Planning commission recommends land‑use approval for Sunset Mixed‑Use, with ceiling‑height exception

The Planning Commission recommended on March 13 that City Council approve land‑use for the Sunset Mixed Use Development, a proposed project at 325 West 1300 North that includes mixed‑use retail, townhomes and apartments. The commission’s recommendation includes an exception to allow 9‑foot ceilings for the residential portions while maintaining 12‑foot minimums for ground‑floor retail; final engineering, fire approval, and recordation of required easements remain conditions before final approvals.

The recommendation matters because it moves the project to the next step in the approval process: city council consideration (tentatively April 1 or April 15), while leaving technical and legal details to staff and the applicant. Planning staff and the applicant discussed multiple technical reviews that must be completed before final plat and building permits are issued.

Applicant representatives said they had addressed many planning comments from an earlier review and presented updated civil and architectural drawings at the meeting. Matt Carton, identified as the applicant/architect, described design changes and why building placement and sidewalk alignment were adjusted to meet the form‑based code: "We moved the buildings up to make the form base code work," Carton said. Staff and the development team agreed that some outstanding engineering items would be resolved at final submittal.

Commissioners and staff focused discussion on several unresolved technical items: a proposed 10‑foot public utility easement (PUE) along 1300 North that may conflict with the form‑based code frontage build‑to zone; sidewalk alignment and dimensions (applicants said the back‑of‑curb to building distance would be about 6.9 feet on the frontage after relocation); stormwater sizing and manhole locations to be provided at final; location and screening for trash, recycling and meters; bike‑rack counts (applicants added three racks to meet a minimum); photometric and landscaping refinements; and transparency (window) percentages on ground and upper floors. Planning staff said many of those items are deferred to final engineering and permitting reviews.

The commission discussed a park/open‑space requirement cited in staff comments (a 10 percent dedication was referenced in the code or review documents). Staff said the code language is inconsistent in places and that whether a specific amenity (pickleball, tot lot) is required can be discretionary under the code; the developers said they had shown park area and would clarify whether the dedicated park meets the 10 percent requirement in the final submission.

Staff also raised a procedural issue late in the meeting: the discovery of a small third parcel that may change whether the proposal is treated as a subdivision under recent state guidance (SB 174). Planning staff said that if three or more lots are involved the application may be subject to the SB 174 process and to final staff (administrative) review rather than the earlier path; staff committed to clarify the lot count and the procedural implications with the applicant and, if necessary, advise on resubmission steps and any fee adjustments. The applicant said the project’s contract and closing timeline make that clarification time‑sensitive.

Commission action: a commissioner moved to recommend land‑use approval to City Council, with the condition that the items discussed be addressed and with an exception to allow 9‑foot residential ceilings while maintaining 12‑foot retail ground‑floor heights. The motion was seconded and the commission voted in favor. Staff said the recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for a hearing (Nicole, planning staff, to agendize for April 1 if possible; if not, April 15).

Next steps identified at the meeting include: the applicant to provide final engineering, grading, utility and stormwater calculations; recordation or otherwise obtaining the necessary utility easement(s) through the Davis County Recorder's Office if required; coordination between the applicant, public works (Jason) and the city’s engineering reviewer (Todd) on remaining technical red lines; staff review of whether the project must follow SB 174 subdivision procedures; and planning staff transmission of the commission’s recommendation and required response materials to City Council. Staff noted that fire, public‑works and final civil approvals must still be completed prior to final plat and building permits.

The planning commission’s recommendation does not by itself authorize construction; it moves the application to the City Council for land‑use approval and leaves engineering, permitting, and any required development agreement or final plat actions to staff and council review. The applicant was advised to continue coordination with city staff to meet the outstanding technical requirements before the next milestone.