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.