A crowd of Summit County residents crammed into a Kamas conference room Thursday night to object to the proposed Lost Creek Community Zone, which Ivory Development designed to facilitate the company’s plans to build up to 3,000 residential units in Browns Canyon.

Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based Ivory Homes, has been working with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission to draft the code change. The public hearing this week was the first chance to comment on the proposal, and more than 30 residents approached the podium to decry the urbanization of one of Summit County’s historically rural communities.

Wade Budge, a land use and real estate attorney representing the developer, emphasized that the creation of the Lost Creek Community Zone is only the first step in the company’s process. Ivory Development would still need to submit a rezone request and draft a development agreement with the county before the project could begin construction.

However, Budge said Ivory Development has also been “transparent” in its plans for the area, including projections that the Lost Creek neighborhood would eventually incorporate into a municipality. He said the company is attempting to tackle the county’s affordability crisis by offering workforce housing in addition to a range of market rate units.

But Summit County residents disagreed that the proposed zone and development would help locals, pointing to the high price of Ivory Homes projects in surrounding communities such as Park City Heights and Francis Commons.

Mitch Dumke, a resident who spoke during the public hearing, said a quick online search showed homes in Park City Heights listed for more than $2 million, adding that he had “strong concerns” about developers’ “exploitation of the words ‘affordable housing.’”

“Just because they did something somewhere else does not mean they should do it here,” Dumke said. “Show some real numbers. … Make this accessible to the people who need it the most.”

Dumke also told the Ivory Development team that its willingness to work with county officials “feels disingenuous” because the company applied for, and was rejected from, forming a preliminary municipality before engaging in the local process. Other community members mentioned the preliminary municipality bid, too, and expressed fears that Ivory Homes would petition the state Legislature for help if the county rejected the proposal.

“This is deja vu all over again,” said Oakley resident Jerry Heck. “This sounds like Dakota Pacific.”

One speaker called zoning “a pact between the county and its residents” and asked the Planning Commission to stop considering the creation of new zones or rezone requests whenever a developer wants to build a project that doesn’t fit within the county’s established land uses.

“We rely on you guys to protect us and not cut (Browns Canyon) down to subdivision size,” resident Vince Rogers told the Planning Commission. “That’s not fair to us.”

Rogers said the agricultural zoning in Browns Canyon, which he referred to as “a paradise,” has protected the area from development and overcrowding for decades. He said it’s unacceptable for “political influence or maybe money” to drive the future of the county’s rural spaces, comparing the move to changing the rules of a game in the middle of a match.

MacKenzie Pino, who also spoke during the public hearing, refuted Ivory Development’s comments that Browns Canyon is already “on the edge of growth.” She said the “growth” developers refer to is in Wasatch County and is caused by Deer Valley Resort’s recent expansion. She questioned whether Summit County should be responsible for providing workforce housing for its neighbors instead of focusing on sustainable solutions at the local level.

In addition to protecting the rural character of Browns Canyon, residents were concerned about the reality of the proposal, especially the construction of infrastructure necessary to support a 3,000-home neighborhood.

Jill Jones, who served on the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission, said the board during her tenure encouraged developers to build closer to cities and towns because of how difficult it is to install new utilities.

Jones said she works in the sewer systems industry and that her company is building a small pump station in an area with existing infrastructure. However, the project still costs approximately $6 million, and she asked how developers plan to offset the price tag of new infrastructure systems while providing subsidized housing.

“They may not be affordable once they get everything done,” Jones said.

Ranchers in particular were concerned about the development’s potential impact on water access. Nathan Ivie, who has been ranching in Browns Canyon for almost 50 years, said his property changed dramatically when Promontory was built, with multiple springs drying up, forcing him to shift how he runs his operation.

“I find it ironic that they’re calling it Lost Creek because when you tap that aquifer, that’s what’s going to happen,” Ivie said. “You’re going to lose the creek.”

Ivie said a high-density development in Browns Canyon is also dangerous because of fire risk. He said he’s evacuated livestock from his ranch twice because of wildfires on the property, and he asked how Ivory Development plans to keep residents safe when the closest fire station is 10 to 20 minutes away.

“This puts 3,000 homes in a place that is known to be an extreme fire risk with no response,” Ivie said. “This is a significant drain on natural resources, and it is not the right location.”

Other residents said they were concerned about public safety, too, with multiple community members hypothesizing that the county would end up spending so much money increasing fire department and Sheriff’s Office staffing that it would negate any financial gains from the introduction of new taxpayers.

Each speaker encouraged the Planning Commission to vote against the proposed zone, appealing to the commissioners’ love of rural space and their own experiences living on the East Side.

“It’s a land and money grab,” David Bobrowsky told the Planning Commission. “Just refuse the whole process. Otherwise, this is just going to go all through Summit County, and then we’re going to look back at these meetings and say, ‘It was the county’s fault. They got what they deserved, and now we’re going to pay for it.’”

