Eastern Summit County officials are debating a proposal to create a new community zone in Browns Canyon that could open the door to a large Ivory Homes development, but critics also fear the designation could serve as a template for high density projects in rural areas of the county.

Representatives from Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based home-building company, met with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission for a work session on Thursday to dissect the draft of the Lost Creek Community Zone. Developers are asking the county to add the zone to its code as a planning tool that could allow for mixed-use development in what is currently an agricultural zone. 

Officials did not spend time debating building heights or lot sizes because they must first establish the legal framework that would allow development beyond one unit per 80 acres. Planning commissioners need to adopt the new zone in the county code, which would define the language enabling development in the Browns Canyon area. Then, Ivory Homes could formally apply to build in the zone.

Planning Commission Chair Alex Peterson also stressed that, at this stage, the Planning Commission is just being asked to approve the process, not a specific project. The developer would later submit a community plan and development agreement with its rezone request, which planning commissioners would also review, if the zone is adopted.

However, the Planning Commission was concerned that the zone might set a “precedent” other developers would try to replicate elsewhere in the county. Commissioners were worried that approving a custom zone for Lost Creek could lead to proposals for other places like Rockport or Hoytsville.

“If we approve a special process for development, other people are going to want to come in and get their special process for development as well,” Peterson said. “(Ivory Homes) defined that it can only be this area, but that doesn’t mean somebody else can’t come in and write the exact same statute, but put it in different property and use this blueprint.”

Civil Deputy County Attorney Helen Strachan advised the Planning Commission that the Summit County Council has broad legislative discretion and can review case by case. Officials could also decide on “closing the door” later if growth gets out of hand. 

A map presented showed a large potential area for the Lost Creek Community Zone that exceeds the acreage Ivory Development plans to build up to 3,000 homes on 407 net acres. It stretches roughly 1 mile in each direction beyond the gross 600-acre site and encompasses multiple landowners and existing agriculture-zoned parcels.

Planning Commissioner Dave Darcey said the sheer size of the proposed zone makes him nervous and that many residents purchased land zoned as AG-80, expecting one unit per 80 acres rather than high-density development. 

Commissioners also debated parcel sizes, how to create meaningful open space in the area and the risk of sprawl. The developer agreed to bring back an alternative map, to add a contiguity requirement so that landowners wanting to join the zone must be connected to existing areas and to consider a higher minimum acreage.

Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes was also critical of references to the Park City Heights and Francis Commons projects, saying they look too suburban for Eastern Summit County’s rural setting. Hayes wanted clear definitions of community character and more detail about how the mix of housing — attainable and market-rate — would actually support the local workforce and not just meet the 10% affordable housing requirement.

Other discussions involved banning golf courses and water-intensive amenities, codifying low-water landscaping and ensuring there’s enough acreage to support real rural uses. Infrastructure, traffic and phasing are also key areas that need to be addressed. Commissioners said they would be hesitant to approve anything without all the details.

While the developers advocated for project that would build a community, commissioners saw the zone as potential for opening a Pandora’s Box on rural Summit County.

Ivory Development said it would tighten its draft, bring alternative maps and add detailed language to the next Planning Commission meeting, slated for July 2. A public hearing where residents can share their opinions is tentatively scheduled for July 16.

Then, the Planning Commission will have to decide to forward a negative or positive recommendation on the zone to the County Council.

Ivory Development attempted to create a new town in the same area earlier this year by filing to incorporate as a preliminary municipality with the the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office. However, the proposal was rejected because the limit on the number of applications for preliminary municipalities had already been reached. Planning commissioners agreed to work with the development firm on its project if it follows the local process.