Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[delts145]

Canyons Village workforce housing clears last major hurdle


Alexander Cramer for the Park Record - https://www.parkrecord.com/news/cany...-major-hurdle/

A major workforce housing project in Canyons Village looks like it’s going to be a reality after a governmental approval Jan. 31, the last significant legislative hurdle in a process that has seen constantly shifting targets and timelines in the 20 years since an initial agreement was signed between the county and the area’s management.

The Canyons Village Management Association plans to build housing for 1,153 workers in 169 units over 7.5 acres of county-owned land where Lower Village Road intersects White Pine Canyon Road, just west of S.R. 224 near the main entrance to Canyons Village.

The developer said the aim is to start building as soon as possible after the snow melts and anticipates a 24- to 26-month construction window that might mean workers could move in during the summer of 2022. The construction is required to be completed by the end of 2023.

County Council Chair Doug Clyde said the deal is “very significant” and that it is consistent with the county’s goals regarding workforce housing and traffic reduction due to its proximity to major transit.

Developer Tony Tyler, a partner at Columbus Pacific, called it a “game- changer” for the area and said it wouldn’t have been possible without using county-owned land...

The proposed new employee housing at Canyons Village would house 1,153 employees in seven buildings and could open in the summer of 2022. County Manager Tom Fisher approved the final site plan last Friday, and work could begin as soon as the snow melts. Courtesy of Columbus Pacific

.

[delts145]

Provo developer submits plans for long-contemplated project at PCMR

Jay Hamburger for the Park Record - https://www.parkrecord.com/news/prov...oject-at-pcmr/

The Provo-based firm that intends to acquire the Park City Mountain Resort parking lots for a major development submitted an application to City Hall on Thursday outlining the ambitious plans to essentially remake the base area of one of the nation’s top-tier mountain resorts.

PEG Companies in the spring of 2019 reached an agreement with PCMR owner Vail Resorts to acquire the parking lots and the application that was submitted on Thursday was expected. The acquisition would not be finalized until after a City Hall decision regarding the project.

The firm outlined the 10-acre proposal in a prepared statement on Friday, saying a project would involve an unspecified number of condominiums as well as housing for employees and housing that is set aside as affordable. A hotel, retailers and restaurants are also included, the statement said.


The project would also involve the construction of garages for skiers and snowboarders, which would be needed to account for the loss of the current parking spaces in the lots that would be developed. A paid-parking system would be adopted in an effort to better manage traffic, the statement said.

Other highlights, as described in the release, include:


• a one-way traffic loop. The release does not provide details about the roads that would be impacted by a one-way route.

• bicycle lanes on Lowell Avenue and Empire Avenue

• sidewalks on nearby roads like Empire Avenue and Lowell Avenue

• plazas in the upper and lower sections of the project

• more than 70,000 square feet of housing that will be classified as employee or otherwise affordable

• a location for a National Ability Center building

• transit improvements on Lowell Avenue

“We have created a mix of creative residential, lodging, traffic and parking solutions to enhance the experience for everyone who enjoys this wonderful place to live and play,” Robert Schmidt, the chief development officer of PEG Companies, said in the prepared statement...

A Provo firm submitted plans to City Hall for a major development on the Park City Mountain Resort parking lots, an application that has been expected
since Vail Resorts reached an agreement to sell the land to PEG Companies. The project will involve condominiums, a hotel, retailers and restaurants.
Courtesy of PEG Companies

.

[ChickenBurgers]

Cottonwood Heights has major plans for Wasatch Boulevard Redevelopment Site
Plans for a new redevelopment of the Wasatch Rock site at 6695 Watch Boulevard include:
· 7 story 284 unit apartment building
· 2 story 35 unit senior living apartments
· 140 room hotel
· 4 mixed use retail/office pads between 5-13k sq ft
· 15 story 80 unit condominium building w/ 5 levels of.
parking and ten levels of condominiums

The full plan here https://www.cottonwoodheights.utah.g...cument?id=1718

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by delts145

We're already going on four years into this article. Viewing what's happening in that part of the CSA it would seem they need to knock off a few years.

Ever Wonder What Park City Will Look Like 20 Years From Now? Here’s a Forecast for the Future.

https://www.parkcitymag.com/news-and...for-the-future


The orange shaded areas indicate 2016 zoning densities. Please note that units shown may not have received all development approvals from all required agencies and governments... IMAGE: PARK CITY GIS/PARK CITY MUNICIPAL

.

I can’t see 15,000 units in the jordonalle area. That entire area has no infrastructure and just about everything would have to start from scratch. I’m having a hard time picturing that amount of growth spread out like that. It’s already becoming an incoherent mess up there. I hope those cities put together a better plan then this.

[FullCircle]

I'm pretty sure Bonanza Flats was purchased to be preserved as open space, so I'm not sure these plans are terribly current. I sure hope they aren't.

