A battered 1-acre tennis court in Pinebrook could be converted into a 22-unit affordable housing project, but the disputed proposal still has a ways to go before it could earn approval.
Sean Steinman, the property owner and CEO of development firm Resonance Ventures, met with the Summit County Council last week to review the plan just about a year after it was previously discussed. Not much had changed with the proposal, but Steinman was seeking guidance after officials last June debated whether the housing benefits of the project outweighed concerns related to traffic, density and integration.
The developer is asking for the parcel to be rezoned from rural residential to a community commercial as well as a conditional-use permit for eight one-bedroom, nine two-bedroom and five three-bedroom townhomes.
The original proposal called for restricting the units to people making between 30%, 60% and 80% of the area median income, which is less than $59,450 and up to $95,120 for a household of two as of 2023. The County Council at the time expressed enthusiasm about the possibility of creating additional affordable units but questioned whether it would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Former County Councilor Doug Clyde feared the project would warehouse people into a concentrated affordable housing development without bringing residents into the community in a meaningful way. The comment prompted a returning Steinman to survey the County Council for interest in adding market-rate units to the project.
Steinman indicated the 80% AMI in Summit County is comparable to 120% AMI for the state overall, which he said pushes the limits of what it means to be affordable in the area. He advocated for introducing units that aren’t income-deed restricted to improve integration as the county works to address its housing crisis.
“There is a shortage of affordable rental housing in the area. There is little housing in the city that is affordable for those people who work for wages in the city. Many of the employees in the city commute to other areas to find affordable residences. Many of the residents of the area commute to other areas for employment,” a 2022 presentation from the developer stated.
However, the County Council didn’t appear interested in replacing affordable units with market-rate rentals.
County Council Chair Roger Armstrong questioned how the developer would ensure those living in low-income units wouldn’t be identified as living in the “poorest part” of the project, and said the proposal is a “weird concept” on a small lot.
Canice Harte, who is also on the panel, stated he would rather have units with lower AMI restrictions than adjust the plan trying to account for assimilation. He added officials really need to consider the layout and density of the project, and whether it should be allowed.
Concerns about traffic and the overall density were also voiced by County Councilors Tonja Hanson and Chris Robinson.
Steinman said there’s a huge need for the development. He indicated it would receive traditional funding, and that investors were on board because of the demand for housing in Summit County. He added the rezone would position the community toward the ideal compared to other projects that may come about in the future.
The developer was also willing to explore reducing the total density from 22 to 18 units, but Steinman indicated he didn’t want to go lower than that because it prevents a wider mix of incomes. Units between the 40-60% AMI range could be cut if the density is reduced.
Armstrong suggested the County Council go for a site visit to better understand the layout and design that’s been proposed. County Councilor Malena Stevens agreed, saying it would also allow officials to see the parking situation. The other panel members were in favor, too.
The development firm argues the project benefits the community by facilitating moderate-income housing, which satisfies a provision within the Snyderville Basin General Plan. Policy 2.3 requires new developments to have “a compelling countervailing public interest.”
The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission unanimously rejected the proposal and forwarded a negative recommendation to the County Council in April of 2022 after opposition from Pinebrook residents. The panel determined the project doesn’t comply with the policy.
The County Council will have the final say.
Officials could deny the rezone and prevent the project from being built. But if it’s approved, the developer will return to the Planning Commission to formalize the conditions of use for the permit. The County Council could also create a development agreement tied to the project that facilitates affordable housing restrictions, design parameters and whether the zoning reverts to its original status if the project is never built.
The site visit will likely be set up for later this summer or early fall. Then, a work session or public hearing will likely be scheduled.