Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by airportvids

The link says I need an account to view.

I get the same thing

[EPdesign]

Which is block 22? I'm excited about this.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

Which is block 22? I'm excited about this.

This is the Patrinely Group project. Phase 1 is 6th South and Main, Phase 2 is 6th South and West Temple. Parking is between the 2.

Looks like the buildings will be approximately 160' each.

Also, I didn't need an account so I wonder if they were doing an update to the site last night.

[Comrade]

Wish it was just one 20 story tower.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by asies1981

That was the only official stall number I have found. In their submittal to council and planning staff they listed 118 stalls, but the unit count was listed at 89 and those numbers were crossed out to indicate they aren't the official numbers (they've upped it the unit count to 97, but it was as high as 105 at one point, which still would have a 1.4 to 1 ratio). I've looked into RMU and I haven't seen a parking maximum. Regardless of the total stall count, there will be more parking stalls than units and the ground floor will be parking instead of active uses.

http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=672

It's in the parking regulations section of the ordinance. 21A.44.030.G-H Minimum for RMU is 1/2 space per multi-family dwelling unit. Maximum for the RMU is 25% greater than the minimum listed in the table. 0.25 x Minimum + Minimum = Maximum.

89 units: .25x89+44.5=66.75 maximum allowed parking spaces
97 units: .25x97+48.5=72.75 maximum allowed parking spaces
105 units : .25x105+52.5=78.75 maximum allowed parking spaces

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

Amen to this. We aren't anything like those cities. We have our own style. Our own culture. Yeah, it might not be as "hip" or "happening" but we are coming along into our own.

True. How people view and judge us, especially if they have no actual knowledge of us (most of the time they've never even stepped into our fair city) is not a concern of mine. I don't want to live in a hype bubble. Our economy and population is cooking and I don't really need outside validation. So yes, "Utah is a stupid place with lots of scary Mormons. So, yeah, you don't wanna go there". More powder for me.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

The Block 22 Project (two - 10 story office buildings)

has renderings & site plans available at the link below:

They are under the "record info" tab and then the "attachments" link. and then download the pdfs.

https://aca.slcgov.com/Citizen/Cap/CapDe...91&agencyCode=SLCREF&IsToShowInspection=

I'm not too thrilled with the layout of the site plan for these two twin buildings. I think that the design could be laid out a lot better. The parking garages I think could be shifted to the north a bit to allow for a mid-block access way running through the block. I hope that the city design departments really encourages the developer to modify the site design a bit to break up the block. Those parking structures just seem to "block" the whole circulation of the block.

I too wish the buildings would be taller, the one positive is that on 600 S they are being built right up to the sidewalk and close to the sidewalk on W Temple and Main. 600 S and W Temple are both 122' from back of walk to back of walk, so at a height of 159' these building should help to visually narrow those two streets, at least a little bit. Not completely as there is only low rise buildings on the other side.

I do feel a little better about the massive amount of parking stalls with two 10 story buildings, but even with some of it being used as overflow for the America's it still seems excessive, especially since there is a Trax stop sitting right there waiting to be built. D-1, the zone this project is in, also has parking maximums. "Up to 25 spaces for first 25,000 square feet. No more than 1 space per 1,000 square feet thereafter"

The drawings show each building at 330,000 sf. 660,000 sf total. So by my math, the D-1 zone allows for 660 parking spaces.

I am starting to wonder why the City put maximum parking standards into place if they don't plan on enforcing them.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by airportvids

The link says I need an account to view.

Accela Citizen Access does that to me if I'm on a mobile browser. If I'm just on my computer I have access. So if you were trying to view it on your phone, try it on a regular browser on a computer instead.

The 4th attachment has the detailed renderings.

And great news about Regent Street Hotel. But if they want to start in the spring, shouldn't they have submitted their building permit application by now?

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

The drawings show each building at 330,000 sf. 660,000 sf total. So by my math, the D-1 zone allows for 660 parking spaces.

