Junction Commons moves closer to decision after developer cuts density, boosts affordable housing

A revised site plan for Junction Commons shows proposed housing, parking, commercial space and pedestrian connections at the former Outlets Park City property. Photo: Summit County / Elliott Workgroup

Council members say revised Kimball Junction plan answers some concerns, but want more detail on affordability levels, deed restrictions and traffic fixes

SUMMIT COUNTY, Utah — A major redevelopment proposal at the former Outlets Park City site is moving closer to a decision after the developer returned to the Summit County Council with a scaled-back plan and a larger share of affordable housing.

Junction Commons, proposed at 6699 N. Landmark Drive in Kimball Junction, would replace portions of the existing outlet mall with a mixed-use development that includes housing, commercial space, parking, and pedestrian connections.

Elliott Workgroup, representing property owner SRE Ontario LLC, told the council Wednesday that it revised the plan in response to earlier concerns about density, affordability, and traffic.

“We listened. We listened again. We came back,” said Craig Elliott, the applicant. “We spent quite a bit of time trying to come up with what we felt like was going to be the best solution that would work.”

TownLift has followed Junction Commons through several stages of its transition, from the 2024 rebrand of Outlets Park City to Junction Commons to the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission’s February recommendation to forward the redevelopment to the County Council. In March and April, TownLift reported that council members were interested in the broader vision for a more walkable, mixed-use Kimball Junction neighborhood, but remained concerned about whether the housing benefits outweighed traffic impacts and whether the affordable housing commitments were strong enough.

The latest revisions respond directly to those questions, reducing total units from the earlier 433-unit proposal and increasing the affordable housing count from 205 to 220 units. Of those, 220 would be affordable and 150 market-rate, representing roughly 60% of the project. The largest change is the removal of a 110-unit market-rate apartment building, which is being replaced by 28 townhomes.

The applicant said the project now fully complies with the county’s affordable-unit-equivalent requirements and is not seeking a 25% affordability reduction allowed under the county code.

Council members responded positively to the revisions while making clear that more detail is needed before the proposal returns in decision-ready form.

Council Member Chris Robinson called the updated plan “an improvement” and said he was ready to see it move forward. Council Member Tonja Hanson said she was “pleasantly surprised” but asked for a clearer breakdown of units available at different income levels.

“I would like to know how many units in what AMI,” Hanson said. “You’re being kind of vague on that right now, but if we could drill into that a little bit next time, that would be most helpful.”

The applicant said affordable units are expected to be at or below 80% of the area median income, with studio units likely closer to 60% AMI. The proposed townhomes would not count toward the affordability requirement; they are envisioned as attainable for-sale units in the 100%-120% AMI range.

Council members also asked for more detail on deed restrictions, HOA structure, and long-term affordability protections.

Council Member Roger Armstrong asked who would approve and enforce deed restrictions, and whether the county could prioritize workers already employed in Kimball Junction or nearby areas. He floated a “waterfall” priority system that would start with Summit County workers and expand outward if units went unfilled.

Council Member Megan McKenna said an earlier site visit helped her better understand the project’s scale, topography, and pedestrian connections. She asked whether the housing could serve older residents looking to downsize and age in place. The applicant said much of the apartment and condominium-style housing would be single-level, with some townhome designs potentially including main-level primary bedrooms.

The revised proposal also reduces commercial space. The applicant said it would immediately remove 97,505 square feet of existing commercial space, resulting in a net reduction of 56,202 square feet at full buildout.

Traffic

Traffic remained a central issue.

Summit County Transportation Planning Director Carl Miller said the county requested additional analysis after council members raised concerns in April about the cumulative impact of Junction Commons, the Utah Olympic Park, Alturas Station, and the redevelopment of the PEAK Building in west Kimball Junction.

A June 24 county memo estimates those projects would generate about 13,621 daily trips — including 1,211 AM peak-hour trips and 1,169 PM peak-hour trips — but remain below the growth level already assumed in the county’s 2050 travel demand model.

Miller told the council the combined entitlements would generate less traffic than what had already been modeled for the area, in part because mixed-use housing spreads trips more evenly throughout the day than the office or industrial development previously assumed there.

The memo identifies two intersections expected to operate below county standards under 2050 conditions: Landmark Drive at the Whole Foods-Marriott access and Landmark Drive at Landmark Loop. Both deficiencies were already identified in long-range forecasts and were not newly created by the proposed developments, the memo says.

Potential mitigation measures include restricting Landmark Drive and Landmark Loop to three-quarter access, studying improvements at the Whole Foods-Marriott intersection, and adding a northbound through lane at Landmark Drive and Ute Boulevard.

Miller said access to Whole Foods is expected to fail “with or without this development” under future conditions. The county still needs to determine the best solution, he said.

The council did not take a final vote on Wednesday. Staff indicated the proposal could return with a more detailed report, draft findings, and additional information on affordability, deed restrictions, and possible conditions of approval.