[jedikermit]

A weird thing that's sprung up over the last few months that I hadn't heard about:

Some suburban-style hotel (Hampton Inn, Quality Inn, whatever) has appeared on the Valley Fair Mall property in West Valley. On a *tiny* piece of the parking lot.

If you're familiar with the mall and how close it is to I-215...this hotel is between the east side of the mall (Megaplex movie theater) and the freeway.

4 stories, stick construction, it's completely typical for whichever chain it is, it's just in a really weird place on a weird plot of land.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

A weird thing that's sprung up over the last few months that I hadn't heard about:

Some suburban-style hotel (Hampton Inn, Quality Inn, whatever) has appeared on the Valley Fair Mall property in West Valley. On a *tiny* piece of the parking lot.

If you're familiar with the mall and how close it is to I-215...this hotel is between the east side of the mall (Megaplex movie theater) and the freeway.

4 stories, stick construction, it's completely typical for whichever chain it is, it's just in a really weird place on a weird plot of land.

I think these companies care more about visibility from the freeway than the noise impact.

[Pencil]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

A weird thing that's sprung up over the last few months that I hadn't heard about:

Some suburban-style hotel (Hampton Inn, Quality Inn, whatever) has appeared on the Valley Fair Mall property in West Valley. On a *tiny* piece of the parking lot.

If you're familiar with the mall and how close it is to I-215...this hotel is between the east side of the mall (Megaplex movie theater) and the freeway.

4 stories, stick construction, it's completely typical for whichever chain it is, it's just in a really weird place on a weird plot of land.

It's a SpringHill Suites hotel but it's definitely in a weird place https://youtu.be/2pLMDaBN598

[Orlando]

Olympia Hills opponents plead with McAdams to step in, stop project

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/3/...influence-veto

I'm for density, but where existing infrastructure already exists, not out on the periphery. But, maybe I'm missing something. Thoughts??

[bob rulz]

I have mixed feelings about it for exactly the reasons you've described.

On the one hand, if it's not developed in that way, it will probably just end up as single-family big lot houses + parking-dominated shopping center at some point. I also really like the design standards of it.

On the other hand, there's no real promise of transit coming in or corporations actually building campuses there. We're putting a lot of faith in those things just happening. And I agree that density works much better when there's already infrastructure in place.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Orlando

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/3/...influence-veto

I'm for density, but where existing infrastructure already exists, not out on the periphery. But, maybe I'm missing something. Thoughts??

The land is going to be developed unless someone buys it to preserve it, so then the question is what kind of development should occur? The mayors out there have said they want lots about .25 which would be more silly sprawl. The answer for me is as much density as the builder can get away with and then the state needs to add the transportation infrastructure. I hear people say there is no infrastructure in place, but there is never adequate roads, rail, trails etc. when any peripheral land is developed. That is where you have a specific plan through property tax, sales tax and impact fees to fund what is necessary to make it a workable development.

I know this won't happen, but I would love for rail to go first with tight integration with the developer. Then add trails, protected bike lanes, high frequency bus routes and then add road capacity that isn't addressed through the other resources.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

I know this won't happen, but I would love for rail to go first with tight integration with the developer. Then add trails, protected bike lanes, high frequency bus routes and then add road capacity that isn't addressed through the other resources.

There is a Transportation bill that passed the Utah Senate that would allow for a possible Trax extension through the Olympia Hills development.

It would allow the use of property and sales taxes that would increase from development of the transit line to pay for it.

If SL County started the process shortly after the bill was passed and they work with the State & School District to let the expected property and sales tax increases fund the extension, Trax could be built at nearly the same time as the development. Add in Herriman too and Trax could be extended further.

While it may not work out this way, it does appear that this will pass and allow for more transit investments which would make developments such as Olympia Hills much more palatable to people.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

The land is going to be developed unless someone buys it to preserve it, so then the question is what kind of development should occur? The mayors out there have said they want lots about .25 which would be more silly sprawl. The answer for me is as much density as the builder can get away with and then the state needs to add the transportation infrastructure. I hear people say there is no infrastructure in place, but there is never adequate roads, rail, trails etc. when any peripheral land is developed. That is where you have a specific plan through property tax, sales tax and impact fees to fund what is necessary to make it a workable development.

I know this won't happen, but I would love for rail to go first with tight integration with the developer. Then add trails, protected bike lanes, high frequency bus routes and then add road capacity that isn't addressed through the other resources.

The problem with adding this kind of density way out there, is that it takes away from where added density is needed first. Infill, infill, infill. Build up those areas near existing infrastructure first. If there is a ton of people that have to fight through inadequate roads to drive through existing low-density suburbia to get to high-density ex-urbia, it creates lots of problems and further exacerbates sprawl.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Orlando

The problem with adding this kind of density way out there, is that it takes away from where added density is needed first. Infill, infill, infill. Build up those areas near existing infrastructure first. If there is a ton of people that have to fight through inadequate roads to drive through existing low-density suburbia to get to high-density ex-urbia, it creates lots of problems and further exacerbates sprawl.