That would make this project 20% larger than the 111 tower. This is a very very big deal for us.

[DCRes]

Originally Posted by airhero

Accela Citizen Access does that to me if I'm on a mobile browser. If I'm just on my computer I have access. So if you were trying to view it on your phone, try it on a regular browser on a computer instead.

The 4th attachment has the detailed renderings.

And great news about Regent Street Hotel. But if they want to start in the spring, shouldn't they have submitted their building permit application by now?

I'm not able to view the attachments either. Can somebody who is able to view them post them for us?

[linguisize]

Here's one. Having some mid block access between main and West Temple would be a great opportunity there.
Main street half of the project is "Phase 1"

[airhero]

Originally Posted by linguisize

Here's one. Having some mid block access between main and West Temple would be a great opportunity there.
Main street half of the project is "Phase 1"

A midblock street issue was brought up in the planning review:

The Downtown Master Plan calls for a north to south running midblock walkway through this block. It appears in the provided renderings that the north facades of the building are connected and continuous and that there is no way for the public to travel south through the block between 600 South to 700 South. Please provide more information about how you are meeting this standard.

Hopefully the design is modified to accommodate that.

And I just realized I made a mistake in my last post. The detailed renderings are in the THIRD attachment, not the fourth.

[Viperlord]

Block 22: 600 South Main Street & West Temple Street.

two 10-story office buildings. 330,000 sq.ft. of office space each building.
900 parking stalls each parking structure.
160 feet tall each building.

[Future Mayor]

One thing I am concerned about, as I read the Planning review, is there is no mention of the number of parking stalls. I have actually reached out to the Planning Department to inquire regarding who reviewed it and I want to find out why the parking maximums weren't mentioned in the review?

If they were to reduce the parking space numbers, even by a few hundred, still well beyond the maximum allowed, they would shorten the structure and provide that E/W mid block walkway.

[delts145]

I like the design of the two mid rises. I'm thinking of how this will look from a skyline perspective. Two more massing's similar in height (minus 40 ft.) to the new Courthouse will definitely add a fuller feeling to that south end. Hopefully this also signals an acceleration of the cities expressed past interest in turning 600 S. into an attractive boulevard. I've been waiting for a long time for 600 S. to make a far better first impression. This development along with the new apartments will help a lot.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Future Mayor, as far as too many stalls for the current project. Extra spaces for The America's properties aside, wouldn't it make perfect sense to build that many stalls now in preparation for the development of the south half of the block.? To me it looks like that south portion will be coming on line in the not too distant future. Might as well accommodate the current and future campus now. Hopefully the Patrinely Group, whose track record and clout seems to imply, is developing the beginnings of what will be a burgeoning tech sector for downtown.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by delts145

I like the design of the two mid rises. I'm thinking of how this will look from a skyline perspective. Two more massing's similar in height (minus 40 ft.) to the new Courthouse will definitely add a fuller feeling to that south end. Hopefully this also signals an acceleration of the cities expressed past interest in turning 600 S. into an attractive boulevard. I've been waiting for a long time for 600 S. to make a far better first impression. This development along with the new apartments will help a lot.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Future Mayor, as far as too many stalls for the current project. Extra spaces for The America's properties aside, wouldn't it make perfect sense to build that many stalls now in preparation for the development of the south half of the block.? To me it looks like that south portion will be coming on line in the not too distant future. Might as well accommodate the current and future campus now. Hopefully the Patrinely Group, whose track record and clout seems to imply, is developing the beginnings of what will be a burgeoning tech sector for downtown.

I understand the point you are making, but they didn't even submit for a Conditional Use approval for more parking. It isn't addressed anywhere in the application or the planning review. I'm concerned that the city staff doesn't realize that there are parking maximums in place, or if they do they are being directed to ignore them. Even if they were to build a third building on the south of of the block with the combined square footage of these two buildings, that is still only 1,320 spaces allowed by the zoning.