After the public hearing, Planning Commissioner David Darcey said he was “struggling” with the proposal. He told the Ivory Development team that “it doesn’t feel like the developer or the owner of the property is willing to give on anything at this point.”

“This is so overwhelmingly large that I am not at all in favor of this zone,” Darcey said. “When I think of ‘rural,’ I think of Browns Canyon. It is the poster child for ‘rural.’”

Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes echoed Darcey’s sentiments, saying the proposal is for a “5,000% increase in density without a 5,000% increase in public value.” Planning Commissioner Paul Weller also questioned whether the workforce housing would attract commuters working in Summit County.

“Why are we providing a workforce for Wasatch County?” Weller asked. “Eastern Summit County does not need to provide their housing.”

Seth Bowen, another planning commissioner, said he was moved by how passionate residents were and that he believed the county has already established “rules and laws with zoning” that should be followed.

“Land use regulations do change, and I do respect that, and I respect that reflects property rights as well, but this brand new (zoning) tool, that’s where I’m very hesitant,” agreed Planning Commission Chair Alex Peterson. “It’s a significant change for me to wrap my head around.”

The Planning Commission briefly considered tabling a vote on the Lost Creek Community Zone until its next meeting to draft an updated staff report for the County Council. However, Hayes and Darcey said they were eager to “cut bait,” and Bowen ultimately made a motion to forward a negative recommendation to the County Council.

Bowen’s motion passed unanimously, with each commissioner opposing the creation of the Lost Creek Community Zone.

The County Council will make a final decision on whether to create the zone based on information from the developer, county staff and the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation.

The post ‘Land and money grab’: Lost Creek Community Zone receives negative recommendation after dozens of residents oppose development appeared first on Park Record.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission says three factors will make or break Ivory Home’s proposed project in Browns Canyon: traffic, water and infrastructure.

Ivory Development, a division of the Salt Lake-based company, has been working with the county government to potentially create the Lost Creek Community Zone, a new zone in the county code that would allow Ivory Development to build up to 3,000 homes in Browns Canyon.

Creating the Lost Creek Community Zone is only the first step in the process. If the zone is approved, Ivory Development would still need to go through negotiations with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission and Summit County Council to draft a master planned development agreement.

Ivory Development and the Planning Commission met in a work session on Thursday to discuss the development team’s vision for the Browns Canyon community and to answer lingering questions about the project.

It was the second time the proposal had gone before commissioners, who have said they’re willing to work with Ivory Development as long as the company keeps its commitment to following the local process instead of approaching the state Legislature for approval.

The development team presented revised portions of the code amendment based on the commissioners’ feedback during last month’s meeting, including a change in which parcels are eligible for the Lost Creek Community Zone.

Planning commissioners previously expressed concerns about a stipulation in the proposed amendment that would have allowed any property owner within 1 mile of Lost Creek to apply for the new zone. They said they were nervous that other developers would take advantage of the zoning ordinance to create a much larger residential or commercial project than the current Ivory Development proposal.

As a result, the development team proposed earmarking particular parcels as eligible for the Lost Creek Community Zone. The change would limit inclusion in the zone to a handful of properties around the two pieces of land Ivory Development owns, preventing developers from attempting to use the zone along other parts of the creek.

The updated amendment also includes a stipulation that any developer proposing to rezone properties to the Lost Creek Community Zone, including Ivory Development, must provide an infrastructure analysis and phasing plan to the county. The two plans are intended to ensure developers are unable to disrupt the infrastructure services, especially sewage and water, that would be installed as part of Ivory Development’s project.

The creek itself would serve as a starting point for the neighborhood’s preserved open space, with developers describing the creek as a green belt where a neighborhood center would be built. Density would be highest in the community’s center, and the lowest density would be slated for the development’s outskirts.

Ivory Development representatives said there would be a few larger lots for estate homes in the lower-density areas, but most of the project would involve mixed housing types, like apartments, townhomes and small cottages. They emphasized that open space preservation, affordable housing and a “well-planned community” would provide benefits to Summit County residents.

However, planning commissioners said they didn’t like having open space in the middle of the community and would prefer to see it on the edges of the properties to avoid creating a “suburban” feel. They told developers the project would need to reflect the rural values and character of the East Side to garner any support from the community.

“I would ask that you just take a little bit of a deeper view as to how you could make something like this a little more authentic to this community,” said Planning Commissioner Bridget Hayes.

Alex Peterson, chair of the Planning Commission, expressed concerns that Ivory Development would build the estate homes first, leaving the affordable housing units to help Summit County residents for last. But the development team said they expected the opposite would be true, explaining that the affordable housing units and apartments would likely be built before the estate homes because they provide more revenue to the developers.

The developers would need to use those funds upfront to help cover the costs of installing infrastructure in Browns Canyon, they said. The team also assured the Planning Commission their goal is to create homes for primary residents, not second homeowners or tourists.

Planning Commissioner Paul Weller raised traffic concerns.

