Dixon Creek Phase 3 sparks debate over density, commercial viability and park trade‑offs

At a long discussion of Dixon Creek Phase 3, staff and developers disagreed over density calculations, the market viability of commercial frontage along Washington Boulevard, and potential trade‑offs such as donating park improvements in lieu of providing commercial space.

Preston (planning staff) opened the topic noting that phase 3 would tie into phases one and two; staff cautioned that density calculations must account for the large wetland area that was dedicated as parkland, and that excluding that park area can make the phase appear artificially dense. "This density calculation for these two phases incorporated all of this area," a planner said when walking through acreage calculations.

The crux of the debate was commercial feasibility. Several participants said UDOT access limitations and the site’s current road geometry make commercial frontage on Washington difficult to market. One planner said the city has amended its mixed‑use rules after prior projects produced little commercial benefit; staff described requirements that, for some mixed‑use designations, reserve a portion of land for commercial and require residential open space percentages.

Access and traffic questions dominated the engineering discussion. Commissioners pointed to collector roads (notably 1100 North and the Canfield alignment) where additional access, signalization or a different intersection design may be required for safe traffic operations. City engineers said sewer and water tie‑ins are possible but may require deeper sewer runs and detention basin expansion, and that easements onto adjacent properties could be necessary to expand stormwater facilities.

Developers pushed back on the policy preference for single‑family detached product at roughly six units per acre, arguing that land and construction costs make that product financially unfeasible for this site. "Six units per acre ... I think from a land price and development cost standpoint that density just doesn't work," an applicant representative said. As a compromise, staff suggested accepting a larger donation of park land or infrastructure improvements (grading, trails, parking) instead of insisting on a commercial pad the market won’t support.

Staff recommended a pre‑application meeting with UDOT and a follow‑up mixed‑use committee meeting to gather council and planning commission input, and asked the applicant to return with revised layouts that address access, open space and utility constraints. Developers agreed to meet again to refine options, including the possibility of converting the commercial pad to residential if the city would accept a parks donation in lieu of the commercial requirement.

The discussion closed with no formal decision; staff and developers agreed next steps include a pre‑application meeting, additional engineering work on access and stormwater, and a future work session to present refined options to council and the mixed‑use committee.