Hearing officer takes under advisement request to reduce gate setback, allow taller fence at Salt Lake City multifamily site

A Salt Lake City hearing officer on Oct. 12 took under advisement an application by Vester Realty Partners seeking relief from the city's gate setback and front-fence height rules for a planned family-sized rental project in the Granary area.

The applicant, represented by Jeff Grosso of Vester Realty Partners and John Galbraith of Element Design, asked to reduce a 17.5-foot required setback for a gated vehicle entrance to roughly 7 feet and to allow a fence higher than the 4-foot maximum for fences in front of a primary facade. "We're lining up our capital to start the project," Grosso said, adding that homeless encampments on the vacant site have made securing financing and attracting lenders contingent on a secured perimeter.

Hearing Officer Clayton Preece said he would review the submissions and comments and expects to issue a written decision within about 10 days.

Why this matters

The dispute pits the developer's claims about safety, site security and project viability against city staff's determination that the applicant has not shown the legal standards for a variance. The outcome will determine whether the project can maintain its proposed unit count and design or must redesign to meet the setback and fence-height standards.

What the applicant told the hearing

Grosso said the 4.5-acre site is the only parcel in the area being developed with walkable open space and family-sized units, and said transient encampments have occupied the vacant lot in recent months. He said the encampments create an unsafe environment for future residents and that, without a gated perimeter, lenders have expressed concern. "So for me to get the capital to build this project, it's a condition for me to have a secure site," Grosso said. He described a two-gate design with RFID readers that would detect vehicles about 40 feet away and asserted the gates would not cause queuing across the sidewalk.

Design and impacts claimed by the applicant include losing about 20 units if the project moved the gate to meet the 17.5-foot setback; Grosso said that loss would require raising rents by "a little over a hundred and $50 a month" on remaining units. The applicant characterized the required setback as suburban and inconsistent with the city's stated interest in urban density and family-sized rentals.

City staff position

Cassie Younger of the planning department summarized staff's recommendation to deny the variance request. Staff told the hearing officer that the applicant's claimed hardship is economic or self-imposed and therefore does not meet the city's variance standards. Younger noted the site is a large, flat property and said the circumstances described by the applicant are not "peculiar to the property itself." Staff also stated the project has design alternatives, including use of the zone's height allowances, that could avoid unit loss without the requested setback relief.

Code questions and related projects

During the hearing, the parties discussed Salt Lake City Code sections cited in the staff report, including references to 21A.18.06 and 21A.36.070 (development standards for the CG General Commercial district). The applicant referenced two existing projects (referred to in the record as the Randy Apartments and the Olive Apartments) as comparables; staff replied those buildings are legal nonconforming with respect to the more recent door/gate setback rule and therefore are not dispositive for a variance showing.

Procedure and next steps

No public commenters joined the hearing. After the closing remarks, Hearing Officer Clayton Preece said he would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision in roughly 10 days. "I'm gonna take the matter under advisement," Preece said as he closed the public hearing.

The hearing record remains open only for the officer's review; no formal vote or council decision was made at the hearing.

Ending

The decision will be issued in writing by the hearing officer and entered into the planning record; the applicant and city staff will receive that decision and may pursue appeals according to the city's administrative procedures if either party chooses to do so.