Loading...
PLNTSD2022-00640 - 1958 W North Temple PLANNING DIVISION ERIN MENDENHALL NICK NORRIS MAYOR DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION P.O. BOX 145480 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 August 15, 2022 Sam Hammack EDA 9 Exchange Place, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 RE: Transit Station Area Development Score Review for Petition #PLNTSD2022-00640 Stacy & Witbeck UT Operations and Training Facility – 1958 W. North Temple Street Dear Mr. Hammack: This letter serves as notification of the TSA Development Score review for the proposal identified above as determined by Planning Department Staff. Pursuant to Chapter 21A.10 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, notice of application was sent out on July 21, 2022. The noticing period expired on August 2, 2022. After completing a review of the submitted guideline checklist, narrative and associated plans, Staff has scored the proposal as follows: Staff has given this project a score of 156 points out of the submitted 156 points for the proposal. This means that a Planning Commission public hearing and action is not required for the TSA Score aspect of the proposal, but may be required for other aspects of the project. A copy of the scoresheet with scores awarded by Staff has been attached to this letter for reference. The proposed project must demonstrate compliance with all applicable zoning requirements or modification granted through the Planning Commission. A cursory review of Zoning Ordinance requirements and your submitted plans with the TSA application indicates the following: • Design Review approval from the Planning Commission is required to address some aspects of the proposal. • Planned Development approval through the Planning Commission may also be required. Note: I conducted a preliminary zoning review and sent you an email outlining concerns dated July 27, 2022. You responded to this email on August 9, 2022. I’ve included our correspondence as an attachment to this letter for reference. Based on your responses, it appears to me that you have zoning issues with required setbacks per 21A.26.078E3b and required building entrances per 21A.37. There may certainly be other zoning issues to address as this project progresses. Please note that this assessment represents a cursory zoning review only at this time. Should it be necessary to submit additional application(s) for this project, both of the above referenced applications can be accessed electronically at this location (LINK). Please note that both Design Review and the Planned Development have specific requirements and standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 21A.59 (LINK) and Chapter 21A.55 (LINK) respectively. Your application(s) must demonstrate compliance with the applicable objectives and standards of approval. Once application(s) are submitted, a Planner will be assigned for review. Please feel free to contact me at (801) 535-6184 or by email at lex.traughber@slcgov.com in relation to this letter if you have questions or need additional clarification. Sincerely, Lex Traughber, Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Cc: File: PLNTSD2022-00640 From:Sam Hammack To:Traughber, Lex Cc:jrogers@consulting.stacywitbeck.com; Thompson, Amy; Tom Brennan; Ryan Mckillop Subject:(EXTERNAL) RE: 1958 W. North Temple - TSA Project Date:Tuesday, August 9, 2022 11:12:43 PM Attachments:SWI_LEED v4 BDC Checklist_07-27-2022.pdf Lex, Good talking to you the other week and I had hoped to send these responses sooner. Please see responses to your comments below, in blue. The TSA application involved an abbreviated set of drawings, so I have attached additional drawings to help fill in some of the missing information you listed below. Please let me know if there are other drawings that would be helpful to your review. I would be more than happy to meet with you in person or virtually to review our project, if that would be beneficial. Thanks, -- E D Sam Hammack, AIA A Associate [O] 801 531 7600 [C] 540 808 9673 www.edaarch.com From: Traughber, Lex <Lex.Traughber@slcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:08 PM To: Sam Hammack <shammack@edaarch.com> Cc: jrogers@consulting.stacywitbeck.com; Thompson, Amy <Amy.Thompson@slcgov.com> Subject: 1958 W. North Temple - TSA Project Sam, I have conducted an initial zoning review of the above referenced project and have the following comments/concerns: 1. I don’t see how you are meeting required building setbacks consistent with SLC Code section 21A.26.078E3b. Along North Temple Street the minimum setback is 5’ and at least 50% of the street facing building façade must be built to the minimum. Along 1950 West, at least 50% of the street facing building façade shall be within 5’ of the property line. EDA response: We have maximized the building on the West, South, and East sides to the greatest extent possible. North Temple: after the Trax line was built along North Temple, the south property line became segmented and irregular (see attached C-002 Survey). Also the second floor overhangs the first floor slightly based on the massing design. The overhang at the SE corner complies with the setback. 1950 West: There are two existing Rocky Mountain Power vaults in the strip west of 1950 West that each have a 10’ minimum clearance – we are planning to build as close as is reasonable to these offsets. 2. I don’t see how you are meeting the Open Space requirement consistent with Code section 21A.26.078E5. Please show on your plans and provide calculations showing how the project meets this standard. EDA response: Please refer to Table H, on L-L101 for open space calculations. 