He estimated the development would add another 4,000 cars to Browns Canyon Road, with the assumption that each residential home would have, on average, 1.5 cars. He said the local community was not likely to back the project without a viable traffic solution, which may be difficult to find considering the limited access points on the main road.

Weller also echoed worries that the current proposal is only the first step in a massive project and questioned whether Ivory Development would want to extend the neighborhood into other eligible parcels at a future date.

“Summit County becomes the runway in order for you to take off into a city,” he said.

The development team acknowledged that they want Lost Creek to eventually be incorporated into a municipality for tax purposes, but they said the municipality and the county would both benefit from the tax base. They said incorporation would allow the community to be self-sustaining.

However, Hayes said she visited Terraine, one of Ivory Development’s projects in West Jordan, after developers suggested a visit to one of their already established communities. She said she left feeling unimpressed.

“It didn’t feel like community,” Hayes said. “It felt like a model home, mish-mashed suburban sprawl, at least in that town center. I think to be successful here, that town center needs to have more of the rural character, the rural appeal. It wasn’t what I was expecting based on what you described, and maybe I wasn’t experiencing it the right way, but I didn’t feel a sense of community.”

The Planning Commission briefly touched on water rights, too, with developers saying they’ll have their own water source for the development. Planning Commissioner David Darcey said he also wanted to double-check that the numbers Ivory Development provided are correct and viable in terms of supporting the needs of up to 3,000 residential units and commercial businesses.

Planning commissioners did not take any action on the Lost Creek Community Zone on Thursday, but they agreed to sit down with developers for a second work session soon to discuss the details of the development’s proposed density, infrastructure and water access.

The post Traffic, infrastructure top list of concerns for Brown Canyons development appeared first on Park Record.

Ivory Homes will need to work with the Summit County government to develop 490 acres in Browns Canyon after the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office declined to initiate a feasibility study for the developer’s proposed preliminary municipality, Lost Creek.

A spokesperson for the Lieutenant Governor’s Office on Wednesday confirmed the department had already received multiple filings for preliminary municipalities in other parts of the state by the time Ivory Homes filed its application for Lost Creek on Jan. 1.

State law only allows two preliminary municipality filings per calendar year, meaning Lost Creek was automatically disqualified from consideration.

A preliminary municipality can transition to, and incorporate as, a new town under a state law that went into effect in 2024. The law amended the Utah Municipal Code to provide for a pilot program for the incorporation of a preliminary municipality, giving “all the powers and duties” of a town, including zoning and land use decisions.

The law applies to land that is privately owned by three or fewer people who intend to develop it with at least 100 people while meeting certain affordable housing benchmarks in the first five years of the preliminary municipality’s existence.

The Browns Canyon proposal was submitted by Ivory Homes, Garff-Rogers Ranch and EBR Management. It was the second time Summit County had seen a request for a preliminary municipality, with Dakota Pacific Real Estate filing a similar application for a town named Park City Tech last year as a safeguard for its planned development in Kimball Junction.

The three companies listed on the application own 490 acres in the Browns Canyon area, which is about a mile away from Park City and Hideout. The developers said they intended to build “a mix of residential unit types, including affordable housing, open space, park space and commercial/mixed-use” areas in addition to installing “necessary public and private infrastructure” and a municipal building space, according to documents obtained through the Government Records Access and Management Act.

In total, the proposed preliminary municipality would have had 193 single-family homes, 127 townhomes, 190 cottage homes and 10,000 square feet of retail space by the end of the project. The application also mentioned 255 nightly rentals on the south side of the development area.

Approximately 642 full-time residents were predicted to live in Lost Creek following its last phase of construction.

A development in Browns Canyon is still a possibility, though, depending on negotiations with the county government.

Community Development Director Peter Barnes previously confirmed the county had received its own application proposing an amendment to the code to allow for a new zone in relation to the Browns Canyon proposal.

The application has not yet been made public, but Ivory Development President Chris Gamvroulas, who was listed as the preliminary municipality’s primary sponsor, said the company already hoped to work with the county rather than pursue incorporation.

Specifically, Gamvroulas said in an interview with The Park Record last week that the preliminary municipality served as a “backstop,” or safeguard, for the development if proceedings with the county weren’t moving along at a “timely and predictable” pace. However, he said his preference was always to create and implement a new zone in Browns Canyon under county code to develop the residential neighborhood, which now appears to be Ivory Homes’ only route for approval.

Rep. Tiara Auxier, a Republican who represents part of Summit County, recently filed a bill during the ongoing general session to change how preliminary municipalities function. 

A group of nonprofit organizations in Moab has also sued Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a development company and a preliminary municipality near the Colorado River over the implementation of preliminary municipalities in Utah. They claimed Senate Bill 258, which created the pilot program, is unconstitutional because it removes local land use control from the hands of elected officials and gives it to the state and private development companies.

The post State declines to initiate feasibility study on proposed town in Browns Canyon appeared first on Park Record.