Planning commission grants exceptions to form-based code for Sunset mixed-use project at 325 W. 1300 N.

The Sunset Planning Commission on Feb. 13 unanimously approved design exceptions to the city's form‑based code for the Sunset mixed‑use development at 325 West 1300 North, allowing a separation of pedestrian and vehicular realms, an exception to the 10‑foot rear yard setback, and a requirement that Unit 1 and Unit 85 present a continuous frontage appearance along 1300 North. The vote granted the specific design exceptions but did not approve land use for the project.

Commission Alternate Chair Scott Stephenson opened the discussion and heard presentations from project representatives. Matt Carter and his consulting team (Kevin Simmons and Gary Knapp) described a site layout that flips some row‑house units so that the front facades face interior green space rather than a vehicular lane. The design keeps the primary mixed‑use frontage (retail with housing above) facing 1300 North and places much parking and garage access to the interior.

The development team sought three specific accommodations from the commission: 1) permission to treat the pedestrian realm and vehicular realm as separated (pedestrian circulation concentrated in defined pedestrian areas and vehicle access routed to interior garages), 2) relief from the form‑based code's specified 10‑foot rear yard setback that applies to row buildings (cited in a staff handout as the rear yard/setback requirement), and 3) a condition that the two corner row units that abut 1300 North (identified in plans as Unit 1 and Unit 85) provide a continuous frontage look consistent with the proposed commercial buildings along 1300 North.

Commissioners and staff reviewed relevant form‑based code materials during the discussion (staff referred the commission to Figure 5.28 and the lane cross‑section handouts). City and fire representatives were referenced regarding lane widths: the developer noted the code's typical right‑of‑way and lane cross‑section (a 30‑foot right‑of‑way with two 10‑foot lanes plus sidewalks as shown in the handout) and said North Davis Fire marshal Mike Rawlings indicated the department could accept two 10‑foot lanes with rollover curbs for fire access under particular conditions. Planning staff and commissioners discussed the tradeoffs between forcing a rear lane layout (which can push garages to the back) and the developer's proposal to tuck garages and create more front yard green space for families and residents.

Commissioners and community‑oriented speakers on the project (including Trent Williams, who described family‑friendly benefits of small front yards and porches) raised design and livability concerns and suggested compromises. The developer said the facade of Unit 1 and Unit 85 could be revised to read as continuous frontage with the northern commercial buildings, including doors and architectural treatment to achieve the desired Main‑Street feel while preserving interior pedestrian circulation.

After discussion, the commission moved and seconded a motion to grant the exceptions described above with the explicit notation that the action granted design exceptions only and "is not land use approval yet," per the chair. The motion passed with unanimous voice vote. No numerical roll‑call tally naming commissioners was stated on the record.

Planning staff stated the developer must submit revised plans addressing the changes discussed. Staff (Sarah) said once the applicant provides a formal written response to review comments, the city will run a second review cycle; if that response is sufficient, the project will return to the commission for land‑use approval. Staff also advised continued coordination with the city engineer and the fire department regarding lane cross‑sections, sewer laterals and other technical details before final land‑use action.

Why it matters: the exceptions alter how the form‑based code is applied to increase attainable density while aiming to preserve a pedestrian‑oriented frontage along 1300 North. The commission's action sets design conditions for the developer to meet before the project can receive final land‑use approval.

What remains: the developer will submit revised plans reflecting the facade treatment for Units 1 and 85 and the separated pedestrian/vehicular arrangements; staff will conduct a second technical review. Final land‑use approval was not granted at the Feb. 13 meeting.

(Exact phrasing in meeting: "This is not land use approval yet.")