Planning Commission approves 20-unit townhome project at 910 E. 400 S. with design and setback exceptions

The Salt Lake City Planning Commission on July 23 approved a plan development, preliminary subdivision plat and design review for a proposed 20-unit townhome development at approximately 910 East 400 South, with added conditions addressing signage/lighting and pedestrian access. Staff recommended approval; the commission voted 6–2 to approve the design review and 7–1 to approve the plan development. The preliminary subdivision plat also passed.

The project, presented by city planner Olivia (staff), would construct three attached buildings containing 20 ownership townhome units with rear-loaded garages and rooftop decks on a corner parcel at 900 East and 400 South. Buildings are four stories and range from about 32 feet to 45.5 feet in height. The applicant requested several zoning modifications: reductions in side setbacks (Building 2 from 45 feet to 5 feet and Building 3 from 32 feet to 5 feet), a rear setback reduction for Building 3 from 32 feet to 17 feet, an allowance for lots without direct public street frontage, a 6-foot fence in part of the front yard along 400 South (code limit 4 feet), and multiple design relief items including TSA scores below the 125-point threshold and reduced ground-floor glazing and entrance features along 400 South and 900 East.

Why it matters: the site is in the Central Community TSA district and the commission weighed trade-offs between expanding ownership housing and maintaining a walkable, street-oriented frontage along a primary transit corridor. Staff told commissioners that the project implements PlanSaltLake goals and Housing SLC objectives to increase ownership opportunities in transit-oriented areas.

Key details and conditions - Units and form: 20 attached single-family ownership townhomes; rear-loaded garages; rooftop decks; proposed heights roughly 32–45.5 feet. - Setbacks: staff said the required east setbacks are large because the development abuts RMF-35 zoning with a 1-foot increase in setback for every foot of building height over 25 feet; staff said meeting the strict setbacks would reduce the project by at least five units. The applicant noted adjacent properties to the east are owned by UTA and include a substation and are unlikely to redevelop; staff said the closest occupied single-family to the proposed buildings on the east is about 60 feet away. - Design relief: the project requests exemptions from TSA district ground-floor use requirements (convertibility to commercial/retail) and reduced ground-floor glazing (code 45% required; proposals roughly 21–23% on some façades). Staff noted the residential units have sidewalk-level entries but not the 12-foot first-floor ceilings, 60% glazing, or ADA accessibility expected for immediate commercial conversion. - Fencing and permeability: the applicant sought a 6-foot masonry front yard fence along 400 South for safety and privacy; commissioners and neighbors raised concerns that a solid 6-foot wall would create an impermeable street edge. The commission approved the plan development with a condition that any fence above the code maximum be pierced/see-through (e.g., iron sections between masonry pillars) so it is not a continuous solid wall; otherwise it must conform to the 4-foot front-yard limit. - Accessibility: architect Jared Hall said the townhomes are designed as three-story townhouse product that, under current codes and the International Building Code/Housing law interpretations the applicant cited, are not required to be accessible and “we are meeting the code and these do not have accessibility.” Staff confirmed Building 1 entrances include stairs and stoops and that Building 1 units will not be ADA-accessible as proposed. - Parking and guest spaces: the developer provided two parking spaces per unit but no dedicated guest parking. Commissioners expressed concern about visitor parking overflow into surrounding streets; the applicant said future HOA decisions could allow modifications but no visitor parking was included in the current submittal.

Commission action and follow-up - Design review: motion to approve design review (as recommended by staff) passed 6–2 with Commissioner Barry’s motion (adding conditions to require lighting/signage at permit stage and to transpose pedestrian and vehicle access on 900 East for continuous pedestrian flow) and a second by Commissioner Christiansen. The chair recorded the tally as six yeses and two noes. - Plan development: motion to approve plan development passed 7–1. An added condition required that any 6-foot fence along 400 South include see-through features (or revert to the 4-foot maximum). The applicant must submit a cost estimate and documentation for shared infrastructure maintenance. - Preliminary subdivision: approved with the condition that the applicant submit a final plat within 18 months.

Discussion context: commissioners debated multiple topics: whether to require entrance features every 40 feet of frontage, how the proposed ground-floor residential units could be converted to commercial uses in future, safety at the transit stop, and how the private internal driveway and gate affect walkability and neighborhood permeability. Several commissioners praised the building design while urging greater street activation and limiting solid front-yard walls. The applicant said the fence and gated internal access are market-driven measures to protect owner-occupied housing from vandalism and crime and to provide a quieter product for some buyers.

What’s next: the applicant must satisfy conditions including submitting a final plat within 18 months, provide a full lighting and signage plan at building permit, and deliver documentation for shared infrastructure maintenance. Any major design modifications would return to the commission. If the project were denied, staff said the proposal would need to meet TSA/MU-5 district standards and could be administratively reviewed under those standards.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the commission record and included in the article’s speaker list. No conclusions beyond the record are drawn.