Local Council debates density and affordability in new housing proposal with Dakota Pacific

In a recent Summit County Council meeting, the pressing issue of affordable housing took center stage, reflecting the community's urgent need for solutions to a growing crisis. Council members expressed their concerns about the rising cost of living, particularly for teachers and county workers, emphasizing that without affordable housing, retaining essential staff becomes increasingly difficult.

One of the key discussions revolved around a proposal from Dakota Pacific, which included plans for 500 units of market-rate housing. However, council members raised alarms about the lack of deed restrictions to ensure that these units would remain affordable for the community. A notable exchange highlighted the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes "market rate," with one council member recalling a conversation where a Dakota Pacific representative suggested that market rate could mean around 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This sparked a call for clearer restrictions to protect the community's interests.

The conversation also touched on the broader implications of the proposed development, including the potential for increased traffic. With predictions of a 45% rise in traffic by 2024, concerns were voiced about whether proposed solutions, such as additional left turn lanes and freeway exits, would adequately address the anticipated congestion.

As the council deliberated, the density of the proposed housing units became a contentious point. Initially, Dakota Pacific proposed 725 units, which was deemed excessive by council members. After negotiations, the number was adjusted to 695, but some council members remained skeptical, fearing that the overall density would strain local resources and infrastructure.

The council's discussions underscored the delicate balance between development and community needs. While some members recognized the potential benefits of county-owned affordable housing, which could generate revenue for a housing authority, others expressed reservations about the rapid pace of negotiations and the potential long-term consequences of the decisions being made.

As the meeting concluded, the urgency for a thoughtful approach to housing in Summit County was palpable. Council members acknowledged the need for more time to refine agreements and ensure that the community's needs are met, leaving residents hopeful yet anxious about the future of affordable housing in their area.