Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5 - Page 931

Orlando · #**18601** Posted **Sep 9, 2024, 1:39 PM**

One other factor regarding The Power District is the soils there are bad. They are contaminated. So, I still don't get the premise for a 400' height upzone.

Schmoe · #**18602** Posted **Sep 9, 2024, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGeographer

Does SLC have less long-term holders compared to Austin, Nashville, Miami, Denver etc? Cities where high rise development has continued and in some cases even accelerated despite the current interest rates? If so, how can we attract more long term holders assuming there is a demand.

In general there is far more development capital in those cities, yes. And it follows that there will be more groups pursuing build-and-hold strategies. But the main thing that will attract this kind of capital to Utah are low barriers, availability of land, and high demand. SLC is great for the first two, but needs to catch up on the latter. There is some latent demand, as we have seen, but until we have a stronger corporate presence, a populace that wants to live and work downtown, and the high-paying jobs to support it, demand will grow in SLC very slowly. This applies to all asset classes and service-related businesses.

Schmoe · #**18603** Posted **Sep 9, 2024, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orlando

One other factor regarding The Power District is, the soils there are super bad. They are contaminated and poor. So, I still don't get the premise for a 400' height upzone.

Someone on reddit suggested the areas of the city west of I-15 are in the Airport Flight Path Protection zone, which is a zoning overlay. I am not sure how to verify this, but it could be that heights are somewhat limited by federal FAA requirements for a buffer around the airport. I know this impacts heights in downtown San Diego and San Jose, which have airports close to their downtowns.

ucsbgaucho · #**18604** Posted **Sep 9, 2024, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schmoe

Someone on reddit suggested the areas of the city west of I-15 are in the Airport Flight Path Protection zone, which is a zoning overlay. I am not sure how to verify this, but it could be that heights are somewhat limited by federal FAA requirements for a buffer around the airport. I know this impacts heights in downtown San Diego and San Jose, which have airports close to their downtowns.

Yes there is a Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District that governs the height limits of buildings within the flight path of the airport. For SLC its city Code 21A.34.040 that governs that. I can't find a map that shows the height limits in relation to the airport but I would assume the Power Station area is outside of that. The FAA would have a say in height limit changes as they do in San Diego's downtown area, where there are strict building height limits in relation to the airport's flight path.

Here's the SLC map, you'll see the Power District area is within the Overlay District (green diagonal)

Orlando · #**18605** Posted **Sep 9, 2024, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schmoe

Someone on reddit suggested the areas of the city west of I-15 are in the Airport Flight Path Protection zone, which is a zoning overlay. I am not sure how to verify this, but it could be that heights are somewhat limited by federal FAA requirements for a buffer around the airport. I know this impacts heights in downtown San Diego and San Jose, which have airports close to their downtowns.

.

meman · #**18606** Posted **Sep 11, 2024, 2:43 PM**

Hey Schmoe, given your info about slow demand in salt lake city for new development a few threads back, what do you think are the chances that salt lake will get a new 20 to 30 story residential tower in the next two or three years?

Schmoe · #**18607** Posted **Sep 11, 2024, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by meman

Hey Schmoe, given your info about slow demand in salt lake city for new development a few threads back, what do you think are the chances that salt lake will get a new 20 to 30 story residential tower in the next two or three years?

I think the chances are very low that anything will be delivered during that time period; however, I would not be surprised at all if there were one or two under construction within 3 years.

Hatman · #**18608** Posted **Sep 12, 2024, 5:15 PM**

I'm excited to see many of you tonight in the Sorensen Center! These Rio Grande Plan events often turn into ad hoc forum meet-ups. If you can't make it in person, there will be a live stream on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/live/w135-Qd...j9ahA_w8gRvsO0

rockies · #**18609** Posted **Sep 12, 2024, 11:16 PM**

This is the first rendering I have seen of what is going to go here. Looks like it will be really big and have 1450 beds according to this article. You can see the new 'impact prosperity epicenter' building in the background as well. I wish they would work on redeveloping the stadium parking lot tho

https://www.ksl.com/article/51124747

The design of the court yard makes me think it will fill in the lot quite nicely. It will start to feel a bit urban up there despite being on the edge of the mountains

