4th West Apartments.

[SLC Projects]

And this is why the majority of tax payers said NO to prop. 1. UTA can't be trusted.


http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37421511&nid=148...nd-trip-2-others-to-follow&s_cid=queue-5

[urban.cyclist]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

This is exactly why the city currently has mid-block height restrictions as to not create a canyon effect through downtown. Mid-block height restrictions are eased when the neighboring building on the corner aren't taking advantage of their height potential. Example is The Regent and it's shorter neighbor on the corner, First Security; as well as Regent St Hotel, and it's shorter neighbor The Walker Center.

I don't see the city eliminating the corner and mid-block guidelines, even if it does increase the heights in these proposed area, those corner and mid-block heights may simply be bumped up some.

As for the Convention Center Hotel example, which is why this is being considered, taller is better in this case, because the two parcels being offered to the developer, by the county, could come no where near the required height to accommodate 800-1,000 rooms under the current regulations.

I have constantly argued just what you are saying though; Height for the sake of height doesn't make a city livable or walkable, but there are times where height is important to create a more pedestrian friendly street.

The current regulations in the capping a building out at 120' with a conditional use is ineffective on some streets in making them walkable. For instance a quick measurement of 300 W around 200 S says that the width of the right of way, from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk is 128'. Urban design and place making experts stress the importance of having buildings that are taller than the street is wide helps to visually narrow a street, making it more walkable, bikeable,pedestrian friendly and helps in slowing vehicle traffic, because while not physically narrower it is visually narrower.

While one really tall skyscraper doesn't make a city vibrant, there is benefits to high densities, as it brings more people to a specific area resulting in the demand for more retail services nearby, including shopping and restaurants, and it takes advantage of transit systems.

As I've said before I would rather have 2 30 story buildings in the CBD than one 60 story building. Two of that size create density and life at the street level, simply based on the sheer number of people, but does so in two area of town or even two ends of the block, to which the sphere of the densities influence reaches out from two points rather than simply one.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[s.p.hansen]

So, what's the deal? Are we taking the streetcar from 1100 East and then taking it to 700 E down 9th?