Developer outlines smaller, lower‑density Plan C for Park City Tech Center; council raises traffic and affordability conditions

Dakota Pacific returned to the Summit County Council Feb. 1 with a revised master plan ("Plan C") for the Park City Tech Center that the developer says reduces overall density, increases commercial space and improves affordable‑housing ratios in response to community feedback.

Company representatives (Mark Stanworth, Jeff Goughner and Zach Clegg) said Plan C trims roughly 370 residential units (a ~34% reduction from a prior plan), reduces total built square footage by about 430,000 square feet compared with the earlier iteration, increases commercial square footage by roughly 75,000 square feet to nearly 235,000 sq ft and retains a proposed 2‑acre central park with options for active recreation, an amphitheater or passive trails.

The developer emphasized sustainability measures (drought‑tolerant landscaping, water‑efficient housing types, EV readiness) and said plan changes improved the percentage of deed‑restricted affordable units and preserved a meaningful number of units for lower AMI bands. They also flagged a senior‑oriented, age‑restricted building (about 93 units) and said they are pursuing continuing care/memory‑care conversations with potential operators.

Council members widely endorsed the reduction in density and improvements to the affordable‑housing mix, but several members repeatedly raised concerns about traffic and the SR‑224 / US‑40 interchange. Members pressed the developer on whether the project could (a) qualify for an HTRZ or other state tools, (b) lock deed restrictions to ensure units serve local residents rather than nightly rentals, (c) buy down density or increase park area through public‑private measures, and (d) provide concrete, staged traffic mitigation tied to UDOT coordination.

Staff and the developer said next week’s traffic peer‑review and the county’s peer consultant will be central to assessing mitigation options. Council asked the developer and staff to return with potential trade‑offs (e.g., how much new public investment or reduced density would be needed to add park acreage or underground parking) and to identify what conditions and deed restrictions would be legally enforceable in a development agreement.

Council did not take a binding vote on Plan C at the session; members asked for more information and suggested a workshop to negotiate tradeoffs, priorities and specific deed‑restriction language. The developer said it remains open to collaboration and will continue coordination with county staff and the peer‑review process.