3. I don’t see how you are meeting Code section 21A.26.078F1 which refers to Code section 21A.37 – Design Standards that are applicable for this project. I need you to show on the plans how you meet the applicable standards for the TSA Zone in 21A.37. Please see table 21A.37.060B for all applicable standards. I also need you to outline in writing how each of the standards is met in addition to demonstrating compliance on the plans. EDA response: CRITERIA REQ PROPOSED COMMENTS Ground floor use 80%80% on N Temple Complies Ground floor use + Visual Interest 60% / 25% We certainly think this building brings increased visual interest based on the overall massing, rhythm of openings, articulated fenestration, and sophisticated material palette. Building Materials: Ground Floor 90%100%Excluding doors and windows, only brick and board formed architectural concrete are used on the ground floor Building Materials: Upper Floor 60%100%Excluding doors and windows, only brick is used on the upper floor Glass: Ground Floor 60%90% on N Temple Building Entrances 40’ max 105’Since this is a single tenant building, 21A.37.050E appears to be satisfied since two operable entrances with walkway to the nearest sidewalk is provided. Blank wall 15’ max 10’8 Complies Street Facing Façade 200’ max 123’-2”Complies Lighting, Exterior Req Yes See Lighting Plan Lighting, Parking Lot Req Yes See Electrical Site Plan Screening of Mechanical Equipment Req Yes See Elevations Screening of Service Areas Req N/A Trash and Recycling are enclosed with materials matching building 4. I am not seeing how the project meets 21A.26.078F2b3 or 2c. Please see and address these Code sections on the plans and/or in writing as warranted. EDA response: 21A.26.078F.2.b.3: There is not a residential component with this project. Outdoor patio spaces are provided within the project site. 21A.26.078F.2.c: The building entry is recessed from the street facing façade by 12’5, which meets the 5’ minimum of 21A.26.078F.2.c.(2) 5. I will also need for you to address 211A.26.078F2d which is related to the Design Standards in 21A.37. EDA response: The ground floor use area is commercial, one of the allowed uses. In terms of the TSA Score Sheet, please address the following in writing and/or on the plans as warranted: 1. Guideline 9 – Sustainable Site and Open Space Design – You attribute 5 points here but I don’t see any associated documentation. Please do so in writing EDA response: On site underground stormwater chambers have been designed for detention and retention (see C-301 drainage plan). The capacity is based on a 100 year storm event, with all water detained then released at a controlled release rate as allowed. Stored retention has also been incorporated for low impact development. A roof membrane with a high solar reflectance index has been specified, which is an urban heat island mitigation measure. 2. Guideline 10 – Green Building – The email documentation submitted only indicates that the project has been registered on-line. You attribute 40 points for Gold certification. Do you have further documentation to verify this? EDA response: See attached LEED scorecard. 3. Guideline 11 – Energy Efficiency – You attribute 5 points for Energy Efficiency but I’m not seeing any documentation to support these 5 points. EDA response: Energy efficiency is a key component to this project’s approach to LEED. The energy modeler reports that the proposed design is 35% better than current energy code. 4. Guideline 18 – Lighting – Please show how you are meeting this Guideline to realize the 6 points you attribute. EDA response: The lighting for this project has been integrated with the building design and the context of its site – refer to Electrical Site Plan and Lighting Plan. The entrance to the building from the corner of North Temple and 1950 West incorporates exterior down lighting which illuminate the monument sign, highlight the entrance, and brighten the corner of the sidewalks (including the new sidewalk heading north) and the pedestrian crosswalk. Continuous glass at the main level along the North Temple frontage brings light up to the sidewalk, in contrast to the existing dark parking lot. The lighting along this side also washes a large wall graphic on an interior wall that speaks to Stacy and Witbeck’s work in an artistic way. The parking lot lighting has been carefully designed through placement and photometry to provide safe lighting levels within the site while not spilling over to the various adjacent properties. 5. Guideline 19 – Signs – Please show how you are meeting this Guideline to realize the 4 points you attribute. I see a wall sign but that’s all I’m seeing. Please elaborate. EDA response: The southeast corner of the building incorporates a monument sign at the entrance with dimensional metal letters on architectural concrete. Similar dimensional metal letters are on the west side of the building, perpendicular to the primary façade and oriented to the pedestrian public way. Refer to A200 Exterior Elevations and A201 Reference Views. 6. Guideline 21 – Streetscape Amenities – Please show how you are meeting this Guideline to realize the 2 points you attribute. EDA response: Refer to Sheet L-L101 Detail B for the list of amenities. a. Note 5 - Bike Racks. b. Note 6 – Seating Walls. c. Note 7 – Planters. 7. Guideline 24 – Bicycle Amenities – I see a rest room with a shower on the first floor. Is this feature the reason that you attribute 6 points to the score? If so, I would assert that this doesn’t meet the intent of this Guideline. EDA response: a. Refer to Sheet L-L101 Detail B Note 5 for the outdoor bike rack. b. Secured indoor bike storage is provided on the main level in Bike Storage 125. c. Single occupant restroom with shower is provided on the main level. 8. Guideline 28 – Alternative Vehicle Parking – Where are your 3 charging stations for electric vehicles? Please indicate on the site plan. EDA response: The (3) Level 2 EV charging stations are in the southwest corner of the parking lot – please refer to E101 Electrical Site Plan. The TSA Score process is related yet somewhat unrelated to meeting zoning standards. In other words, it is possible that a proposal scores more than 125 points on the TSA Score Sheet and therefore would be eligible for administrative approval, yet the proposal may not meet certain zoning standards. In a case such as this, if zoning standards are not being met, Design Review and/or Planned Development approval would be required via a hearing before the Planning Commission. If you have questions, or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. LEX TRAUGHBER Senior Planner Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CELL (801) 535-6184 EMAIL lex.traughber@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.