Utah · #**18610** Posted **Yesterday, 2:44 PM**

https://d26toa8f6ahusa.cloudfront.ne...P3-Housing.pdf

Comrade · #**18611** Posted **Yesterday, 10:02 PM**

Shocker. The Planning Commission does not support the SugarHouse 14-story apartment complex on the corner of 2100 S and Highland:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2024/09/...w-sugar-house/

rockies · #**18612** Posted **Yesterday, 11:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Utah

https://d26toa8f6ahusa.cloudfront.ne...P3-Housing.pdf

Thank you for that! I noticed today they posted additional renderings on the school instagram and knew there must be more.

meman · #**18613** Posted **Today, 12:45 AM**

Yea Comrade, I agree BIG SHOCKER!

I can't believe how backward-thinking and and ridiculous Nimby-ism there is in Sugar House. There are already nine and ten story apartments in Sugar House
so how the hell would a fourteen story apartment building "change the character of the neighborhood???? Totally stupid and absurd.

bob rulz · #**18614** Posted **Today, 2:35 AM**

The proposal as-written has some issues though imo. This was one of the requirements:

Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment: Staff recommends adopting an enforcement policy to ensure repercussions if a MU-15 property owner does not develop using “renewable construction methods” as required under the Sustainability standard in the MU-15 zoning district. Planning staff recommends adding a provision to ensure a building meets the outlined requirements of the Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment (WBLCA) that reads “a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the WBLCA verifies the reduction in embodied carbon and that the owner must take whatever actions are necessary to receive the WBLCA verification.”

This was very specifically tailored to the mass timber proposal, which means if this specific proposal ended up falling through then a new developer would have to follow the same guidelines. Just allow for the 15 stories by right without any incentives or catch and that would be much better.

I haven't actually watched the meeting yet, I've been planning on it just haven't had time, but the article in the Tribune implied that they weren't necessarily opposed to the height, but the details.

Also keep in mind that as with any zoning change, the city council could still approve it.

Comrade · #**18615** Posted **Today, 3:59 AM**

Better yet: do away with the planning commission. It's another layer from an unelected bureaucracy, which you admit can be dismissed by the city council. Worse, multiple people sitting on the commission do not have the background to be making these decisions.

Landon Kraczek is an owner and operator of a mobile theater company and film producer.

Brian Scott is the publisher of Utah Business Journal and director at NeuroHealth Utah (Parttime).

Aimee Burrows worked at Zions Bank until 2008 and was a substitute teacher until joining the planning commission.

Amy Barry is the Utah Cemeteries Program manager. I'll give her credit that she was also chair of the SugarHouse Council but knowing how they've operated in the past, that credit could also be a strike against her.

Most these people do not have the background in city planning or urban planning/zoning to be wielding the power the gives them.

The city wants to balance opinions and backgrounds and I think that's stupid. Especially since they're picked and not voted on by the city residents.

Do away with the commission or radically overhaul it with people who actually have the background and experience in urban and city planning.

I don't mean to be mean but I don't want a substitute teacher with a background in finance determining the planning of Salt Lake City.

Hell, I'm in finance and I'm also a city nerd! I don't think I am qualified to be making these determinations. I don't have an education in city planning. Get people on the commission who have a strong background in actual urban development and planning. The only qualification should not be that it's open to residents of SLC only lmao

That's insane to me.

bob rulz · #**18616** Posted **Today, 8:33 AM**

Planning commissions are required by state law.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title10/Ch...0-9a-S301.html

I think you would be hard pressed to actually find enough qualified people to fill planning commissions if you restricted them only to people with planning backgrounds.

I think it's valid to ask whether planning commissions are necessary at all. I don't have a strong opinion on this - I think there's valid arguments for both sides of that debate. But there's nothing we can do about it unless state law changes, and even then, I think there would be a lot of public backlash to them being eliminated.