I think you have to do both. Infill is not the panacea that it is touted to be. It is usually in much less desirable areas that are industrial, heavy traffic commercial, heavy traffic roads, by freeways or crumbling urban infrastructure. That is the dirty secret we don’t talk about. Much of it is places people don’t want to raise their kids or feel comfortable walking around. Further, infill doesn’t scale quick enough for high growth states like ours. Also, the price of that marginal land is still high enough that most of it requires high enough density that leaves out the missing middle. If they develop this area and create commercial nodes there, with really good mass transit, it should fill a need that infill is not. Keep in mind this is a 25 year project so there is certainly time to get the infrastructure in place.

[delts145]

I really like what you're saying Sunny. I do believe though that if the Wasatch Front follows it's current trajectories that the 25-30 year build-up time frame will be more like 10-15 years. I think that once Olympia Hills and the old Prison site gets started it's going to be more like Daybreak, Vineyard, and Thanksgiving Point these past ten years. Vineyard and The Point of the Mountain have obvious advantages in place or soon to be in place. Let's hope that the State, which Makid outlined is serious about its proposed transportation infrastructure keeping up with the probable hyper growth of a major planned development like Olympia Hills

[Jbash]

That whole Olympia Hills thing is bugging me. Don't get me wrong, I want it in, and I want it in quick. It's just people's reactions to it that get me so trigged. Utah is growing fast, and developments like that are what is going to help us handle that. We can sacrifice low density development if it means that more housing gets built, which is what everyone wants, anyways. For some crazy reason, people just don't want Utah to change. Its been said that change isn't stressful, its opposition to change that is stressful. The people that oppose density cause more problems then the developers do. Build Olympia Hills, and a couple more while youre at it.

[Stenar]

The problem is that there are only two main roads to get to Olympia Hills from I-15 and those roads are already over capacity. This development is going to be a nightmare for everyone in Herriman, Riverton and the southern part of South Jordan.

Originally Posted by Jbash

That whole Olympia Hills thing is bugging me. Don't get me wrong, I want it in, and I want it in quick. It's just people's reactions to it that get me so trigged. Utah is growing fast, and developments like that are what is going to help us handle that. We can sacrifice low density development if it means that more housing gets built, which is what everyone wants, anyways. For some crazy reason, people just don't want Utah to change. Its been said that change isn't stressful, its opposition to change that is stressful. The people that oppose density cause more problems then the developers do. Build Olympia Hills, and a couple more while youre at it.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Stenar

The problem is that there are only two main roads to get to Olympia Hills from I-15 and those roads are already over capacity. This development is going to be a nightmare for everyone in Harriman, Riverton and the southern part of South Jordan.

Exactly. Stenar hit the nail on the head. Density is definitely not bad. But, adding high density on the periphery is not the right way to go. Density should be added where infrastructure is there.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by delts145

I really like what you're saying Sunny. I do believe though that if the Wasatch Front follows it's current trajectories that the 25-30 year build-up time frame will be more like 10-15 years. I think that once Olympia Hills and the old Prison site gets started it's going to be more like Daybreak, Vineyard, and Thanksgiving Point these past ten years. Vineyard and The Point of the Mountain have obvious advantages in place or soon to be in place. Let's hope that the State, which Makid outlined is serious about its proposed transportation infrastructure keeping up with the probable hyper growth of a major planned development like Olympia Hills

Thanks for the response. Since it is SO slow these days on the news front I figure I will add more color to my comment. I would love for infill to be the main or maybe only developable land, but that only works if major changes are made to the zoning laws nationwide. In SL County we would be in serious trouble if we required all new growth to be infill and didn't require across the board changes to zoning laws. Most people do not want to live in these areas and they don't want to raise their children in these areas waiting for them to become nice or gentrify, which could take decades.

The kind of zoning changes that would be required would seem radical to average people and probably many on this forum. You would need to at least create a right to the next step up in density for all properties. That means that if you are on a SF lot, you would by right be able to turn it into 2 units with minimal requirements and red tape. That means we would have to accept change in our quiet SF neighborhoods.

Also, we would need to at least select SF areas where we allow much more intense changes in density. If I had my way zoning as we know it would disappear as it creates at least just as many problems as it solves. I would have a system that avoids the ridiculous scenarios that people talk about when they say we have to have zoning because we don't want a factory locating in a SF neighborhood. Avoiding those issues can be done without the system American has. Also, I would have a system that cares a lot about materials and how it interacts with the street and very little about what it will be used for (again with exceptions to avoid a hazardous factory in a neighborhood.

This would make the market far more responsive to changing market demands, which would be allow unit creation to keep up with family formation.

[bob rulz]

Converting SFH to 2 units without a permit doesn't go far enough. We should do what Oregon did and allow up to 4-plexes.

I still think zoning is generally a good thing, but it should be much looser than it is. I think residential areas should almost always allow some kinds of businesses and vice versa. I'm a big fan of form-based zoning, but I don't think it's necessary everywhere.