The southern portion of the block is currently zoned D-2, which has a maximum height of 65', but can be approved up to 120' through conditional use approval. To even come close to adding the same amount of square footage they would have to go much higher than that, and the zoning would need to be changed to D-1, to allow for more height.

While I am obviously bothered by the over abundance of parking, I think I may be even more concerned that it isn't being noticed by city staff.

[UTPlanner]

Future Mayor, the C9 Flats has 97 units and 97 parking stalls. There are parking maximums in all residential, commercial, form based and mixed use zoning districts in SLC. However, you can increase that number by providing pedestrian, transit, cyclist, etc. improvements through the Transportation Demand Management process. You can read more about it in the Zoning Ordinance 21A.44.050. This project was approved at a staff level because it met the standards of the district.

In no way are staff ignoring the parking maximums. Believe me we piss off developers on a daily basis with parking maximums. I have been in several meetings where developers did not even finish the meeting we scheduled once they heard about parking maximums. There have always been built in mechanisms to allow a developer to increase the number above the maximum. This does not mean that the Patrinely Group will get all of the parking they're seeking. You should know that SLC is a complex beast and different portions of a project are reviewed by different divisions in the city. Parking is reviewed by the Transportation Division which is why the Planner assigned to the project did not include it in his review. It will have to be addressed at some point in the future.

I realize that I sound defensive at times but I'm just trying to share a different perspective than most have experienced. I do not agree with all of the ordinances and standards in place at SLC but it's my job to enforce them.

I also just asked the planner assigned to the project and they have not received an email or phone call from you or any one else regarding the parking count. I hope you did not receive bad contact information.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by Marvland

True. How people view and judge us, especially if they have no actual knowledge of us (most of the time they've never even stepped into our fair city) is not a concern of mine. I don't want to live in a hype bubble. Our economy and population is cooking and I don't really need outside validation. So yes, "Utah is a stupid place with lots of scary Mormons. So, yeah, you don't wanna go there". More powder for me.

We can still be our own unique city and have people actually want to come here because they can pick up wine with their dinner shopping list at the grocery store. Being more mainstream friendly and staying Salt Lake City are not mutually exclusive.

[UTPlanner]

Because I feel at times that I sound like a prophet of doom and gloom, I should mention that I have also heard that the Regent Street Hotel is now moving forward fairly quickly. They have not yet submitted for a building permit so I think Spring 2017 is a very optimistic starting date but it's good to hear good news about the project.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

Future Mayor, the C9 Flats has 97 units and 97 parking stalls. There are parking maximums in all residential, commercial, form based and mixed use zoning districts in SLC. However, you can increase that number by providing pedestrian, transit, cyclist, etc. improvements through the Transportation Demand Management process. You can read more about it in the Zoning Ordinance 21A.44.050. This project was approved at a staff level because it met the standards of the district.

In no way are staff ignoring the parking maximums. Believe me we piss off developers on a daily basis with parking maximums. I have been in several meetings where developers did not even finish the meeting we scheduled once they heard about parking maximums. There have always been built in mechanisms to allow a developer to increase the number above the maximum. This does not mean that the Patrinely Group will get all of the parking they're seeking. You should know that SLC is a complex beast and different portions of a project are reviewed by different divisions in the city. Parking is reviewed by the Transportation Division which is why the Planner assigned to the project did not include it in his review. It will have to be addressed at some point in the future.

I also just asked the planner assigned to the project and they have not received an email or phone call from you or any one else regarding the parking count. I hope you did not receive bad contact information.

I don't get why the city would put maximums in place only to allow them to be increased by making the development more pedestrian/transit/bicycle friendly, and to be able to increase those numbers by more than 25%, that to me seems a bit counter intuitive. IMO. Can you tell me which Major and which Minor strategy they used in order to get the increase?

I called the planning office number and nobody was there, so I sent an e-mail to the general planning e-mail.