The Summit County Council last week heard for the first time from the developer of a proposed large-scale apartment complex that consistently has drawn the ire of neighbors as the project works its way through the county’s application process.
The Highland Flats proposal would put 27 apartment buildings on a 41-acre stretch of land where U.S. 40 and Interstate 80 intersect. The land is undeveloped and sits across Highland Drive from the residential Highland Estates neighborhood.
The council indicated the project was not likely to be approved, but did not vote on it. The developer indicated it would return for a decision.
The plan calls for 410 apartment units, 144 of which would be reserved for those making 80% or less of the area’s median income, or about $67,000.
What the developer, Colbreen PC LLC, hopes sets the project apart are the units planned for those who earn 30% to 50% of the area median income, or about $25,000 to $42,000.
Rents for one-bedroom apartments for those earners would be capped at $628 and $1,046 per month, respectively, according to the developer.
Other projects typically do not offer affordable units at that level, and if they do, they rely on federal low-income housing tax credits to make the developments financially viable. The tax credits must be applied for, and if they’re not granted, few alternatives remain to finance a project.
The Highland Flats developer says it won’t need to rely on that or other public money sources, something it claims is possible because of the price of the land. The developer has indicated the price of the land was low because of the restrictive zoning governing it.
The application seeks to rezone the land from its current rural residential designation to the community commercial zone, which Councilor Chris Robinson called a “significant upzone.” The current zoning would allow two homes to be built on the land; the developers are calling for 410 apartments.
The developer has acknowledged it will likely be an uphill approval process. The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the County Council earlier this year.
The commission’s recommendation came after a three-hour public hearing in which the project was almost universally panned. Opponents most often cited traffic concerns, but also other factors including the effect such an affordable housing project could have on neighboring home values. Commenters said repeatedly the project did not belong in the neighborhood.
County councilors last Wednesday didn’t give the developers much hope for the project’s approval. Glenn Wright and Chris Robinson appeared most willing to entertain the idea, with Wright saying he was “on the fence” about it and Robinson acknowledging some benefits but also what he called significant hurdles, including traffic and the project’s location.
Doug Clyde also indicated the project was in the wrong place, saying the county’s goal is to integrate development into areas that have access to existing services like public transportation and businesses.
Malena Stevens indicated the traffic situation gave her pause, as did the project’s location.
Roger Armstrong offered the clearest opposition to the project.
“It’s not the right place there,” he said. “… It’s the wrong place and I would also say it’s probably just the wrong time for me.”
He added that the council should pursue regional planning efforts before entitling more density.
The council is the ultimate land-use authority in this case, though its decision could be appealed to district court.
Councilors appear to have significant leverage in the process. The decision is a legislative one, meaning councilors have wide latitude to approve or deny the project as they see fit.
The development would have to satisfy what is known as policy 2.3 in the county’s general plan, a requirement that no new entitlements be granted in the Snyderville Basin unless they contain “a compelling countervailing public interest” that cannot be achieved another way.
The developer hopes the amount of affordable housing units and the income levels to which they are targeted are those compelling, countervailing public interests.
Councilors have in recent months pushed back against the consistent theme of developers using affordable housing as an enticement to overcome policy 2.3.
There is a significant and growing affordable housing deficit in the county — though Armstrong, for one, has questioned whether building more units, even if affordable, would add to the area’s problems.
But councilors also indicated that other inducements like overwhelming sustainability efforts could compel their support for projects.
Clyde and Wright indicated the project’s sustainability elements did not go far enough to earn passage.
The conversation was meant to inform the developer whether to continue investing in the project by creating more detailed plans.
The developer’s attorney, Wade Budge, said the group was “intrepid” and may alter the project and return to the council.
Wright seemed to sum up the council’s opinion of the project’s location.
“I think your proposal has 3,200 new car trips. A lot of those will be going down the street to Kimball Junction,” he said. “If I was God and could take your project and put it on the parking lots at Kimball Junction, I would be a lot happier with it.”